what are 925,000 Poles doing in the UK if most are not working ?. I don't have a problem with Polish people, my problem is with uncontrolled migration. It's just crazy that there are no limits on movement of people in the EU. look at the depopulation time bomb in the Baltic states.
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
The benefits of Brexit - the future of the United Kingdom
- Thread starter emigre
- Start date
- Views 100,016
- Replies 1,214
- Likes 5
what are 925,000 Poles doing in the UK if most are not working ?. I don't have a problem with Polish people, my problem is with uncontrolled migration. It's just crazy that there are no limits on movement of people in the EU. look at the depopulation time bomb in the Baltic states.
What's your issue with that? You have the same freedom of movement they do. If you're having trouble being marketable on the job market, that's not their fault - it's yours. What's stopping you from doing the exact same thing they did? Besides, we're talking about single digit numbers here in terms of a percentage of the work force, the UK has a population in excess of 66 million. One of those Poles, by the way - it's been many years since I moved. I pay the same taxes you do, I contribute to your economy in the same way you do, I am by no means a burden. If we're going to talk about people who put a burden on the system, we can discuss the droves of people in the UK who made a decision in their life that working is beneath them and they're just going to live on benefits instead, permanently. The Poles didn't do that, your government made it feasible to do so.
Well - actually... Leave your home country, if you can not find a job - especially if its the UK is a hard pill to swallow. 
The sentiment against uncontrolled migration is actually ... ok ... (weak enthusiasm).
But now, lets look at what happened here (you can also watch the video linked above.. ).
While every other major country in the EU pulled a clause, that allowed for a transitional period, witch limited access to their markets, after they installed free movement of EU citizens - Britain - the free market capitalists, that they were did not. In accordance only with sweden, and ireland.
see roughly: https://theconversation.com/the-hug...n-migrants-unfettered-access-to-britain-66077
And instead of about 10's of thousands of immigrants that they expected, came 100's of thousands (Poland had an economic crisis in 2004).
And then the british government for four years did nothing, and then the economic crisis hit. Roughly.
Then - the British people did nothing for altogether 14 years, held the grudge, and then voted to leave the EU, for no immediate, or real reason?
You have to understand. Internal migration within the EU slowed down to a crawl since then (on average, see: https://www.eib.org/attachments/migration_and_the_eu_en.pdf) - and nothing much was or is expected to happen in that regard again.
But - enter populists - the EU had a migrant crises from OUTSIDE the EU at the time, and then that was used by UKIP to scare the freaking bejeabus out of everyone that didn't know what the EU was. The idiotic thing was, that britain conrolled the channel (sea gap between UK and france) very tidely, and the EU certainly did't give those migrants EU passports and pronounced them citizens. So as a result, the UK almost didn't take any of the outside migrants around the time of the brexit vote, and wasnt in danger of having to do so.
The EU was in talks with several of their countries to voluntairily do so at the time (to share the burden), but there most countries just said - eff germany - and basically no. UK did the same - you didn't have to leave the EU for that.
Why did you have to leave the EU again? Btw...? Oh, yeah "whats the EU google searches one day after the referendum.."
Leave me those polish people alone though, they were just fellow EU citizens looking for opportunity.
And the one thing the UK will come to realize yet, is - that you cant demand free movement of money (capital), and goods without free movement of labor in an economic union. Then all the rich folks get into one country, and dont let the poor ones come in, while they still do business all over europe - basically. Free movement of people also is part of the "integration effort" that was meant to underline, that Europe was supposed to be a one direction project only (unification of european countries). Thats correct as well.
The sentiment against uncontrolled migration is actually ... ok ... (weak enthusiasm).
But now, lets look at what happened here (you can also watch the video linked above..
).While every other major country in the EU pulled a clause, that allowed for a transitional period, witch limited access to their markets, after they installed free movement of EU citizens - Britain - the free market capitalists, that they were did not. In accordance only with sweden, and ireland.
see roughly: https://theconversation.com/the-hug...n-migrants-unfettered-access-to-britain-66077
And instead of about 10's of thousands of immigrants that they expected, came 100's of thousands (Poland had an economic crisis in 2004).
And then the british government for four years did nothing, and then the economic crisis hit. Roughly.
Then - the British people did nothing for altogether 14 years, held the grudge, and then voted to leave the EU, for no immediate, or real reason?
You have to understand. Internal migration within the EU slowed down to a crawl since then (on average, see: https://www.eib.org/attachments/migration_and_the_eu_en.pdf) - and nothing much was or is expected to happen in that regard again.
But - enter populists - the EU had a migrant crises from OUTSIDE the EU at the time, and then that was used by UKIP to scare the freaking bejeabus out of everyone that didn't know what the EU was. The idiotic thing was, that britain conrolled the channel (sea gap between UK and france) very tidely, and the EU certainly did't give those migrants EU passports and pronounced them citizens. So as a result, the UK almost didn't take any of the outside migrants around the time of the brexit vote, and wasnt in danger of having to do so.
The EU was in talks with several of their countries to voluntairily do so at the time (to share the burden), but there most countries just said - eff germany - and basically no.
UK did the same - you didn't have to leave the EU for that.Why did you have to leave the EU again? Btw...? Oh, yeah "whats the EU google searches one day after the referendum..
"Leave me those polish people alone though, they were just fellow EU citizens looking for opportunity.
And the one thing the UK will come to realize yet, is - that you cant demand free movement of money (capital), and goods without free movement of labor in an economic union. Then all the rich folks get into one country, and dont let the poor ones come in, while they still do business all over europe - basically.
Free movement of people also is part of the "integration effort" that was meant to underline, that Europe was supposed to be a one direction project only (unification of european countries). Thats correct as well.
Last edited by notimp,
I think this fits here.
The Economist 06.-12. February 2016
How to manage the migrant crisis.
