• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Your thoughts on immigration

jay gw

Unregistered
J
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Messages
1,821
What's your thought on immigration? Does anyone totally oppose it, or believe in free/open borders between all countries?

If restrictions are put on immigration - what kind work best?

Comments from anyone with knowledge of the economics is appreciated.
 
I don't think it's a matter of supporting/opposing immigration as much as it is in recognizing that individual nations have a right to encourage or restrict immigration according to their needs. If your country has a shortage of labor, for example, it makes sense to encourage immigration. If your country has high rates of unemployment, it makes sense to restrict immigration. If the immigrants are refugees, then relaxing the rules and making accomidations for them would be a good humanitarian gesture.
 
Bugger nations. Where you're born is a matter of pure chance, you have no more right to be there than anyone else. You have as much right, but no more. "Sink or swim" is the normal experience of mankind; if you can't compete in a changing demographic environment, so be it. If you don't like it, move.
 
Where you're born is a matter of pure chance, you have no more right to be there than anyone else.
Click to expand...

Even though where you're born is a matter of pure chance, I don't believe that a person who contributed to making a society by working and paying taxes has "as much right" to be there than someone walking in 2 hours ago.
 
from jay gw:
Even though where you're born is a matter of pure chance, I don't believe that a person who contributed to making a society by working and paying taxes has "as much right" to be there than someone walking in 2 hours ago.
Click to expand...
There was a time when I'd just walked into my working-life two hours before. The society I lived in at the time wasn't made by me, it was made over a long period of time by people who are mostly dead. If someone moves here, takes or makes a job and contributes to society, what the hell. I only got here 50 years ago, and the forests had long been cleared. Kings had been topped and democracy established generations ago, not by me. I didn't even contribute to the Industrial Revolution or the war against Hitler. I've benefited from the results, but I've no more entitlement to them than anyone else who wants to come and benefit. I've worked, paid my taxes, voted, been a decent citizen (in my opinion), and appreciated how lucky I am. I'm not going to deny less lucky people the chance to come and do the same.
 
I think with questions like this it is sometimes best to separate immigration from people who seek asylum - something that does not always happen in the immigration debate in Britain. :(

People seeking asylum should be helped. I don't have a problem with immigration, either. These people may be in a poor position upon their initial arrival, but it is normally only a matter of time before they find their feet and start contributing to society. Whilst this can occasionally take a couple of generations it does happen. The substantial Indian merchant class of Britain are a fair example. :)

Jim Bowen
 
The society I lived in at the time wasn't made by me, it was made over a long period of time by people who are mostly dead. I've worked, paid my taxes, voted, been a decent citizen (in my opinion), and appreciated how lucky I am. I'm not going to deny less lucky people the chance to come and do the same.
Click to expand...

And what you have ignored, is that you are a product of that past. Just like the building you're inside of. Just like the street you're walking on. Just like the water you're drinking.

And the "luck" part. There's nothing to your success than an abstraction?
 
Iconoclast said:
Why?
Click to expand...

If you're suggesting that increasing immigration during times of high unemployment will somehow help the employment situation, I'd love to hear your reasoning.
 
Restricted immigration. There are times when immigration is necessary. Right now is not one of those times. If we are threatened by terrorists as we seem to be, then securing our borders would be a very good idea, not to mention a much better use of our National Guard troops.

Over 3 million illegal immigrants enter the US from Mexico each year. That is to say, ENTER from Mexico, not that they are necessarily citizens of Mexico. My concern at the moment is that a small terrorist cell or group of cells with big ambitions will be able to sneak in amongst the 3 million and do some damage. As has been pointed out numerous times, chemical and drug plants as well as nuclear facilities are vulnerable. People are starting to go back to the mindset that we are invulnerable again.
 
Mycroft said:
If you're suggesting that increasing immigration during times of high unemployment will somehow help the employment situation, I'd love to hear your reasoning.
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting anything... yet.

I simply asked you why it is that you think it makes sense to reduce immigration if a country has a high unemployment rate. I honestly don't see a connection between unemployment and immigration.
 
I suppose the simplest argument would be that immigration increases the labor force while the number of available jobs remains more-or-less constant. Quite reasonable sounding, although I imagine that immigration does increase jobs, (a larger market for products, more people who may start businesses) although it takes a bit longer.
 
