Immigration

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

In the context of increasing resistance to immigration in Europe and other countries, I have never really understood what these developed countries hope to achieve by allowing literally millions of migrants into their country.

If it is about humanistic policies and a wish to alleviate their suffering, then...how many more of such millions are they going to allow in the future?  There are literally billions of very poor people in developing/underdeveloped countries. Are all these people going to be allowed over the years? Does this actually help these migrants and the locals?  Is it merely to find people to do the low level jobs that the locals don't want to do? 

I can understand temporary refugees being allowed because of war or natural disasters and who would be sent back once the situation improves. But taking in migrants just on the basis of poverty is dysfunctional.   

I would have thought that sending in expert teams and investing lots of money in these poor countries to help them change their economic conditions would have been more useful and more workable in the long run.

Any views?

Cheers.

Sriram

[Aruntraveller]

I would have thought that sending in expert teams and investing lots of money in these poor countries to help them change their economic conditions would have been more useful and more workable in the long run.

I don't disagree. Good luck with trying to persuade people/govt in the UK to invest lots of money in poor countries. The argument would be something like we must take care of our own first and that we already invest a lot in these poorer countries (provided they buy their ammunition and guns from us).

Not an argument I subscribe to as even though I am not a Christian I do think there is quite a lot of general good sense in the "we are all God's children" line of thought.

[SusanDoris]

I can't think of anything useful to contribute, but I do think the situation could well get out of hand.

[JP]

I think countries trying to develop economically deserve support and need their young people. It is no good when those who can help walk away.

A little tongue in cheek, but when people are interviewed they are all, or aspiring to be, engineers, doctors or teachers. While I know we are in desperate need of these people here as we are a talentless lot, perhaps the need for them elsewhere is greater.

[Brownie]

There will be people who work over here for a few years, Jack, and then return to their native land. Not everyone wants to stay here permanently. Nothing wrong with that, plenty of UK people do the same and it is good experience.

We are not a talentless lot any more than any other country, all my life I've heard of shortages of suitable applicants for various professions;  it's just a fact of life that not everyone is able to aspire to a profession, it doesn't mean they can't do a decent job of work or be trained to do something marketable.

[Walter]

I have many views on immigration, Sriram. Thanks for asking.

[Sriram]

I have many views on immigration, Sriram. Thanks for asking.

Well......?!

[Walter]

the truth would scare you!

[Sriram]

the truth would scare you!

Ok....but if the others here haven't scared me all these years...its unlikely that anything you say will scare me. 

But try me anyway! 

Out here we all are used to speaking our minds very openly. So...don't hold your punches. Go ahead..say it as it is.

[Walter]

Id like to stay on the board for longer than  a couple of hours ,thanks anyway .

[Walter]

OK then, this is what I think.

I am cityist, townist, villageist, streetist nextdoorist, and I don't like some of the people who live in my house

does that help?

[Walter]

OH, and I get these qualities from the wonderful people of the mining village I grew up in and a grammar school education.

[Walter]

I would have thought that sending in expert teams and investing lots of money in these poor countries to help them change their economic conditions would have been more useful and more workable in the long run.




Sriram, are we in a sixth form economics class debating session?

[torridon]

I can understand temporary refugees being allowed because of war or natural disasters and who would be sent back once the situation improves. But taking in migrants just on the basis of poverty is dysfunctional.   

I would have thought that sending in expert teams and investing lots of money in these poor countries to help them change their economic conditions would have been more useful and more workable in the long run.

That sounds a good plan in principle but I'm not sure it's not just a little pie in the sky in practice.  Many of the world's poor are poor because of corrupt power regimes that can siphon off western aid with ease and these countries need massive infrastructure investment to bring them up sufficiently to make them properly habitable so that people don't want to leave. Western governments limited by four year electoral cycles cannot countenance such unpopular massive overseas aid spending. And corruption is not the major problem by a long way; the underlying drivers of changing climate patterns and expanding populations mean that conditions in many poor countries are going to get worse at a faster rate than western powers could fix it for them.

The Brexit vote and the popularity of Trump are measures of western unwillingness to face up to such global challenges.  It is short sighted thinking to imagine that building walls and reducing freedoms of movement are going fix anything in the long term.