Have fun.
(Code box can be scrolled.)
Context: This is an example for you to see how some of those bigger decisions are made. So think about several entities (think tanks, foundations, ..) working on those and then competing in a political context.
Kind of exceeds the realm of single issue.
The Economist 06.-12. February 2016
How to manage the migrant crisis.
Have fun.
Code:
How to manage the migrant crisis
A European problem demands a common, coherent EU policy. Let refugees
in, but regulate the flow
REFUGEES are reasonable people in desperate circumstances. Life for many
of the lm-odd asylum-seekers who have fled Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and
other war-torn countries for Europe in the past year has become
intolerable. Europe is peaceful, rich and accessible. Most people would
rather not abandon their homes and start again among strangers. But when
the alternative is the threat of death from barrel-bombs and
sabre-wielding fanatics, they make the only rational choice.
The flow of refugees would have been manageable if European Union
countries had worked together, as Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor,
has always wished (and The Economist urged). Instead Germany and Sweden
have been left to cope alone. Today their willingness to do so is
exhausted. Unless Europe soon restores order, political pressure will
force Mrs Merkel to clamp down unilaterally, starting a wave of border
closures (see pages 19-22). More worrying, the migrant crisis is feeding
xenophobia and political populism. The divisive forces of right-wing
nationalism have already taken hold in parts of eastern Europe. If they
spread westward into Germany, France and Italy then the eu could tear
itself apart.
The situation today is a mess. Refugees have been free to sail across
the Mediterranean, register and make for whichever country seems most
welcoming. Many economic migrants with no claim to asylum have found a
place in the queue by lying about where they came from. This
free-for-all must be replaced by a system in which asylum applicants are
screened when they first reach Europe’s borders-or better still, before
they cross the Mediterranean. Those who are ineligible for asylum should
be sent back without delay; those likely to qualify should be sent on to
countries willing to accept them.
Order on the border Creating a well-regulated system requires three
steps. The first is to curb the “push factors” that encourage people to
risk the crossing, by beefing up aid to refugees, particularly to the
victims of the civil wars in Syria and Iraq, including the huge number
who have fled to neighbouring countries such as Turkey, Jordan and
Lebanon. The second is to review asylum claims while refugees are still
in centres in the Middle East or in the “hotspots” (mainly in Greece and
Italy), where they go when they first arrive in the eu. The third
element is to insist that asylum-seekers stay put until their
applications are processed, rather than jumping on a train to Germany.
All these steps are fraught with difficulty. Consider the “push factors”
first. The prospect of ending Syria’s civil war is as remote as ever:
peace talks in Geneva this week were suspended without progress. But the
eu could do a lot more to help refugees and their host countries.
Scandalously, aid for Syrians was cut in 2015 even as the war grew
bloodier: aid agencies got a bit more than half of what they needed last
year, according to the un. Donors at a conference on Syria in London
this week were asked for $9 billion for 2016-about as much as Germans
spend on chocolate every year. Far more is needed and will be needed
every year for several years.
Europe’s money should be used not only to feed and house refugees but
also to coax host countries into letting them work. For the first four
years of the conflict Syrians were denied work permits in Turkey, Jordan
and Lebanon. Recently Turkey has begun to grant them. Donors should
press Jordan and Lebanon to follow. European cash could help teach the
400,000 refugee children in Turkey who have no classes.
Sometimes the answer is no The next task is to require asylum-seekers to
register and be sorted as close to home as possible, probably Turkey,
Lebanon and Jordan. Ideally those who travelled by boat to Europe would
be sent back to a camp in one of those three coun-tries-to prove that
they had just wasted their precious savings paying people-traffickers to
take them on a pointless journey. But that would meet legal and
political objections, partly because of Turkey’s human-rights record
(see our special report this week). So, there should also be processing
camps in the first eu country they reach, probably Greece or Italy.
The cost of this should fall on the whole eu, since the aim is to
establish control over its external borders. Dealmaking is possible. In
exchange for hosting large refugee hotspots and camps on its soil,
Greece should get help with its debt and budgets which it has long
sought to ease its economic crisis.
Refugees will fall in with this scheme (rather than cross the eu
illegally) only if they are confident that genuine applications will be
accepted within a reasonable time. So the eu needs to spend what it
takes to sort through their claims swiftly. And member states ought to
agree to accept substantial numbers of bona fide asylum claimants. Some
refugees may prefer Germany to, say, France-and there is little to stop
them crossing borders once they are inside the Schengen area. But, if
they are properly looked after, most will stay put.
The crisis needs a bigger resettlement programme than the one run by the
un’s refugee agency, which has only 160,000 spaces. Countries outside
the eu, including the Gulf states, can play their part. Priority should
go to refugees who apply for asylum while still in Turkey, Jordan or
Lebanon-to reduce the incentive for refugees to board leaky boats to
Greece.
Ineligible migrants will have to be refused entry or deported. This will
be legally difficult, and it is impossible to repatriate people to some
countries, such as Syria. But if the system is not to be overwhelmed or
seen as unfair and illegitimate by eu citizens, the sorting must be
efficient and enforceable, eu governments should sign and implement
readmission agreements allowing rejected migrants to be sent home
quickly to, say, Morocco or Algeria. If such agreements are impossible
(or if, as with Pakistan, governments fail to honour them), the prospect
of waiting indefinitely in Greece will make economic migrants who want
to reach Germany hesitate before coming.
Once these measures are in place, it will become possible to take the
most controversial step: halting the uncontrolled migrant flow across
Greece’s northern border with Macedonia. It has become clear over the
past five months that Europe cannot gain control over the numbers or the
nature of the migrant stream while border officials wave asylum-seekers
through and bid them safe travel to northern Europe.