Up front I'll have to admit that I'm not very consistent on my views on immigration and it has changed a lot over the years.

For refugees and asylum seekers then I'm for open arms. If someone is being tortured because they are the "wrong" religion/colour/politics and so on then lets help them if we can. I am however of the view that does not mean we need to "give" them the same "rights" as citizens of this country have in terms of right to abode anywhere and support from the state from day one.

I think we should help them to set themselves up, e.g. provide good basic housing, food and clothing for awhile (if necessary if they have no money). Also educate them and their children in English and English society and so on. And then offer them a "temporary residence", if the situation changes in the country they come from within a certain time period (for example 2 years) then their right to residence is rescinded and they need to return home. After that period they have the right to apply for full citizenship.

For economic immigration then I'm for quite strict controls. For instance I would like to see that all immigrants have a certain (basic) level of literacy in English, that their immigration is for the first few years, provisional e.g. if they cannot support themselves then they lose their right of residence, that they have to have health insurance for the transitional period and so on. I think this is quite a draconian approach and feel slightly uncomfortable advocating it as it feels almost wrong and alien. However since in this country citizenship automatically grants you the right to free education for your children, free health care from cradle to grave, pensions and income support then to "earn" these "rights" I think is a reasonable to say "You want to come here and be a citizen, then these are the rules."

What this would do to immigration into the UK and our apparent requirements for "cheap" workers is anyone guess. However I suspect it would mean the "metro's" of Greater London would be hit badly, after all who would clean their homes, look after their children and open door for them? They may have to actually pay decent liveable wages for a change. ;)
 
If a country has a critically high unemployment rate, wouldn't much of the migration to that country automatically dry up? After all, who wants to move to a place that has no job prospects?

This is one area where politics really has little effect. Those who pander to anti immigration sentiment ignore the fact that such immigration is market driven. People tend to migrate to the U.S., for example, because the U.S. economy needs them and is willing to pay for their services.
 
from jay gw:
And what you have ignored, is that you are a product of that past. Just like the building you're inside of. Just like the street you're walking on. Just like the water you're drinking.
Click to expand...
We're all products of human history (and our parents' carnality). What's your point? I bought the building I'm inside of from its previous owner. I pay taxes to maintain the street outside. I pay the water company for the water supply. Just as anybody else would. I really can't see what you're getting at.
And the "luck" part. There's nothing to your success than an abstraction?
Click to expand...
I thought I'd been clear, but clearly not. There's nothing to my being born here other than luck. I had nothing to do with it - I wasn't even consulted about being born at all. I've been lucky enough to have opportunities and I've taken advantage of them. That means my success, such as it is, is not entirely down to luck, but having those opportunities on my doorstep is.
 
Darat said:


What this would do to immigration into the UK and our apparent requirements for "cheap" workers is anyone guess. However I suspect it would mean the "metro's" of Greater London would be hit badly, after all who would clean their homes, look after their children and open door for them? They may have to actually pay decent liveable wages for a change. ;)
Click to expand...

Why do you think the goverment wants so many students?

edited for typo which has now been quoted
 
If a country has a critically high unemployment rate, wouldn't much of the migration to that country automatically dry up? After all, who wants to move to a place that has no job prospects?
Click to expand...

No. Employment rates are irrelevant. Most immigration to the United States and Europe is by people from poor dictatorship states, like Mexico and Morocco. The unemployment rate in France has no relevancy to whether North Africans or whoever emigrate. They will anyway. Economics are not the reason, only half of it.

Immigration is made up of push and pull. Even if the pull is gone with no jobs, no sensible person would believe that Morocco is a better place to achieve something than Europe is. Life as a Moroccan stinks. The push is ALWAYS there.

90 percent of the world's people would move to the West in 10 seconds flat if given any chance. I can't think of one reason why they'd stay in s##hole countries. Totally illogical.

Most of Mexico's income comes from transfers from America. Families force their children to leave and return money through transfers. If they can't find jobs, a life of crime in rich countries is far superior to honest jobs in poor ones. The Mexicans and South Americans in the United States formed a big drug mafia, so do Caribbean islanders, and make million$ every year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom