IMMIGRATION thread

[Sarmatian]

They're not here yet. The onus isn't on us to send them back. The onus is on them to get here. I've seen no good argument for admitting them, beyond vague guilt arguments.

- Europe has an aging, dwindling population. If it weren't for immigration, that would've been a very, very serious problem by now.

- Immigration is a necessity for economies in Europe to be stable.

- A million refugees isn't overwhelming number for Europe and won't disrupt the overall balance of religions while it would impact positively the demographics of almost all European countries

- If they are processed and distributed around Europe, it can be used to "plug holes" where needed, and assure they aren't concentrated but distributed evenly.

- Besides a few profiles (chemical and electrical engineers, doctors), EU doesn't have much need for highly educated workers ATM. There is a demand for skilled workers, like craftsmen and cooks, which refugees could fill, with little investment in their training.

- It deprives terrorist organizations and militant, radical groups from a large number of able bodied males, and impacts their manpower negatively. Makes it easier to defeat them eventually, and lowers the possibility of conflict expanding to other areas of the middle east, thus improving long term safety of Europe as a whole.

- It is a humane thing to do.

In any case, I wouldn't mind sending back those few hundred thousand Syrian men. It would result in greater security for Europe than admitting them without knowing what to do with them.

Maybe in the short term.

Especially as those using the guilting arguments equally absolve blame from these incomers for all they do, putting the blame on the host state instead.

I never said they should be absolved from blame. By all means, those who break the rules should be dealt with accordingly. I had issue with blaming a million people for the actions of 5, 50 or 500.

BTW, AFAICS Syrians are refugees while they're in their first country of transit. Once they go beyond that, they become migrants.

Following the rules to the letter would be counterproductive in this case. Secondly, EU countries have been letting them through, which they shouldn't have.
Thirdly, even if it were possible to keep a million people in Greece, it would collapse the country and bring much greater damage to EU and Europe as a whole than refugees.

[Fragony]

There is so much wrong with that that I don't even know where to begin. Give me one argument at a time instead of a barrage of fallacies and I will destroy them one by one.

[Viking]

http://www.thenation.com/article/eur...ve-punishment/

Aspiring to the old days of empire building, slave trade and collective punishment again. And this from the people who claim their bill of rights and stuff were groundbreaking in enlightenment and human rights matters.

It's not collective punishment, because no one is being punished in the first place. There is no intent to harm anyone - on the contrary, there is the intent to protect someone; just not the migrants.

- Europe has an aging, dwindling population. If it weren't for immigration, that would've been a very, very serious problem by now.

Population growth is unsustainable in the long run. At some point, it has to stop and stabilise at realistic numbers. Importing people is just pushing the issue further into the future.

It also frees up resources in the countries the migrants left behind, potentially sustaining or even increasing the already high population growth there; in sum pushing the Earth even closer to its global population capacity.

- Immigration is a necessity for economies in Europe to be stable.

For most or all of Western Europe, inter-European migration is more than enough; if we are at all to believe in its "necessity". Many non-Western immigrants are also often poorly qualified for quite a few jobs where workers are needed.

- A million refugees isn't overwhelming number for Europe and won't disrupt the overall balance of religions while it would impact positively the demographics of almost all European countries

There is not much of a reason to assume that the immigration will drop dramatically in the future. It might even rise, if certain countries see a rise in living standards.

- It deprives terrorist organizations and militant, radical groups from a large number of able bodied males, and impacts their manpower negatively. Makes it easier to defeat them eventually, and lowers the possibility of conflict expanding to other areas of the middle east, thus improving long term safety of Europe as a whole.

In return, those who are recruited don't have go much further than outside their own houses to the bidding of the terrorist entities; like in Paris recently.

[Husar]

Empire buidling? Slave trade? I cant wait to hear how you explain how either of those are applicable. I'm sure it'll be as convincing as your assertaition of collective punishment, something that, as far as I know, has happened on your side of the channel not mine.

That's complete bullhonkey on so many levels:
1) "Days of", although PVC does want the days of roman empire building back, or british ones if he can't get the romans I assume. Slave trade is what happens when you close the borders and desperate people go to smugglers.

