REJECTION is never nice, but it's positively traumatic when you're spurned by an entire nation. I should know. I failed miserably last year, after a lengthy, costly and stressful process, to qualify for migration to Australia.

Surprised but undeterred, I explored alternative options. There would, I was confident, be some avenue for me via the much-admired points-based skilled migration route: "There is a visa to suit you", gushes the Immigration Department's website. But there isn't. Not for me.

I've been a bit obsessed about the thorny issue of immigration ever since. Fair enough, if another country doesn't recognise what a veritable catch I am. But surely it ought to cut both ways? Fuelled by disappointment and the fury of a woman scorned, I undertook some research along the admittedly churlish tit-for-tat lines of: if the situation were reversed, how easily would I get into Britain from Australia?

I crafted a personal and professional profile similar to my own and submitted my "details" to an online visa agent for assessment. Lo and behold, my Australian doppelganger would find it relatively easy to live and work in this country.

I wasn't impressed. What of reciprocal arrangements, our Commonwealth links and equality of opportunity? Of course, it doesn't work like that in our complex, globalised world. But it got me thinking about the ongoing immigration debate.

Last month, Home Secretary John Reid challenged the "daft, so-called politically correct notion that anybody who talks about immigration is somehow a racist". He spoke commonsense. If it was racist to express concern over immigration, a whopping proportion of the population would be deemed positively xenophobic. A recent opinion poll found immigration to be the most pressing issue in Britain.

To be anxious about the potential impact of huge influxes of foreigners onto our overcrowded shores is natural. Our tiny country is seen as a free-for-all by many outsiders and we're in danger of sinking into the economic, social and cultural mire, if we don't get a handle on it. In recognition of this, the Government has now suggested there will be restrictions on the numbers of Bulgarians and Romanians allowed to work in Britain, if their countries accede to the European Union.

Stemming the tide of European slave labour is one thing; we have certain freedom of movement agreements with our EU partners. Global migration is another matter.

Before the introduction of immigration quotas, complex points systems and hi-tech border controls, we need to be absolutely clear on what economic migration is all about. It's not about people's rights. No one has any automatic right to decamp to Britain, just as I accept I have no right to start a new life Down Under.

Nor is migration some magnanimous gesture on the part of individuals towards their adoptive country. People migrate not to give, but to take.

They're looking after their own interests. They seek better job prospects, a better climate and a better quality of life. Sometimes, they seek enhanced wages to send to their country of origin, or education and skills to take home. It's human nature to want to improve one's lot. But our immigration policy must be equally and fearlessly self-serving. We should not be afraid to cap immigration numbers or to apply stringent selection criteria for fear of appearing illiberal.

Human rights of refuge and asylum are the only given, where aspirant entrants to the country are concerned. We are entitled to cherry-pick everyone else.

Let's take a leaf out of Australia's book. Its immigration system is widely regarded as a model of effective practice and our new system is modelled, in part, on it. The Australians are clear what their policy is about: "managed migration in the national interest". They know exactly who they want and need to fill the job market. The application process is rigid -- objectively impersonal, coldly bureaucratic and brutally judgmental as to an individual's usefulness to the economy.

Every arrival and departure is vigilantly monitored and logged. The Australian Government unashamedly operates an "Immigration Dob-In Line" for people to report those they believe are living or working illegally in the country.

We don't think any the worse of the Australians for this. We don't boycott their country as a holiday destination and we don't suggest their immigration policy is racist. In the past, Australia's "white policy" was hideously racist. But any allegations of current systematic racism are not borne out by my experience, unless I should accuse the Australians of discriminating against me because I'm a white, English-speaking, Christian woman from the mother country.

Before we get holier-than-thou about illegal immigrants in Britain, at the last count, the largest group of "illegals" in Australia were not undesirables from second-rate nations seeking the good life or nasty young Muslim men (also known as potential terrorists). They were British. United Kingdom and United States nationals combined make up more than 50 per cent of "overstayers" -- those who remain illegally in the country beyond their visa expiry dates. If caught, they're booted out -- as they should be.

Personal disappointment aside, I can't help but respect the Aussies for protecting their collective interests so doggedly. As for their refusal to welcome me to their shores, I console myself that it is, of course, more their loss than mine.