Since the start of the refugee crisis, we have argued that Europe should
welcome persecuted people and carefully manage their entry into European
society. Our views have not changed. Countries have a moral and legal
duty to provide sanctuary to those who flee grave danger. That approach
is disruptive in the short term, but in the medium term, so long as they
are allowed to work, refugees assimilate and more than pay for
themselves. By contrast, the chaos of recent months shows what happens
when politicians fail to take a pan-European approach to what is clearly
a pan-European problem. The plan we outline would require a big chunk of
cash and a lot of testy negotiations. But it is in every country’s
interest to help-because all of them would be worse off if the eu lapses
into a xenophobic free-for-all.
There is an encouraging precedent, too. When more than im “boat people”
fled Vietnam after the communists took over in 1975, they went initially
to refugee camps in Hong Kong and other parts of Asia before being sent
to America, Europe, Australia and wherever else would take them. They
arrived with nothing but adapted astonishingly fast: the median
household income for Vietnamese-Americans, for example, is now above the
national average. No one in America now frets that the boat people will
not fit in. ■Context: This is an example for you to see how some of those bigger decisions are made. So think about several entities (think tanks, foundations, ..) working on those and then competing in a political context.
Kind of exceeds the realm of single issue.
Last edited by notimp,
I think this fits here.
The Economist 06.-12. February 2016
How to manage the migrant crisis.
Have fun.
(Code box can be scrolled.)Code:How to manage the migrant crisis A European problem demands a common, coherent EU policy. Let refugees in, but regulate the flow REFUGEES are reasonable people in desperate circumstances. Life for many of the lm-odd asylum-seekers who have fled Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and other war-torn countries for Europe in the past year has become intolerable. Europe is peaceful, rich and accessible. Most people would rather not abandon their homes and start again among strangers. But when the alternative is the threat of death from barrel-bombs and sabre-wielding fanatics, they make the only rational choice. The flow of refugees would have been manageable if European Union countries had worked together, as Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, has always wished (and The Economist urged). Instead Germany and Sweden have been left to cope alone. Today their willingness to do so is exhausted. Unless Europe soon restores order, political pressure will force Mrs Merkel to clamp down unilaterally, starting a wave of border closures (see pages 19-22). More worrying, the migrant crisis is feeding xenophobia and political populism. The divisive forces of right-wing nationalism have already taken hold in parts of eastern Europe. If they spread westward into Germany, France and Italy then the eu could tear itself apart. The situation today is a mess. Refugees have been free to sail across the Mediterranean, register and make for whichever country seems most welcoming. Many economic migrants with no claim to asylum have found a place in the queue by lying about where they came from. This free-for-all must be replaced by a system in which asylum applicants are screened when they first reach Europe’s borders-or better still, before they cross the Mediterranean. Those who are ineligible for asylum should be sent back without delay; those likely to qualify should be sent on to countries willing to accept them. Order on the border Creating a well-regulated system requires three steps. The first is to curb the “push factors” that encourage people to risk the crossing, by beefing up aid to refugees, particularly to the victims of the civil wars in Syria and Iraq, including the huge number who have fled to neighbouring countries such as Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The second is to review asylum claims while refugees are still in centres in the Middle East or in the “hotspots” (mainly in Greece and Italy), where they go when they first arrive in the eu. The third element is to insist that asylum-seekers stay put until their applications are processed, rather than jumping on a train to Germany. All these steps are fraught with difficulty. Consider the “push factors” first. The prospect of ending Syria’s civil war is as remote as ever: peace talks in Geneva this week were suspended without progress. But the eu could do a lot more to help refugees and their host countries. Scandalously, aid for Syrians was cut in 2015 even as the war grew bloodier: aid agencies got a bit more than half of what they needed last year, according to the un. Donors at a conference on Syria in London this week were asked for $9 billion for 2016-about as much as Germans spend on chocolate every year. Far more is needed and will be needed every year for several years. Europe’s money should be used not only to feed and house refugees but also to coax host countries into letting them work. For the first four years of the conflict Syrians were denied work permits in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. Recently Turkey has begun to grant them. Donors should press Jordan and Lebanon to follow. European cash could help teach the 400,000 refugee children in Turkey who have no classes. Sometimes the answer is no The next task is to require asylum-seekers to register and be sorted as close to home as possible, probably Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Ideally those who travelled by boat to Europe would be sent back to a camp in one of those three coun-tries-to prove that they had just wasted their precious savings paying people-traffickers to take them on a pointless journey. But that would meet legal and political objections, partly because of Turkey’s human-rights record (see our special report this week). So, there should also be processing camps in the first eu country they reach, probably Greece or Italy. The cost of this should fall on the whole eu, since the aim is to establish control over its external borders. Dealmaking is possible. In exchange for hosting large refugee hotspots and camps on its soil, Greece should get help with its debt and budgets which it has long sought to ease its economic crisis. Refugees will fall in with this scheme (rather than cross the eu illegally) only if they are confident that genuine applications will be accepted within a reasonable time. So the eu needs to spend what it takes to sort through their claims swiftly. And member states ought to agree to accept substantial numbers of bona fide asylum claimants. Some refugees may prefer Germany to, say, France-and there is little to stop them crossing borders once they are inside the Schengen area. But, if they are properly looked after, most will stay put. The crisis needs a bigger resettlement programme than the one run by the un’s refugee agency, which has only 160,000 spaces. Countries outside the eu, including the Gulf states, can play their part. Priority should go to refugees who apply for asylum while still in Turkey, Jordan or Lebanon-to reduce the incentive for refugees to board leaky boats to Greece. Ineligible migrants will have to be refused entry or deported. This will be legally difficult, and it is impossible to repatriate people to some countries, such as Syria. But if the system is not to be overwhelmed or seen as unfair and illegitimate by eu citizens, the sorting must be efficient and enforceable, eu governments should sign and implement readmission agreements allowing rejected migrants to be sent home quickly to, say, Morocco or Algeria. If such agreements are impossible (or if, as with Pakistan, governments fail to honour them), the prospect of waiting indefinitely in Greece will make economic migrants who want to reach Germany hesitate before coming. Once these measures are in place, it will become possible to take the most controversial step: halting the uncontrolled migrant flow across Greece’s northern border with Macedonia. It has become clear over the past five months that Europe cannot gain control over the numbers or the nature of the migrant stream while border officials wave asylum-seekers through and bid them safe travel to northern Europe. Since the start of the refugee crisis, we have argued that Europe should welcome persecuted people and carefully manage their entry into European society. Our views have not changed. Countries have a moral and legal duty to provide sanctuary to those who flee grave danger. That approach is disruptive in the short term, but in the medium term, so long as they are allowed to work, refugees assimilate and more than pay for themselves. By contrast, the chaos of recent months shows what happens when politicians fail to take a pan-European approach to what is clearly a pan-European problem. The plan we outline would require a big chunk of cash and a lot of testy negotiations. But it is in every country’s interest to help-because all of them would be worse off if the eu lapses into a xenophobic free-for-all. There is an encouraging precedent, too. When more than im “boat people” fled Vietnam after the communists took over in 1975, they went initially to refugee camps in Hong Kong and other parts of Asia before being sent to America, Europe, Australia and wherever else would take them. They arrived with nothing but adapted astonishingly fast: the median household income for Vietnamese-Americans, for example, is now above the national average. No one in America now frets that the boat people will not fit in. ■
Context: This is an example for you to see how some of those bigger decisions are made. So think about several entities (think tanks, foundations, ..) working on those and then competing in a political context.