2) You and Pannonian were arguing to close the borders and send everyone back because some of them might be terrorists or did I misread something? You're still on "your side of the channel" I assume.

3) What is "my side of the channel"? Spain to China? What are you talking about? We both live in "our EU"!

The one who caused this mess, by opening the borders and inviting them in, was Germany not Britain. Any responsibility laid at our feet for this would be better laid at your own.

The mess was already in Greece and Italy before Germany invited anyone. These countries were calling for help for quite a while but Britain did and still does not want to help. With friends like these...

It's not collective punishment, because no one is being punished in the first place. There is no intent to harm anyone - on the contrary, there is the intent to protect someone; just not the migrants.

The argument was that noone should be let in because a few of them are/could be dangerous. Yes, it is collective punishment if you take away a real possibility for many because of the sins of a few.

[Greyblades]

That's complete bullhonkey on so many levels:
1) "Days of", although PVC does want the days of roman empire building back, or british ones if he can't get the romans I assume. Slave trade is what happens when you close the borders and desperate people go to smugglers.

I wasnt expecting anything and still you dissapoint.

I expect you will now attempt to explain how the smugglers are devoid of agency and thus thier actions are entirely our responsibility, not thier own.

2) You and Pannonian were arguing to close the borders and send everyone back because some of them might be terrorists or did I misread something? You're still on "your side of the channel" I assume.

Actually I support to close the borders and send everyone back because accepting more people into our welfare state than we usually do when we are experiencing an economic downturn, with shortages in housing and jobs, would be tantamount to economic suicide. The culture clash and the terrorist infiltration is just an extra layer of nope but the only point that anyone here are willing to fail at attempting to discredit.

3) What is "my side of the channel"? Spain to China? What are you talking about? We both live in "our EU"!

It's your people beating up and bombing the immigrants not mine, or is the collective punisment you speak of not the retaliation for paris and cologne, as your article defines it, but reffering to the idea that we were going to let all of them in if not for the pesky terrorists?

The mess was already in Greece and Italy before Germany invited anyone. These countries were calling for help for quite a while but Britain did and still does not want to help. With friends like these...

Yes and we all know how eager the germans were to render aid, out of the goodness of thier hearts and no strings attatched.

With friends like these indeed.

The argument was that noone should be let in because a few of them are/could be dangerous. Yes, it is collective punishment if you take away a real possibility for many because of the sins of a few.

Punishment requires inflicting penalties or taking away something from someone for thier actions, whereas we werent going to give them access in the first place.

[Sarmatian]

There is so much wrong with that that I don't even know where to begin. Give me one argument at a time instead of a barrage of fallacies and I will destroy them one by one.

Ok. Let's go with the first one.

- Europe has an aging, dwindling population. If it weren't for immigration, that would've been a very, very serious problem by now.

Population growth is unsustainable in the long run. At some point, it has to stop and stabilise at realistic numbers. Importing people is just pushing the issue further into the future.

Wrong twice.

1) It is needed to stop population from dwindling, not increase it
2) The age issue (number of old vs number of young) remains

It also frees up resources in the countries the migrants left behind, potentially sustaining or even increasing the already high population growth there; in sum pushing the Earth even closer to its global population capacity.

Wrong again. They're moving because there isn't enough resources.

For most or all of Western Europe, inter-European migration is more than enough; if we are at all to believe in its "necessity". Many non-Western immigrants are also often poorly qualified for quite a few jobs where workers are needed.

All European countries suffer from that problem. Migrations within Europe won't change that.

There is not much of a reason to assume that the immigration will drop dramatically in the future. It might even rise, if certain countries see a rise in living standards.

Refugees from war zone should have precedence over economic migrants who can be put on hold for a few years.

In return, those who are recruited don't have go much further than outside their own houses to the bidding of the terrorist entities; like in Paris recently.

It's short term vs. long term security.

[Pannonian]

Ok. Let's go with the first one.

- Europe has an aging, dwindling population. If it weren't for immigration, that would've been a very, very serious problem by now.

Wrong twice.

