IMMIGRATION thread

[Snowhobbit]

There are several things to address here. Number one is that even those who work part-time do actually work and are not unemployed. I would also like to hear how they do over a longer period, 15+ years. Several years are lost until they finally settle down in one place, learn the language and, in some cases, necessary training.

Crime is generally connected with poverty rather than religion or culture. England has much more immigrants than Scotland, and much lower violent crimes rate.

I'm not sure if there are studies for even longer periods of time, there are general employment numbers for foreigners and natives respectively (but then that would include work migrants etc, though half of those are unemployed after a few years too, it is an easy way to buy a visa). I'm not sure that I would count 1 hour a week as working to be honest. It does not count as working for EU perspectives, unless you are charging massively for that one hour. I'm curious as to how many years you think it takes to "settle down in one place" and what you mean by that. I interpret it as making a home, but maybe you mean something different? Again 8 years allow for a long time to learn the language (which should only take 1 year to learn enough to work, or 2 to learn enough to study at university) and possibly get some training. A large factor in the massive unemployment numbers is the fact that a lot of our refugees come from countries in which women are not allowed to work outside of the home.

Do you not understand what it means to account for socioeconomic factors?

[Sarmatian]

I'm not sure if there are studies for even longer periods of time, there are general employment numbers for foreigners and natives respectively (but then that would include work migrants etc, though half of those are unemployed after a few years too, it is an easy way to buy a visa). I'm not sure that I would count 1 hour a week as working to be honest. It does not count as working for EU perspectives, unless you are charging massively for that one hour. I'm curious as to how many years you think it takes to "settle down in one place" and what you mean by that. I interpret it as making a home, but maybe you mean something different? Again 8 years allow for a long time to learn the language (which should only take 1 year to learn enough to work, or 2 to learn enough to study at university) and possibly get some training. A large factor in the massive unemployment numbers is the fact that a lot of our refugees come from countries in which women are not allowed to work outside of the home.

Do you not understand what it means to account for socioeconomic factors?

Part time doesn't mean 1 hour a week. It is generally considered up to 20 hours a week, half a work day, but it differs from country to country. In some workers who work more than 40 hours a week are considered part time if they are seasonal workers, for instance if they work during the tourist season.

Secondly, immigrants are more likely to be victims of exploitation by the unscrupulous employers, because they aren't aware of the regulations, they are desperate for any income or simply don't know who to turn to or they are simply afraid the employers word would be taken over theirs and they would be sent back. It is not uncommon for migrants to work more than 40 hours a week, while they employer pays benefits only for 20, or even less, or none at all. Furthermore, in some countries (I'm not sure how it works in Sweden), if they work 2 jobs part time for the full 40 hour work week, they are still considered to work only part time,

Thirdly, lumping all immigrants together is paints a flawed picture. Let's say a family moves to a country, and they have a 3 year old kid. Both parents start learning the language, which takes at least 6 months, year on average. After that, the father gets a job but he can only apply for a limited number of jobs, as his understanding of the language is not sufficient for complex conversations. So, he gets a job as an assistant in the kitchen somewhere, or a bus boy or something like. It takes longer for the mother to learn the language so she has trouble finding a job. She manages to earn some money by cleaning private houses, which isn't registered anywhere so she is till officially unemployed.
After two years, their command of the native language is excellent, the father gets a full time job, but the mother is pregnant again.
So, after five years or so, you have only one person out of three working a full time job, and only for three years of those five, but it is perfectly normal conditions. If a family of five moves, with children aged 2, 3 and 5 years respectively, where the father works full time, mother part time and the three children are in school, the statistics would tell you that only 20% of them are working full time for the next 15 years or so, while those are again perfectly normal living conditions, not different compared to native families in similar conditions.

That is why I said 8 years is too short a time to get the full picture.

[Snowhobbit]

Part time doesn't mean 1 hour a week. It is generally considered up to 20 hours a week, half a work day, but it differs from country to country. In some workers who work more than 40 hours a week are considered part time if they are seasonal workers, for instance if they work during the tourist season.

Secondly, immigrants are more likely to be victims of exploitation by the unscrupulous employers, because they aren't aware of the regulations, they are desperate for any income or simply don't know who to turn to or they are simply afraid the employers word would be taken over theirs and they would be sent back. It is not uncommon for migrants to work more than 40 hours a week, while they employer pays benefits only for 20, or even less, or none at all. Furthermore, in some countries (I'm not sure how it works in Sweden), if they work 2 jobs part time for the full 40 hour work week, they are still considered to work only part time,

Thirdly, lumping all immigrants together is paints a flawed picture. Let's say a family moves to a country, and they have a 3 year old kid. Both parents start learning the language, which takes at least 6 months, year on average. After that, the father gets a job but he can only apply for a limited number of jobs, as his understanding of the language is not sufficient for complex conversations. So, he gets a job as an assistant in the kitchen somewhere, or a bus boy or something like. It takes longer for the mother to learn the language so she has trouble finding a job. She manages to earn some money by cleaning private houses, which isn't registered anywhere so she is till officially unemployed.
After two years, their command of the native language is excellent, the father gets a full time job, but the mother is pregnant again.
So, after five years or so, you have only one person out of three working a full time job, and only for three years of those five, but it is perfectly normal conditions. If a family of five moves, with children aged 2, 3 and 5 years respectively, where the father works full time, mother part time and the three children are in school, the statistics would tell you that only 20% of them are working full time for the next 15 years or so, while those are again perfectly normal living conditions, not different compared to native families in similar conditions.

That is why I said 8 years is too short a time to get the full picture.

For the purpose of counting as employed 1 hour a week is sufficient. Which is why I mention it, because that is how the stats are tracked, and people think it means more than it does. We do not have a huge issue with workers being exploited due to strong unions and labour laws, maybe things are different in your country? In comparison natives in the age group 18-67 69%are full time employed, this number is consistent, for refugees it reaches an amazing 34% after 15 years. 8 years is a long time, let alone 15 years. You might want to look more at the numbers if you think a three children, mother and father is the typical group either. If you have a way of doing statistics without bunching people up into groups I'm all ears. Surprisingly we do not count children in the employment statistics...

I hate to ask again, do you not know what socioeconomic factors means?

[Sarmatian]

For the purpose of counting as employed 1 hour a week is sufficient. Which is why I mention it, because that is how the stats are tracked, and people think it means more than it does.

That is disingenuous. You mention 25% working full time. People working 1 hour a week are not working full time. Thus, you eliminate a significant number of immigrants working part time. Instead of calling you a liar, I'll assume you made an honest mistake and mixed some numbers up.

We do not have a huge issue with workers being exploited due to strong unions and labour laws, maybe things are different in your country?

Migrants are always exploited, especially in the first few years while they are still "getting their bearings". Less in Sweden than some other countries but it happens and much more than you think. There almost isn't a person from former Yugoslavia who didn't have to work some shitty job, with long hours and lousy pay, in the grey part of the economy for a few years after arriving in Sweden.

Surprisingly we do not count children in the employment statistics...

But you count them among migrants.

In comparison natives in the age group 18-67 69%are full time employed, this number is consistent, for refugees it reaches an amazing 34% after 15 years. 8 years is a long time, let alone 15 years. You might want to look more at the numbers if you think a three children, mother and father is the typical group either. If you have a way of doing statistics without bunching people up into groups I'm all ears.

Again, you're counting all migrants and only working age natives. There are currently 4,8 million workers in Sweden out of a population of 9,8 million, which comes to about 49% employment overall. Again, I'm not going to call you a liar, I'll assume you made an honest mistake and mixed some numbers up.

A kid aged 7 will just be graduating from a university after 15 years.

I hate to ask again, do you not know what socioeconomic factors means?

I read it the first time and it was a stupid question the first time. I've extended you the courtesy of engaging in a serious discussion with you. Be a smart ass somewhere else, or with someone else.

[Snowhobbit]

That is disingenuous. You mention 25% working full time. People working 1 hour a week are not working full time. Thus, you eliminate a significant number of immigrants working part time. Instead of calling you a liar, I'll assume you made an honest mistake and mixed some numbers up.



Migrants are always exploited, especially in the first few years while they are still "getting their bearings". Less in Sweden than some other countries but it happens and much more than you think. There almost isn't a person from former Yugoslavia who didn't have to work some shitty job, with long hours and lousy pay, in the grey part of the economy for a few years after arriving in Sweden.



But you count them among migrants.



Again, you're counting all migrants and only working age natives. There are currently 4,8 million workers in Sweden out of a population of 9,8 million, which comes to about 49% employment overall. Again, I'm not going to call you a liar, I'll assume you made an honest mistake and mixed some numbers up.

A kid aged 7 will just be graduating from a university after 15 years.



I read it the first time and it was a stupid question the first time. I've extended you the courtesy of engaging in a serious discussion with you. Be a smart ass somewhere else, or with someone else.

To clarify, a number that gets flung around a lot is that 50%are employed after 7 years. In fact to qualify as employed 1 hour worked on the week that the survey is done is enough to qualify as employed. Hence full time is a more useful metric. All of the numbers are only counting working age people, none of the numbers are counting children. I hope the above will help prevent any unclarity or misunderstanding. A large part of my friend circle and my family are immigrants, and a significant part of my colleagues have been immigrants, yet other than the exploitation of berry pickers there really aren't much of an issue.

The study about criminality accounts for socioeconomic factors which is why I ask if you do not understand the word since you keep bringing up poverty. Not sure why poor people would rape and murder more often in a welfare society where they will still have by most standards a good life. And such factors are accounted for. Bringing up poverty when that has been accounted for seems to me to be the stupid thing to do.

[Husar]

To clarify, a number that gets flung around a lot is that 50%are employed after 7 years. In fact to qualify as employed 1 hour worked on the week that the survey is done is enough to qualify as employed. Hence full time is a more useful metric.

But the assumption that all or even most of the part-time workers only work one hour and should therefore be excluded entirely seems strange.

[Snowhobbit]

But the assumption that all or even most of the part-time workers only work one hour and should therefore be excluded entirely seems strange.

The point is that since that data includes anyone from full time to one hour that one week that they asked, the data is useless. I should also clarify that this data includes people on the salary support systems where the government pays 80% of your salary, while the 25% after 8 years is not only full-time but also excludes jobs where the government is paying your salary in this manner. If data can be found that includes reasonable part-time workers that would be great. But do note that full time working age only compares with full time working age people.

[Gilrandir]

It takes longer for the mother to learn the language

Sexism.

[Fragony]

Ain't that great, seperate centres for gays and christians in Dutchiestan. It isn't such a nice place for them. I wonder why.

edit, it's even worse than I thought. Sorry gays and christians, it's all a lie it wasn't me

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Sexism.

Age-ism if anything. Children under 25 with brains still in development mode acquire new languages more readily.

[Gilrandir]

Age-ism if anything. Children under 25 with brains still in development mode acquire new languages more readily.

The so-called sensitive period (most suitable for acquiring a language, including a foreign one) lasts till the age of 12, for acquiring the phonetics of a language till 6.

[Fragony]

The so-called sensitive period (most suitable for acquiring a language, including a foreign one) lasts till the age of 12, for acquiring the phonetics of a language till 6.

Not entirely true, don't ask me why but toddlers can already hear the difference between languages with international couples, they somehow just know that it are different languages and they learn both seperatily.

[Fragony]

Quote of the day by the childless Mutti 'that is not my Europe'

No Mutti Theresa, it isn't

[Gilrandir]

Not entirely true, don't ask me why but toddlers can already hear the difference between languages with international couples, they somehow just know that it are different languages and they learn both seperatily.

I spoke not of the ability to differentiate between languages, but about the ability to acquire language(s). If a child of a sensitive age acquires more than one language, they "are located" in the same brain area. A person past the sensitive age has "to create" a different locus for every new language.

As for an infant's ability to differentiate between languages, I wouldn't make such a bold statement. I would rather say that a child switches from one language to another depending on which of the parents he is talking to. I myself talk to my mother mostly in Ukrainian and to my father mostly in Russian.

If a child is addressed to by one parent, but in different languages he is likely to lump the languages together. I witnessed it when I saw one of my colleague's daughter whom she was trying to teach English from the earliest age possible (that is besides her mother tongue). As a result the child used English word roots in combination with Russian suffixes.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The so-called sensitive period (most suitable for acquiring a language, including a foreign one) lasts till the age of 12, for acquiring the phonetics of a language till 6.

Quite true, though individuals vary. My 'children under 25' line reflected that a) brains continue to mature into the mid 20s, and b) that I am an old fart who looks at under 25s as vexing young whippersnappers.

[Husar]

Polish economic migrant from Brussels says: "Don't go to other countries for the money!"

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/0...60303135255252