Kind of exceeds the realm of single issue.
1) They're not refugees they're economic migrants. We know this because they risked their lives passing through many safe countries to arrive at the welfare haven of Europe.
2) The crisis wasn't and still isn't our problem to 'manage' but it could've been managed by doing exactly what hungary did and closing the borders. Again, they're not refugees they're economic migrants. As far as im aware, the war is over, why haven't they gone home and rebuilt. Their country needs them. Why was it only fighting age males instead of women and children? Again - economic migrants.
It really cracks me up when you quote rich off liberals who live in gated communities preaching to the rest of us about how were all xenophobic bigots.
Lastly, no one has a legal or moral right to live wherever they'd like. No one has the *RIGHT* to jump on a boat and move to another country unless they're invited. You might not like it, that makes little difference. The UK alone is severly overpopulated. Were a tiny little island that somehow has 70m people. If you want to put this into context. I believe the USA has 330m people? (feel free to correct me) the USA is nearly FORTY times the size of the UK but has a population only 4x that size? You do the maths.
When the article was written the war wasnt over. And currently its - so..so. Also remember, that the political regime stayed the same, so those of them that where political refugees... Well in fact, why didnt they stay and fight for their country.. (The welcome currently wouldnt be all roses is what I'm hinting at. )
Economic migrants. Yes, sure.
Three aspects. If I ever have to leave my home country in my 20ies, I'd go some place, where I can live well. If my fortune, and my money allow it. Second, as mentioned in this thread before, the european immigration system was set up so that the countries on the outer edge take the "legal" impact (in exchange for money, Lisbon Treaty). And impact they took. So after a while the politicians of those countries said - well, we arent paying for them, let them through. Thats inofficially still. Thats also described in the article as "the system isnt working".
Again, still - if I'm the migrant and a greek official offers me the chance to continue on and reach germany or sweden, I'll do it.
Third. If they are somewhat in need - migrants, even in a larger number are seen as beneficial to your economy, just a few years down the road. Thats why the "number" your country can take - kind of is set by public acception, and not by a fixed calculation model. Up front, they are sunk cost, but that changes, as they are integrated (and in Europe they are integrated - failed examples also possible (Erdogans political influence in certain migrant communities f.e.)).
Now, where this fails is the following. First, if you have a diverse population of migrants, that by default get lower social class - the jobs that are available to them out of the gate - are actually limited. So in the entrepreneurial sector, small dealerships, restaurants, if they have money and the social acceptance is there. Otherwise, service or manual labor jobs. So if the perception is there, that "we dont need them for that - because we have many of those jobs filled by migrants already" (not my view, but its out there.. ), they cant bootstrap economic communities on their own - so the transitioning process takes longer. That actually can usually be somewhat controlled through work permits (which also are tied to cultural integration). The second factor is culture and "cultural acceptance", this actually drives the "we have enough already" sentiment of the general public and formed political decisions all over Europe. So - its a definite factor. We dont have to talk around that.
Now - onwards to "just close the borders". How do you do that. The article actually tells you how. With money, in states outside of the European Union. So you actually pay for that (but also gain political influence - so.. its not that bad). And with what hungary did - which was? PR. "We've closed our borders." Catch a few folks, treat them badly, roll off some barbed wire... That you can do, after the influx is over, and before you are expecting another one. If people are already at your borders in the thousands - you cant.
That then spreads around. Together with "we sent a few folks back to italy and greece". Where they'll have a poorer economic life (again, remember, lower social class as they arrive), which then also spreads around as word of mouth. And if you are lucky. The inbound pressure stops.
Inbound pressure stopping - the first out of five to do steps in the article above. So there The Economist actually agrees with you, just in a few less radical words.
Last bit. There is no such thing as an economic migrant. We kind of invented the concept in 1982:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=economic+migrants&year_start=1800&year_end=2019
Because all migrants have an economic ambition (better life). We just separate which ones we accept, and which ones we dont (usually by nationality - and if the need arises (when entire countries start wandering)).
