Australia’s political mood is shifting.

The rise of One Nation, the existential struggles of the Liberal Party of Australia, and the increasingly frequent warnings about declining “social cohesion” all point to a country asking itself uncomfortable questions about who belongs and under what conditions.

Right-wing advocacy groups such as Advance Australia regularly speak about the need to reduce migration, sometimes with language that hints at “bad migrants” without ever quite defining the term. 

But if there are “bad migrants”, then logically there must also be “good migrants”. 

What would such a person look like? And who gets to decide?

Rather than approaching the question purely through economics or morality, it is useful to borrow a framework from Ken Wilber and his “Four Quadrants” model that I introduced in an earlier column. 

This model suggests that any human phenomenon can be examined from four simultaneous perspectives: the individual interior, the individual exterior, the collective interior, and the collective exterior.

Applied to migration, it reveals that a “good migrant” isn’t a morally pure person but the result of the interaction between person, behaviour, culture and systems. 

Sounds weird and abstract? Don’t worry, it will make sense very soon. 

Source: More about Ken Wilber’s Four Quadrants

The Four Quadrants of “The Good Migrant” 

Upper Left Quadrant: The Individual Interior (Mindset and Values) 

The upper-left quadrant is the invisible one. It deals with what is happening inside a person’s mind – motivations, attitudes, openness and psychological orientation toward their new home.

A migrant can arrive with impeccable qualifications and still struggle if they view their host country with suspicion or resentment, while someone with modest credentials can flourish if they bring curiosity, humility and a willingness to learn.

None of this appears on visa forms, yet it often determines whether migration becomes a story of flourishing or friction. 

In this inner dimension, the “good migrant” is not defined by abandoning heritage, but by the ability to hold two identities at once without conflict.

They try to understand why social norms exist, even when they differ from those they grew up with. Agreement is not required – participation is. This flexibility allows integration without erasure and belonging without uniformity. 

Long-term........

© The New Daily