[wigginhall]

I think 'bring back control' is an ironic slogan from the Brexit campaign, since it seems unlikely to me that we can control many aspects of the economy.   If you think of neo-liberalism, how much control of that is there?  Of course, you can make attempts to reject it, but then there is the danger of becoming isolated, johnny-no-mates.   Or there is the alternative of war, of course.

Anyway, it's going to be interesting to see if the UK can accept the free movement of goods, services and capital, but not people.   I had to laugh at the slogan, 'we're open for business', with the rider, 'as long as you don't want to work/live here'. 

[Walter]

and this one

'we don't want you, just your money'  hmm , sounds like my ex wife                     

[wigginhall]

Also, 'even though we've split up, can we still have sex?'   Me with my ex-wife.

[Walter]

emigrant---- immigrant.   the same person viewed from different ends


hmmm

[Jack Knave]

That sounds a good plan in principle but I'm not sure it's not just a little pie in the sky in practice.  Many of the world's poor are poor because of corrupt power regimes that can siphon off western aid with ease and these countries need massive infrastructure investment to bring them up sufficiently to make them properly habitable so that people don't want to leave. Western governments limited by four year electoral cycles cannot countenance such unpopular massive overseas aid spending. And corruption is not the major problem by a long way; the underlying drivers of changing climate patterns and expanding populations mean that conditions in many poor countries are going to get worse at a faster rate than western powers could fix it for them.

The Brexit vote and the popularity of Trump are measures of western unwillingness to face up to such global challenges.  It is short sighted thinking to imagine that building walls and reducing freedoms of movement are going fix anything in the long term.

So the EU is as nice as pie and fair with its customs union? Talk about raising the drawbridge.

[Walter]

and don't forget to fill the moat!

[Jack Knave]

I think 'bring back control' is an ironic slogan from the Brexit campaign, since it seems unlikely to me that we can control many aspects of the economy.   If you think of neo-liberalism, how much control of that is there?  Of course, you can make attempts to reject it, but then there is the danger of becoming isolated, johnny-no-mates.   Or there is the alternative of war, of course.

Anyway, it's going to be interesting to see if the UK can accept the free movement of goods, services and capital, but not people.   I had to laugh at the slogan, 'we're open for business', with the rider, 'as long as you don't want to work/live here'.

Many in Britain who want control because of the chaos of globalization are not alone as many across the global feel the same; many in Europe and in the US. If they work together they could dismantle this Neo-Liberalism of the rich elites.

[Jack Knave]

and don't forget to fill the moat!

It's electrified fence these days, with police with pepper spray...

[Hope]

Hi everyone,

In the context of increasing resistance to immigration in Europe and other countries, I have never really understood what these developed countries hope to achieve by allowing literally millions of migrants into their country.

Sri, take Germany as an example.  They have a population that is rapidly growing older and older - with very little prospect of the numbers required to fill the existing jobs with the up and coming generations - their birth rate has dropped below the replacement number.  They need migrants who will take those jobs and help pay for the old age of the existing work-force.  I accept that this is a fairly simplified explanation - with many other factors to be taken into account, but hopefully it will give you some idea of the issues Europe faces.

[Hope]

I would have thought that sending in expert teams and investing lots of money in these poor countries to help them change their economic conditions would have been more useful and more workable in the long run.

And where is that money going to come from, Walter?  Most Western nations are struggling to pay for their own ageing populations.  The best way to improve the lives of the developing nations is not to work with government but with grass roots organisations - local charities, etc.  This is how many of our own charities - Oxfam, Save the Children, etc. are working.

[torridon]

And where is that money going to come from, Walter?  Most Western nations are struggling to pay for their own ageing populations.  The best way to improve the lives of the developing nations is not to work with government but with grass roots organisations - local charities, etc.  This is how many of our own charities - Oxfam, Save the Children, etc. are working.

That's nice but its still peanuts. You are not going to turn around a failing state like Libya by small scale piecemeal investments at a local level, it requires massive international will for which nobody has the appetite. After disastrous naive interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya which western democracy is going to summon the will and the finance to embrace a nation building agenda. We aren't up to it.