The sending the "illigitimate" ones back, then also is mostly signaling, that that stuff doesnt fly. (Its actually expensive to do so.) Again - every migrant also has an economic motive. So we dont have to act as if some of them dont, or mostly dont.
On sending the "illegitimate" ones back (even sending the ones "less likely to get asylum away as fast as possible" even before they reach the EU) the The Economist article is with you. Again, just slightly less colored language.
Also remember, that the political regime stayed the same, so those of them that where political refugees... Well in fact, why didnt they stay and fight for their country.. (The welcome currently wouldnt be all roses is what I'm hinting at. )Economic migrants. Yes, sure.
Three aspects. If I ever have to leave my home country in my 20ies, I'd go some place, where I can live well. If my fortune, and my money allow it. Second, as mentioned in this thread before, the european immigration system was set up so that the countries on the outer edge take the "legal" impact (in exchange for money, Lisbon Treaty). And impact they took. So after a while the politicians of those countries said - well, we arent paying for them, let them through. Thats inofficially still. Thats also described in the article as "the system isnt working".
Again, still - if I'm the migrant and a greek official offers me the chance to continue on and reach germany or sweden, I'll do it.
Third. If they are somewhat in need - migrants, even in a larger number are seen as beneficial to your economy, just a few years down the road. Thats why the "number" your country can take - kind of is set by public acception, and not by a fixed calculation model. Up front, they are sunk cost, but that changes, as they are integrated (and in Europe they are integrated - failed examples also possible (Erdogans political influence in certain migrant communities f.e.)).
Now, where this fails is the following. First, if you have a diverse population of migrants, that by default get lower social class - the jobs that are available to them out of the gate - are actually limited. So in the entrepreneurial sector, small dealerships, restaurants, if they have money and the social acceptance is there. Otherwise, service or manual labor jobs. So if the perception is there, that "we dont need them for that - because we have many of those jobs filled by migrants already" (not my view, but its out there..
), they cant bootstrap economic communities on their own - so the transitioning process takes longer. That actually can usually be somewhat controlled through work permits (which also are tied to cultural integration). The second factor is culture and "cultural acceptance", this actually drives the "we have enough already" sentiment of the general public and formed political decisions all over Europe. So - its a definite factor. We dont have to talk around that.Now - onwards to "just close the borders". How do you do that.
The article actually tells you how. With money, in states outside of the European Union. So you actually pay for that (but also gain political influence - so.. its not that bad). And with what hungary did - which was? PR. "We've closed our borders." Catch a few folks, treat them badly, roll off some barbed wire... That you can do, after the influx is over, and before you are expecting another one. If people are already at your borders in the thousands - you cant.That then spreads around. Together with "we sent a few folks back to italy and greece". Where they'll have a poorer economic life (again, remember, lower social class as they arrive), which then also spreads around as word of mouth. And if you are lucky. The inbound pressure stops.
Inbound pressure stopping - the first out of five to do steps in the article above. So there The Economist actually agrees with you, just in a few less radical words.
Last bit. There is no such thing as an economic migrant. We kind of invented the concept in 1982:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=economic+migrants&year_start=1800&year_end=2019
Because all migrants have an economic ambition (better life). We just separate which ones we accept, and which ones we dont (usually by nationality - and if the need arises (when entire countries start wandering)).
The sending the "illigitimate" ones back, then also is mostly signaling, that that stuff doesnt fly. (Its actually expensive to do so.) Again - every migrant also has an economic motive. So we dont have to act as if some of them dont, or mostly dont.
On sending the "illegitimate" ones back (even sending the ones "less likely to get asylum away as fast as possible" even before they reach the EU) the The Economist article is with you. Again, just slightly less colored language.
Last edited by notimp,
1) Some are, some aren't. The trick (and what a lot of that article was about, how viable their proposals are being up for debate) was about weeding those migrants out to go back to the traditional ways of immigrating (though probably with a nice big black mark) and dealing with those that did flee. Similarly many of the war torn shitholes are just the other side of the med, and a med crossing makes more sense than a Sahara crossing, or even a next land border crossing, a lot of the time, to say nothing of the "get a fight somewhere and sort it out when you land". Doubtless some weighed up long term prospects beyond that but if the choice is forgo those things which are ultimately desirable to them and keeping them then I know which one I would pick.
2) Again some are, some aren't. International law and treaties do mandate you help the genuine people that make it to you. That is at least the bare minimum and if you can then helping out in such scenarios is commonly the done thing, whether it is justified by selfless or selfish reasons is a different matter (if a small injection of talent or cash means your trade partner and holiday destination for your people keeps ticking then time for a cost-benefit and all that). What that entails is again up for debate -- whether that means you want to send your language speakers/interrogation peeps to places they are landing by virtue of geography to sort it out, funds for it, agree to shoulder some of the burden or for you to say "you are on your own on that one" being where that one falls.
Land size is a tricky thing to argue, especially that simplistically, and I don't know about overpopulation either (the general abundance of fat cunts around the place and few reports of people starving tending to say much there), to say nothing of the difference in quality of land -- the US and Australia are both modern nations with science at their heart and a fondness for chemicals but the yields per acre of land as far as food production goes are far far lower in large parts of it than the UK and Europe manage to pull off. Now discussions of integration, housing supply (which is artificially low, terribly expensive for what it is* and not keeping up with demand), demand on public services, tax base (rather sensibly nobody is having any kids so the population is not getting any younger and the "not a pyramid scheme, honest" approach to pensions and healthcare (which by virtue of modern science is also getting more expensive) is starting to have effects), job supply/job quality (even without the increased cost the percentage of income required to pull off a house is far higher than it traditionally has been) is all very much worth discussing.
*while some of it is nice building materials being chosen (I don't like the US wooden houses very much) just as much as the amount of arse ache that goes into it -- people trust me to reverse engineer and alter electrical machines costing thousands or even millions, with production runs just a lucrative depending upon the results, and yet I can't replace a socket in my house without being registered to some rubber stamping exercise (I have met those that went through their courses and exams... scary that is), again despite said same and doing woodwork for decades now I can't replace a window without a FENSA ticket, and woe betide you if you want to replace something in a listed building or conservation area (can put in secondary glazing if you want though). I know some people that run a reclaim yard -- they are facing hard times now as the local building control could not do their job and declared that an old beam was an ancient original fitting despite pictures of being raised up by the person that ran said yard, on the flip side someone wanted a nice extension and was similarly compelled to use a nice green bit of oak which is now warping because it is not seasoned fully (for the thickness that is a decades long affair) and causing some fun there. This is getting off topic though.
2) Again some are, some aren't. International law and treaties do mandate you help the genuine people that make it to you. That is at least the bare minimum and if you can then helping out in such scenarios is commonly the done thing, whether it is justified by selfless or selfish reasons is a different matter (if a small injection of talent or cash means your trade partner and holiday destination for your people keeps ticking then time for a cost-benefit and all that). What that entails is again up for debate -- whether that means you want to send your language speakers/interrogation peeps to places they are landing by virtue of geography to sort it out, funds for it, agree to shoulder some of the burden or for you to say "you are on your own on that one" being where that one falls.
Land size is a tricky thing to argue, especially that simplistically, and I don't know about overpopulation either (the general abundance of fat cunts around the place and few reports of people starving tending to say much there), to say nothing of the difference in quality of land -- the US and Australia are both modern nations with science at their heart and a fondness for chemicals but the yields per acre of land as far as food production goes are far far lower in large parts of it than the UK and Europe manage to pull off. Now discussions of integration, housing supply (which is artificially low, terribly expensive for what it is* and not keeping up with demand), demand on public services, tax base (rather sensibly nobody is having any kids so the population is not getting any younger and the "not a pyramid scheme, honest" approach to pensions and healthcare (which by virtue of modern science is also getting more expensive) is starting to have effects), job supply/job quality (even without the increased cost the percentage of income required to pull off a house is far higher than it traditionally has been) is all very much worth discussing.
*while some of it is nice building materials being chosen (I don't like the US wooden houses very much) just as much as the amount of arse ache that goes into it -- people trust me to reverse engineer and alter electrical machines costing thousands or even millions, with production runs just a lucrative depending upon the results, and yet I can't replace a socket in my house without being registered to some rubber stamping exercise (I have met those that went through their courses and exams... scary that is), again despite said same and doing woodwork for decades now I can't replace a window without a FENSA ticket, and woe betide you if you want to replace something in a listed building or conservation area (can put in secondary glazing if you want though). I know some people that run a reclaim yard -- they are facing hard times now as the local building control could not do their job and declared that an old beam was an ancient original fitting despite pictures of being raised up by the person that ran said yard, on the flip side someone wanted a nice extension and was similarly compelled to use a nice green bit of oak which is now warping because it is not seasoned fully (for the thickness that is a decades long affair) and causing some fun there. This is getting off topic though.
I was laughing throughout that entire part.
How do you differentiate? Do you ask them? Or do you do it by country.
(And then ask them, if its for something like political asylum - where there actually need to be specific circumstances, which need to be successfully argued...)Are you here to have a better life? No. Ok, next. Are you here to have a better life. No. Yes. I mean, no. Haha, gotcha!
Sorry guys, the entire concept of "economic migrants" only became popular in the 80s, just for funzies..
(Political messaging. )Here is the usage of the german word for it, in googles ngram book search: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Wirtschaftsflüchtlinge&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=20&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1;,Wirtschaftsflüchtlinge;,c0
Same difference as with the english one. Then we have a dip, because it became kind of unpopular again for a while, but still more popular than when it started.
It was literally - the conservative right, thinking about, that according to their values corset, they had do take in migrants, but they didn't want to take all of them, so they invented a separation that basically allowed them to pick countries and still sound political correct.
Which will become very useful, if ever the mass migration from african countries starts.
Because I have a feeling, that people wouldnt want to be very tolerant then.Now reading the rest.
edit: "Land size" I dont think is a category that plays into arguing about migration flows - although I'm not an expert. Migration population size, actual need (the thing is, nobody wants to see famins, and refugee camp cities - at least not if we have some 'cultural closeness' to a country), potential alternatives (can we help them in the region), education level, and doubled up - cultural closeness (which actually is close to education, because otherwise we then invest in teaching them maybe their first alphabet, which gets expensive in mass - not prejudice mongering, just dang economics, and also prejudices within your own population).
edit2: Maybe the confusion is, that according to Wikipedia the UN calls them "migrant workers", (and we did so as well, before we invented the other term - at least in my country) which sounded too positive, so economic migrants got coined.
So we already had a word for it, then came up with a new one. How convenient. edit3: Also, dont use weeding. They are humans. Some ground level respect in conversation, please.
Last edited by notimp,
I was laughing throughout that entire part.
How do you differentiate? Do you ask them? Or do you do it by country.
Are you here to have a better life? No. Ok, next. Are you here to have a better life. No. Yes. I mean, no. Haha, gotcha!
Sorry guys, the entire concept of "economic migrants" only became popular in the 80s, just for funzies..
Here is the usage of the german word for it, in googles ngram book search: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Wirtschaftsflüchtlinge&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=20&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1;,Wirtschaftsflüchtlinge;,c0
Same difference as with the english one. Then we have a dip, because it became kind of unpopular again for a while, but still more popular than in the beginning.
It was literally - the conservative right, thinking about, that according to their values corset, they had do take in migrants, but they didn't want to take all of them, so they invented a separation that basically allowed them to pick countries and still sound political correct.
Which will become very useful, if ever the mass migration from african countries starts.