1) It is needed to stop population from dwindling, not increase it
2) The age issue (number of old vs number of young) remains

Wrong again. They're moving because there isn't enough resources.

All European countries suffer from that problem. Migrations within Europe won't change that.

Refugees from war zone should have precedence over economic migrants who can be put on hold for a few years.

It's short term vs. long term security.

I'd rather have eastern Europeans than middle easterners, if there is a need for net migration. We share more common values, and none of them have called on Britain to implement post-Yugoslav, Romanian, Polish, etc. laws to suit their sensibilities. They assume that the onus is on them to adapt to the host society, not the other way round. And we don't have an endemic problem with eastern European terrorism.

[Sarmatian]

I'd rather have eastern Europeans than middle easterners, if there is a need for net migration. We share more common values, and none of them have called on Britain to implement post-Yugoslav, Romanian, Polish, etc. laws to suit their sensibilities. They assume that the onus is on them to adapt to the host society, not the other way round. And we don't have an endemic problem with eastern European terrorism.

Eastern Europeans don't really have to adapt at all, that's the difference. The biggest issue would be figuring out the rules of cricket. That is worth blowing something up.

They also wouldn't suffer from a bias (ok, they would, but to a much lesser extent). If some start voting Labour, it would be assumed that it is their choice. There wouldn't be an outcry of those dirty eastern commies coming to ruin our precious capitalist UK, aside from maybe a few right wing nut jobs no one would take seriously.

But, answer me this, please. Let's say I apply for job in UK and get it. I spend 10 years in UK, figure out I like it there and apply for citizenship and get it. A year from that there's a referendum on the monarchy. I would have the legal right, but would I have the moral right to vote on that referendum?

[Fragony]

What do you think yourselve on that

[Pannonian]

Eastern Europeans don't really have to adapt at all, that's the difference. The biggest issue would be figuring out the rules of cricket. That is worth blowing something up.

They also wouldn't suffer from a bias (ok, they would, but to a much lesser extent). If some start voting Labour, it would be assumed that it is their choice. There wouldn't be an outcry of those dirty eastern commies coming to ruin our precious capitalist UK, aside from maybe a few right wing nut jobs no one would take seriously.

But, answer me this, please. Let's say I apply for job in UK and get it. I spend 10 years in UK, figure out I like it there and apply for citizenship and get it. A year from that there's a referendum on the monarchy. I would have the legal right, but would I have the moral right to vote on that referendum?

If they don't really have to adapt at all, then isn't it all the better? It solves the problem you pose of an ageing population, and the intake doesn't need to adapt. Of all those I've met, I've also not met one who's talked lovingly of their previous homes, and wanting to bring their previous life into this present one. Quite the contrary. And if they want to vote Labour or any other mainstream political party, that's their choice too (when they eventually gain the right to vote). I'd be happy too if UK Muslims debate the health service and means of funding it. That's standard British political discourse. I'm not happy when they raise a racket about bringing in Sharia, or other elements of a foreign state. If their loyalty is to another state, they can go to it.

On the last bit, you sound like you have higher standards than me. Anyone who is eligible to vote can vote. I care not what they do with the vote. If you're loyal to the idea of Britain, then that's as much Britishness as I can demand of you.

[Sarmatian]

What do you think yourselve on that

You need to start debunking those points. We haven't moved passed the first, yet.

If they don't really have to adapt at all, then isn't it all the better? It solves the problem you pose of an ageing population, and the intake doesn't need to adapt.

Does it? What happens with those eastern European countries? There's no youth bulge there, they have the same problem as the rest of Europe. It only intensifies the problem there, and what happens in one part of Europe affects the entire continent.

Of all those I've met, I've also not met one who's talked lovingly of their previous homes, and wanting to bring their previous life into this present one. Quite the contrary. And if they want to vote Labour or any other mainstream political party, that's their choice too (when they eventually gain the right to vote). I'd be happy too if UK Muslims debate the health service and means of funding it. That's standard British political discourse. I'm not happy when they raise a racket about bringing in Sharia, or other elements of a foreign state. If their loyalty is to another state, they can go to it.

On the last bit, you sound like you have higher standards than me. Anyone who is eligible to vote can vote. I care not what they do with the vote. If you're loyal to the idea of Britain, then that's as much Britishness as I can demand of you.

But what is the idea of Britain? To some, the idea of Britain is tied to the idea of monarchy. After I gain the citizenship, how much can I "change" Britain before I cross the line? Is that line at the same place for me and for the Duke of Norfolk?

[Kralizec]

Europe has an aging, dwindling population. If it weren't for immigration, that would've been a very, very serious problem by now.

The migrants/ageing argument is essentially that newcomers will help the existing younger generation pay for the pensions of older generations. The problem is that refugees, in general, tend to have very poor employment rates even years or decades after they first arrived in the host country. This might be due to lax integration policies in the past though, that are still influencing today's figures.

[Fragony]

The migrants/ageing argument is essentially that newcomers will help the existing younger generation pay for the pensions of older generations. The problem is that refugees, in general, tend to have very poor employment rates even years or decades after they first arrived in the host country. This might be due to lax integration policies in the past though, that are still influencing today's figures.

^ there goes first one, adieu

there was a second on your list Sarmatarian. And many more

[Viking]

The argument was that noone should be let in because a few of them are/could be dangerous. Yes, it is collective punishment if you take away a real possibility for many because of the sins of a few.

We are not punishing anyone by not letting them in; it would be a security measure. When stores are locked for the night, it's not to punish the population collectively for theft because some people are likely to take goods with them without leaving money behind; it is a security measure.

Wrong twice.

1) It is needed to stop population from dwindling, not increase it

Thing is, the population is still increasing in many European countries, including this one (when I was younger, I remembered the figure as 4.5). Without immigration, we would be closer to stagnation here.

In recent years, two thirds of Norway’s population growth has stemmed from an increase in immigration, while a third of the increase comes from more babies being born, Statistics Norway said.

2) The age issue (number of old vs number of young) remains

It will come and pass. If you import a lot of young people to fix it, you'll have a new wave of elderly people down the line.

Wrong again. They're moving because there isn't enough resources.

If there weren't enough resources, these countries wouldn't have a growing population in the first place - they'd all starve to death.

It's like if you have two islands with one population each of deers. One population has 0 net growth, while the other has a strong growth. The growth of the second population could have gone on until there became too many of them, and there was not enough food to sustain more growth. Alternatively, we could continuously move some of the surplus of the second population to the island of the first, and gradually both islands would become overpopulated, even if the transferred deers adopt the zero-growth reproduction pattern of the original natives.

All European countries suffer from that problem. Migrations within Europe won't change that.

This is simply untrue. There is no need for more migration to e.g. Norway. Unemployment is on the rise here.

Refugees from war zone should have precedence over economic migrants who can be put on hold for a few years.

Odds are there are more wars coming in the future. And "for a few years"? That wasn't much.

It's short term vs. long term security.

The Muslim population in Europe is a long term security issue; as can be seen by the number of second-generation immigrants that have become terrorists. Third, fourth etc. generations are likely to continue these trends to different degrees (it could also go in waves).

They don't really have to become terrorists, either. Having a significant fraction of the population in a country not feeling like their home country is theirs won't do good in times of crisis, like during war - or even just in general.

In the US, after one and half a century without slavery, they still haven't managed to brigde the European vs. African divide. Makes one wonder how much better the Muslim vs. non-Muslim relations will be in Europe one century from now on.

[Sarmatian]

You seek to fudge a line where the line is bloody clear for Islamists. Britain doesn't ask much of its people to be considered satisfactorily British. There is quite some degree of latitude in political disagreement that the identity allow. What Islamists do is distance themselves as much from this identity as they can. There are those who actively fight against Britain. In previous times, they would have been hanged or shot for treason. Then there are those who cheer them on. In previous times they would have been interned as a threat to the country's security.

The line is fudged. What is acceptable to you (an eastern European who recently acquired UK citizenship voting against the monarchy) would be sacrilegious to some British, who would use similar reasoning you applied to migrants - not one of us, not a good guest, no respect for the country he came to etc, etc...

So, yes, there is a line, but it is on a different place for different people.

This is what I'm talking about when I refer to bleeding heart liberals and the ingrainment of liberal values in our society. The latter is good, within reason. But not when it's done by the former, who lay the blame for everything on the majority culture, and who will excuse each and every infringement by the minority, using legalistic arguments to fuzz what should be abundantly clear to anyone who takes a step back to see the whole picture.

But, even though I may not appear like it, I'm not very "liberal" in that regard. I don't believe in multiculturalism, and I would make sure every effort is taken that immigrants integrate into society, and that would be the highest priority, even if it meant suspending some of their civil rights for a certain time.

It's just that I never had the chance to speak about it, because I never got past "muslim darkies = bad" here.

As a marker of how distinct the line is that Sarmatian is trying to legalistically fuzz, ISIS told a son to execute his own mother for urging him to leave the state. Anyone who supports such a state is in no way satisfactorily British, no matter how anyone tries to fudge the line and equate them with us.

And this is SO not my point.

The migrants/ageing argument is essentially that newcomers will help the existing younger generation pay for the pensions of older generations. The problem is that refugees, in general, tend to have very poor employment rates even years or decades after they first arrived in the host country. This might be due to lax integration policies in the past though, that are still influencing today's figures.

^ there goes first one, adieu

there was a second on your list Sarmatarian. And many more

That is not a debunk, that is an arbitrarily and subjectively made conclusion without any numbers to support it, and without taking into consideration how much of an effect they have, even if their employment rates are lower than employment rates of host country youth.

That was for Krazilec.

For Frags - Make an effort, dude. You're not a child, don't hide behind other people. I want to see you debunking it.

We are not punishing anyone by not letting them in; it would be a security measure. When stores are locked for the night, it's not to punish the population collectively for theft because some people are likely to take goods with them without leaving money behind; it is a security measure.

Blimey, it feels like I'm playing a simul here.

Thing is, the population is still increasing in many European countries, including this one (when I was younger, I remembered the figure as 4.5). Without immigration, we would be closer to stagnation here.

Of course it is increasing. It was increasing in China during one child policy. People live longer. When they live longer they put much greater burden state finances through pensions and health insurance. We can't kill them off early, so other actions are taken to balance the budget, both short and long term. Hence, immigration.

It will come and pass. If you import a lot of young people to fix it, you'll have a new wave of elderly people down the line.

It will ruin state finances and cause social upheavals, conflicts and revolutions. Then it will pass. Other actions are taken in conjunction with it, like people having to work longer, which caused a massive unrest in France a few years back. It will take time and delicate touch and immigration is the only solution for the immediate future, like the next several decades. Even in the best case, it will be needed sporadically later.

If there weren't enough resources, these countries wouldn't have a growing population in the first place - they'd all starve to death.

It's like if you have two islands with one population each of deers. One population has 0 net growth, while the other has a strong growth. The growth of the second population could have gone on until there became too many of them, and there was not enough food to sustain more growth. Alternatively, we could continuously move some of the surplus of the second population to the island of the first, and gradually both islands would become overpopulated, even if the transferred deers adopt the zero-growth reproduction pattern of the original natives.

This isn't Civilization. Growth is now based on various economic factors, not on ability to grow food locally. Food is cheap, transporting it is cheap and it is plentiful.

But, situations change. A few years ago, Syria was ok. Then there were drought that started an unrest, which turned into an upheaval which grew to open war. And suddenly a country can't support it's population, so a lot of join the various armed groups, some hunker down and hope for the best and some try to emigrate.

This is simply untrue. There is no need for more migration to e.g. Norway. Unemployment is on the rise here.

You're equating overall situation with situation in specific areas. Unemployment is on the rise in Norway, yet there is still not enough nurses.

Odds are there are more wars coming in the future. And "for a few years"? That wasn't much.

Possibly.

Let's not kid ourselves. Situations change. Economic prospects of areas change. People will follow those trends, and if the change is big enough or rapid enough, we will get in a situation like this again. It will be very hard and sometimes impossible to stop that.

