Immigration

[Enki]

Ok...so what do you suggest?  How many more millions from Africa/India/China/Indonesia/Brazil/ would Britain/France be able to accommodate? 

Is migration the solution to the problem of poverty? That is my question in the OP. 

The solution is to help the poorer nations in their own countries. Not bring them all to UK/France/US. That will only end up making everyone equally poor. 

Good mushy intentions are not good enough. There should be  sound, long term solutions.

I agree with you here, Sriram. But, of course there are huge problems associated with the practicalities of your solution. For your solution to work, as you say, such aid has to be delivered on an extremely long term basis and on a co-ordinated scale which no rich country yet envisions. Other formidable problems include the reduction of corruption, interference in the running of these nation states and how to effect such solutions to states which are in war situations.

[Sriram]

If all the migrants into Europe were Christians instead of Muslims....would that change anything? If they were all  english speaking would that help too?!

[Gonnagle]

Dear Udayana,

What would a world with no poverty look like?

A very good question, I for one would like to see that and find out what it would look like.

Maybe that could be a topic of discussion, is there a downside to eradicating poverty, I can't think of one, is eradicating poverty a pipe dream, seems to me that most governments the world over want to eradicate poverty but it usually comes with the clause "Yeh!! but what's in it for us"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34176846

Some critics argue that altruism is "the least persuasive" reason for giving foreign aid, she adds. The budget can also be used as a tool to promote the UK's "soft power" and to further its commercial interests.

Promote the UK's soft power but then we have some in this country up in arms over foreign aid, why should we be spending all that money when we have our own home grown poverty, do you think they have a point?

I do think old Sriram has a point,

The solution is to help the poorer nations in their own countries. Not bring them all to UK/France/US. That will only end up making everyone equally poor.

 

But without asking "what's in it for us".

Gonnagle.

[Walter]

Yes it would, Sriram

[Sriram]

I agree with you here, Sriram. But, of course there are huge problems associated with the practicalities of your solution. For your solution to work, as you say, such aid has to be delivered on an extremely long term basis and on a co-ordinated scale which no rich country yet envisions. Other formidable problems include the reduction of corruption, interference in the running of these nation states and how to effect such solutions to states which are in war situations.

Yeah...of course there are problems!   But that is still the only long term solution. All nations need to get together to help out these poorer nations. They have the money, expertise and experience.  That will also result in less problems for the developed nations themselves.

We should try to make poorer people  more wealthy...not make everyone (including the currently wealthy) equally poor and miserable.

[wigginhall]

One of the interesting aspects of immigration is shortages of labour.  As far as I remember, they have always occurred, and often in the same industries, e.g. catering, agriculture, health, skilled trades.   The EU provided a quick solution - if there is a shortage of lorry drivers, bring in some Polish ones.

One reply to this is that we should train our own lorry drivers.   Yes, that's fine, but then the shortages may crop up in another industry, so do we start training for that?   Some people say, use the unemployed, but of course, they need to be trained as well.

This relates to the issue of 'control', since we don't control shortages of labour, and immigration is often a response to them.  The risk is that denying immigration, clogs up the supply of work.

[Sriram]

One of the interesting aspects of immigration is shortages of labour.  As far as I remember, they have always occurred, and often in the same industries, e.g. catering, agriculture, health, skilled trades.   The EU provided a quick solution - if there is a shortage of lorry drivers, bring in some Polish ones.

One reply to this is that we should train our own lorry drivers.   Yes, that's fine, but then the shortages may crop up in another industry, so do we start training for that?   Some people say, use the unemployed, but of course, they need to be trained as well.

This relates to the issue of 'control', since we don't control shortages of labour, and immigration is often a response to them.  The risk is that denying immigration, clogs up the supply of work.

You mean migrants don't have to be trained? How can they all be innately highly skilled in the appropriate industries?

What is wrong with training local unemployed people anyway?

[Walter]

good post.
but if your petrol tank is empty you don't want to fill it with diesel!

[wigginhall]

You mean migrants don't have to be trained? How can they all be innately highly skilled in the appropriate industries?

What is wrong with training local unemployed people anyway?

Nothing wrong with that, but then what happens when shortages crop up elsewhere?  Do we now retrain our ex-unemployed, who have been driving lorries, to be brick-layers?   Meanwhile, there are 30, 000 Polish brick-layers, who are already trained. 

[Walter]

Its not their skills that I question, its their world view.

[Walter]

and some world views are a danger to human life.

[wigginhall]

Our local Polish brick-layers are OK, they drink well 'ard, spend the cash, flirt like mad, and bend those massive biceps.   Oh envy, where is thy sting?

[Walter]

I know what you mean. Where did it all go?

[Udayana]

Dear Udayana,

A very good question, I for one would like to see that and find out what it would look like.