Now reading the rest.
Not sure what would be funny about the thing quoted. Seems like a fairly reasonable distinction too.
Yes you ask them. Same way customs and immigration has worked for probably centuries at this point, certainly since the advent of global travel for the masses. Same sort of things I get grilled on when I go places, same sorts of things you get tested on when you marry someone and the people come round for a visit -- where are you from, what are the nearby cities/villages, how do you pronounce certain words, what celebrations happen on these days, what are (or were) the local sports teams, what religion are you (they vary after all), if you are religious (and being atheist is often dangerous in those parts, then what was your religious leader's name -- your imam is usually a name you would know and was probably on some database somewhere, yet much like I don't know a priest's name a couple of villages over you probably won't know a simple imam from another country), what school did you go to, what was up with some notable event, where were your parents/grandparents born, if big city what section, name me some of your neighbours, talk to me about [landmark], what do you do for a job, do you have any papers/photos/similar that might confirm this... few people can do a convincing legend here, especially not under something resembling interrogation conditions (probably don't want to be putting too much pressure under someone that probably saw some shit in the recent past and has no clue about their future). Plus more general forensics (DNA sequencing, hair testing, antibody testing), plus corroboration (war torn shitholes weren't always that and they have social meeja like everybody else a lot of the time). Even if you have some savant level super spy that was a recluse in their "home" country then who cares as so few will be, and you could probably do a bit of a deterrent thing as well.
There seems to be a fairly easy distinction to make between person that ran because the bombs were dropping and found themselves by people firing off guns and person that decided to leave a relatively safe and secure place for no other reason than they reckon they can do better elsewhere and can't be arsed to apply for a visa or residency the traditional way (how easy or not such things may be to achieve, and whether it is any kind of fair, is a different discussion). Don't much see a concern with when a term might have been coined or got popular here. If the person did fall on the wrong side of a politician who decided to send in the boys then that is a different matter. Country borders mean less than they might currently in some other places there but yeah if one place is relatively OK and next door is not then you can start with that.
The statistics do not align with the BREXIT narrative, it's as simple as that. Migration of EU citizens to the UK has been steadily decreasing over the years and is now at its lowest point since 2014. In the year 2017 the UK saw 220,000 arrivals and 130,000 departures to/from EU countries, that's a net migration of 90,000. Meanwhile, during the same year, 285,000 arrivals and 80,000 departures to/from non-EU countries led to a net migration of 205,000. I'm no expert, but one of those numbers is much larger than the other, and it's not the EU one, which in fact continues to decrease.Well - actually... Leave your home country, if you can not find a job - especially if its the UK is a hard pill to swallow.
The sentiment against uncontrolled migration is actually ... ok ... (weak enthusiasm).
But now, lets look at what happened here (you can also watch the video linked above..
While every other major country in the EU pulled a clause, that allowed for a transitional period, witch limited access to their markets, after they installed free movement of EU citizens - Britain - the free market capitalists, that they were did not. In accordance only with sweden, and ireland.
see roughly: https://theconversation.com/the-hug...n-migrants-unfettered-access-to-britain-66077
And instead of about 10's of thousands of immigrants that they expected, came 100's of thousands (Poland had an economic crisis in 2004).
And then the british government for four years did nothing, and then the economic crisis hit. Roughly.
Then - the British people did nothing for altogether 14 years, held the grudge, and then voted to leave the EU, for no immediate, or real reason?
You have to understand. Internal migration within the EU slowed down to a crawl since then (on average, see: https://www.eib.org/attachments/migration_and_the_eu_en.pdf) - and nothing much was or is expected to happen in that regard again.
But - enter populists - the EU had a migrant crises from OUTSIDE the EU at the time, and then that was used by UKIP to scare the freaking bejeabus out of everyone that didn't know what the EU was. The idiotic thing was, that britain conrolled the channel (sea gap between UK and france) very tidely, and the EU certainly did't give those migrants EU passports and pronounced them citizens. So as a result, the UK almost didn't take any of the outside migrants around the time of the brexit vote, and wasnt in danger of having to do so.
The EU was in talks with several of their countries to voluntairily do so at the time (to share the burden), but there most countries just said - eff germany - and basically no.
Why did you have to leave the EU again? Btw...? Oh, yeah "whats the EU google searches one day after the referendum..
Leave me those polish people alone though, they were just fellow EU citizens looking for opportunity.
And the one thing the UK will come to realize yet, is - that you cant demand free movement of money (capital), and goods without free movement of labor in an economic union. Then all the rich folks get into one country, and dont let the poor ones come in, while they still do business all over europe - basically.
Framing BREXIT as an anti-immigration movement is silly - EU migrants provide skilled workers who contribute to the economy, and they do so right quick because otherwise they simply have to leave. Asylum seekers are the exact opposite - they're less likely to be skilled, less likely to even know the language and less likely to contribute. That doesn't make them "worse people", but their migration involves a different kind of calculus. Sure, on one hand you can argue that EU migrants "take jobs away" from citizens, but it's undeniable that freedom of movement has allowed the UK to fill in skill gaps and greatly benefit economically. It's all fine and dandy to say that foreigners are taking British jobs, but if they're jobs that Brits are either unwilling or not qualified to perform, what does it matter? I can assure you that private companies source employees from all over the world regularly, with or without the EU - that's what visas are for. BREXIT only makes sense as a sovereignty-oriented movement, otherwise it falls apart.