The Muslim population in Europe is a long term security issue; as can be seen by the number of second-generation immigrants that have become terrorists. Third, fourth etc. generations are likely to continue these trends to different degrees (it could also go in waves).

They don't really have to become terrorists, either. Having a significant fraction of the population in a country not feeling like their home country is theirs won't do good in times of crisis, like during war - or even just in general.

In the US, after one and half a century without slavery, they still haven't managed to brigde the European vs. African divide. Makes one wonder how much better the Muslim vs. non-Muslim relations will be in Europe one century from now on.

Really? I'd like to see numbers on that. How many muslims are there in Europe and how many have been involved in terrorist activities.

[Pannonian]

The line is fudged. What is acceptable to you (an eastern European who recently acquired UK citizenship voting against the monarchy) would be sacrilegious to some British, who would use similar reasoning you applied to migrants - not one of us, not a good guest, no respect for the country he came to etc, etc...

So, yes, there is a line, but it is on a different place for different people.

But, even though I may not appear like it, I'm not very "liberal" in that regard. I don't believe in multiculturalism, and I would make sure every effort is taken that immigrants integrate into society, and that would be the highest priority, even if it meant suspending some of their civil rights for a certain time.

It's just that I never had the chance to speak about it, because I never got past "muslim darkies = bad" here.

And this is SO not my point.

The line is only fudged for those who really want to see it that way. The majority may not be able to agree on what Britishness is. But the majority can certainly agree on what anti-Britishness is. ISIS is the antithesis of Britishness. We see no positives in them. Anyone who supports them is not what I would call British in values. And anyone who looks to excuse those who support them is for me an apologist.

[Gilrandir]

Actually I support to close the borders and send everyone back because accepting more people into our welfare state than we usually do when we are experiencing an economic downturn, with shortages in housing and jobs, would be tantamount to economic suicide.

According to Sarmatian, if you have shortages in jobs and housing it means you have let too few immigrants in.

[Montmorency]

Population growth is unsustainable in the long run. At some point, it has to stop and stabilise at realistic numbers. Importing people is just pushing the issue further into the future.

It also frees up resources in the countries the migrants left behind, potentially sustaining or even increasing the already high population growth there; in sum pushing the Earth even closer to its global population capacity.

If there weren't enough resources, these countries wouldn't have a growing population in the first place - they'd all starve to death.

It's like if you have two islands with one population each of deers. One population has 0 net growth, while the other has a strong growth. The growth of the second population could have gone on until there became too many of them, and there was not enough food to sustain more growth. Alternatively, we could continuously move some of the surplus of the second population to the island of the first, and gradually both islands would become overpopulated, even if the transferred deers adopt the zero-growth reproduction pattern of the original natives.

Does it really need to be explained at this point why this kind of assertion is so weak and incomplete? Humans have much better resource multipliers than other creatures, so the only real limit to the human population on the Earth is an administrative one.

The real problem is that unlimited growth, under disparate sovereignties, is unsustainable, because continuous improvements in living conditions and ICT factors across all populations is unsustainable.

We should be concerned by your example of the carrying capacity of deer on the islands, then, in the sense that it highlights the fragility of the current international and civilizational order. We can't roll so well with the punches anymore (the bigger they are, the harder they fall of course), with the post-war era having been predicated on the stabilizing effect of economic interdependence. Human catastrophes like Syria and Haiti are par for the course, and if the interest is long-term sustainability then learning to calmly and effectively react to situations in which millions are dying or stand to die is necessary - but this cuts against modern humanist goals. Humanists see infinite expansion of humanity into the future, and so take any 'cullings' very personally. At the same time, they take the position that death and suffering ought to be assuaged everywhere, but death and suffering, on small or large scales, is essential to the condition of living ecology rather than a "tragic" setback to the anthropic imperial project.

In other words, because the order is so brittle and the "free market" actively works against development and contingency for recurring disruptions (that kill large proportions of the population), combinations of social unrest, economic weakness, and poor environmental conditions will inevitably lead to either mass migrations or the collapse of global markets in favor of armed conflict between coordinated strategic blocs.