Maybe that could be a topic of discussion, is there a downside to eradicating poverty, I can't think of one, is eradicating poverty a pipe dream, seems to me that most governments the world over want to eradicate poverty but it usually comes with the clause "Yeh!! but what's in it for us"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34176846


Promote the UK's soft power but then we have some in this country up in arms over foreign aid, why should we be spending all that money when we have our own home grown poverty, do you think they have a point?

I do think old Sriram has a point,
 

But without asking "what's in it for us".

Gonnagle.

hmm.. Gonners ...

A world without poverty is not going to arrive by itself ... so my thought was that it might help to know details of how such a world could work, so that we could plan how best to bring it about. 

Britain is a rich nation, we have a welfare system, social security, unemployment benefit, NHS, pensions etc... why do we still have poverty then? Because of immigrants, aid programs, EU, the rest of the world? Muslims? How do we end poverty in the UK?

[torridon]

That's not valid at all.  Most nations developed in poverty and misery. They became rich much later. 

'We all are migrants'... is not a meaningful argument at all. There are such things as nations, citizenship, geographical boundaries, governments etc. and they have a purpose and function.

The concept of global citizenship is a myth. We have seen how well the EU is faring, haven't we?!

I was talking to the bigger picture, of course, in which globalisation is a new phenomenon but we are still living with legacy power structures like nation states. Now we are so numerous, and now that human impact is so great that we are going to name a geological epoch after us, it seems to me we ought to be looking more to the bigger picture and thinking long term as a single human family having perhaps inevitable teething problems getting to know each other again after millennia apart. Projects like the EU show that is not a simple aspiration, but it is the direction of travel we need to be headed; retreating back into boundaried inward looking nation states will only make global problems worse.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Its not their skills that I question, its their world view.

Then the answer is to have an immigration system that vets world views. Would you be willing to pay more tax specifically towards a better immigration system - more vetting before entry and more enforcement? That could lead to delays and labour shortages and of course large, expensive camps where refugees or immigrants need to be kept until they are vetted and processed, where children could face abuse and people are left in frustrated limbo, with their skills getting wasted, a drain on resources rather than being productive members of society helping to support the local ageing population. Clearly there is no perfect solution and people have to balance the needs of different people.

Also, how do you counteract the effect of the long-winded legal process required for deportation of those who are citizens who suddenly develop the wrong world view? Our current legal system is innocent until proven guilty. The proving part is what usually results in people going free when they are probably guilty - because 'probably guilty' isn't enough to revoke citizenship.

Given that there are lots of law-breakers in the native or local population maybe businesses and people who support immigration figure the legal system wil have to deal with criminal behaviour as best it can. Few people expect it to be perfect or for there to be no violent crime when living in a society.

[Walter]

Gabriella
I have no problems with what you say. But it would be stupid to make the situation worse.
If you look on a map you'll see we live on an island.

[jjohnjil]

Helping poor nations to develop is a  great and worthy cause ...  but we soon started complaining when newly rich China began dumping steel everywhere and building coal fired power stations at the rate of one a week!

[Gonnagle]

Dear Walt,

If you look on a map you'll see we live on an island.

Are you referring to our island mentality?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/alex-bowell/britains-island-mentality_b_1080008.html

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/oct/08/hebrides-shaped-british-culture-madeleine-bunting

http://www.irishtimes.com/student-hub/island-mentality-shapes-uk-view-of-europe-1.2676655

Is this mentality partly to blame for Brexit? Do we actually have an island mentality?

Gonnagle.

[Walter]

I couldn't be bothered to read all that lot Gonners, but I think I know where you're coming
 from and yes I voted to LEAVE.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Walt,

Welcome to the forum.

So among all your other worthy characteristics.

I'm of a certain age, un-PC, highly self motivated, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic, misanthropic, with atheistic tendencies.

Do you also feel a certain superiority towards our European cousins.

Gonnagle.

[Walter]

er, no. How does that come to mind?

but there are certain posters on here I feel superior to judging by the posts I've been reading over the last year.

[floo]

er, no. How does that come to mind?

but there are certain posters on here I feel superior to judging by the posts I've been reading over the last year.

Would you care to name them? I can't think of anyone who is inferior to you!

[Walter]

Floo.

No.
Yes you can.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella
I have no problems with what you say. But it would be stupid to make the situation worse.
If you look on a map you'll see we live on an island.

Walt

It's an island with a growing, retired, ageing population that requires a better-funded NHS and workers to meet their needs, given the advances in medicine that keep them alive, and workers to pay taxes and workers to help our economy compete globally and pay for government spending on schools and public services for the growing population. The situation is going to get worse regardless of immigrants. Got any ideas? Bearing in mind that politicians think short-term because if they want to be elected.