I would say there are a few more shades of grey in there. Skills wise I always remember going for an earlier job after university -- night and day shifts in a foundry doing analysis/batch testing on things. Not sure if they absolutely needed a degree but the interviewer was asking questions I would not expect the BTEC types to be able to answer (granted another quote from that was along the lines of if anything interesting happens we call the people in London to come up and have a look). On the way to the interview I went past a Lidl. Banner on the side of proudly proclaiming their hourly base wage for a shelf stacker was more than I would have earned. Granted this was agency work (albeit billed as long term) but if I were to be doing the good citizen bit and planning to do a wife, house and kids bit (possibly also contemplating sorting my student loans, which at the time were still fairly reasonable) that would have been demoralising as anything, and were someone doing the projected earnings bit when looking at what course to pick... yeah. Fortunately I was not looking to do that (indeed I would probably pay someone to ensure I don't do that) but if that is the lie you are told and believe then it would sting. Got several similar examples from those with things that few would mistake for being as useless as the proverbial underwater basket weaving, or David Beckham studies if I am to remember the terms favoured in the UK. Have also helped those run the numbers and have things change accordingly.
Similarly given the utterly half arsed attempts at IT recruitment I have seen so as ultimately to drag someone in from India or some such... "because there is nobody else". This wasn't for some super slick skillset the likes of which there are maybe 50 in the world that could handle but basis sysadmin stuff.
Nursing also has itself a debate every so often about dragging people across. No qualms about the quality but the wages that seem to work for that one, to say nothing of depriving said country of skilled people,... would more money see more people do things? I have seen quite a few get trained up and be attracted to the private sector as soon as, or to augment their base salary, and still do the same tasks.
Low skilled. While robots is probably the answer (some of the stuff I have seen for fruit pickers in the last few years... going to be fun that one) for some of those of "if labour from elsewhere was not available" then one wonders if wages and conditions might change to match what some of those twiddling their thumbs would be inclined to do for. If one does have the "first and foremost sort your house out" thing as a mindset then it gains some potency.
As it stands I am happy enough with things here (tweaks and improvements of course, and if we can avoid that Windrush lark again then so much the better), and generally find some combo of bone idleness and idiocy to account for a lot, I would say you risk over simplifying some things. At this point we are probably not far off stating positions on top down, bottom up, how right or wrong Keynesian stuff is, what types of control should be exerted and so forth but I will stop it here.
All I was saying was that there is a very obvious difference between a migrants who have planned their move out versus those who are migrating due to circumstances completely beyond their control, that's all. I'm not particularly fearful of migration, especially since I'm a migrant myself, but as you yourself say, you have to strike a delicate balance with those things. I personally see freedom of movement as a general good, it allows people to make money and move assets quickly and easily without being burdened by excessive taxation or government interference. That said, this freedom does not encompass the whole globe - it encompasses a very specific set of states with similar traditions, values and level of development. You have to set a bar somewhere, "European" is as good a spot as any, whatever that might mean to you.
The problem with this, and the EU in general is the euro. Member "states" are countries each with their very own economy, the euro was the single biggest mistake the EU ever made, that's what led to so many bailouts. How can one currency fit so many different economies? It can't. It doesn't, it was a mistake. Why would anyone do a job in Poland when they can do the same job in the U.K or Germany and get 10x what they would in their home country. This In-turn creates an influx of one way immigration. Didn't Poland have to put adverts out when they jointly hosted the euros with Ukraine asking them to come home because they didn't have the builders/population to build the infrastructure/stadiums as they were in other countries. Naturally you see the good in FOM because it's benefited you personally.
Last edited by Doran754,
It can do it very easily, actually. Let's not forget that currencies globally are pegged to the dollar anyways. Currency is nothing more than an abstraction of value, it's not actually "worth" anything per se. And yes, countries in general benefit from freedom of movement in terms of filling in skill gaps. I see nothing wrong with Polish construction workers working in the UK and Ukrainian construction workers working in Poland. Guess who benefitted from the deal? Poland, because it got a spiffy new stadium on the cheap. Whether we like it or not, we're all a part of the global economy - we do not live in closed ecosystems and migration has been a factor in terms of labour since the dawn of time.
This.
(And they controlled the channel, so didnt have to take any. Allthough the UK had a years old issue with internal (EU) migration where in 2004 about 100k polish people entered the country as working migrants (but that was shown to be a one time event). We've been through all of it already.
)I just posted the migration analysis of The Economist in here, because it shows how those issues are looked at by people who are working on them (usually thinktanks, The Economist has a similar approach). In general, there are many aspects that are looked at and weight against each other - going even down to setting different foreign policies.
Then a proposal like this is brought forward to political actors (who also have thinktanks (polit academies) working on similar ones), and if one is politically viable at the time, it might get enacted.
Its not bad having read such a thing at least once. Just for perspective.
Last edited by notimp,
Not sure I understand. Can you expand on that?This is the best Brexit related joke ever
I think those brave men and women who voted in favor of brexit had the right idea.
Brave Scottish and Northern Irish men and women whose nations aren’t sovereign I guess.
Similar threads
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
-
@
RedColoredStars:
Sooo. How about Dune part 1 & 2? The cinematography is fantastic, but thats some of the most boring ass sci-fi Ive seen in my life. -
-
@
RedColoredStars:
Im going to see the new Godzilla next week. Sure they aren't some cinematic masterpieces but the last few were all really great and fun popcorn flicks to see on the big screen.
-
-
-
@
RedColoredStars:
Oh. Wait. I took my mom to see Elvis. I think that was the last time I went. I'll most likely see the new Planet of the Apes in a theater too.+1
-
-
@
RedColoredStars:
..since it's locked and I really dont want to be a part of their attention seeking nonsense any longer.
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
RedColoredStars:
Hey. I'm really tired too. Going to eat my ham, green beans, and stuffing then take a nap. lol+1
-
@
SylverReZ:
Lol. I've had two naps one in the morning, another in the afternoon. Didn't have much sleep last night. -
-
-
-
@
SylverReZ:
@AncientBoi, Very little on money right now, so not at this time. But I'd wish I had a fucking big mac.+1
-
-
-
-
] 