Your thoughts on immigration

[Tmy]

national security?? Didnt all the 911 terrorists enter legally?? Putting the national guard on the boarders wouldve done squat to prevent that.

Im up for controlled immigration. Right now our immigration policies are pretty good. Its the enforcement that sucks. When people overstay, no one bothers do to anything about it. Most illegals accutally enter legally.


Where in the Constitution does it say we can limit immigration. I only ask cause we have so many people who strictly adhere to the wording of the Con.

 

[CapelDodger]

from jay gw:

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.

That very much depends on how much of Morocco you own and what your business is. It's a beautiful country and many of its people live happy and prosperous lives there. If you have no stake and no great prospects, but the money to get to Europe - the truly indigent die where they sit - or even the US, then you may decide to try a life of ducking and diving outside the system, getting spat at by bigots who think their country stinks, and being exploited by sleazebags (often their compatriots).

 

[Mycroft]

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.

Presumably the immigrants will want jobs. If the unemployment rate is already high, allowing a large number of new immigrants would only make that situation worse.

On the other hand, if unemployment is low and there is a labor shortage, increasing immigration solves that problem nicely.

 

[jay gw]

Morocco is a beautiful country and many of its people live happy and prosperous lives there.

Apparently in spite of the fact Morocco has a repressive government, human rights violations thru the roof, no free speech or freedom of association. Interesting.

I don't doubt that 1 percent of any population is rich. That's the world for you. What I doubt is that 99 percent can overcome the obstacles and succeed, given that every obstacle has been (deliberately) placed in their way.

 

[geni]

Presumably the immigrants will want jobs. If the unemployment rate is already high, allowing a large number of new immigrants would only make that situation worse.

On the other hand, if unemployment is low and there is a labor shortage, increasing immigration solves that problem nicely.

The question europe is facing/going to have to face is can it solve demographic problems?

 

[jay gw]

The question europe is facing/going to have to face is can it solve demographic problems?

Meaning?

http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/

Here's a side by side of the candidates, Bush supports too many amnesties, for illegal alien children for example, but Kerry supports ALL types of amnesties!

An amnesty is a "we forgive you for coming into the United States illegally, guess you can stay as long as you want to" type of thing the government gives to a class of illegal aliens, if they politician oks it.

Btw, over 70 percent of Americans want an end to immigration. Rich people love it though.

This is one issue where I disagree with both candidates. They don't see any problems with immigration, but then, they employ lots of cheap labor (Kerry's wifes ketchup factory).

Ordinary working Americans couldn't give a rat's ass about cheap labor, because they mow their own lawns.

And don't bother with the cheap labor = lower prices nonsense. If that were true, then why when Microsoft and every other software company moved to India to pay 10 dollars a day to software writers, did my software go UP?

And that Tommy Hilfiger shirt? Wage to Malaysian worker: 50 cents. My price: 80 dollars. Tommy Hilfiger: billionaire

 

[The Fool]

Presumably the immigrants will want jobs. If the unemployment rate is already high, allowing a large number of new immigrants would only make that situation worse.

On the other hand, if unemployment is low and there is a labor shortage, increasing immigration solves that problem nicely.

Immigrants consume, consumption requires production and that creates jobs. The line that immigrants will take our jobs is very popular amongst Isolationists but nations economies are never that simple and you cannot say that immigration=more unemployment....well, you can say it but its a damn site harder to demonstrate it to be true.

 

[El Greco]

We've had a lot of issues with immigrants from Albania (but other countries too) during the last 15 years. Almost ALL manual workers are foreigners now. Many times Greeks have taken advantage of the fact that foreigners are illegal and they didn't pay their wages. Local workers keep protesting because they lost their jobs. Foreigners would work without social security, at least when they first came here, so they were extremely cheap. I guess it's difficult to avoid xenophobia when you have lost your job. Crime has gone up, which was terrible for a country were a lonely woman could walk alone all Athens at 3am without the slightest incident. Ever since immigrants started getting legal, we have faced other problems: The already inadequate health and education system have become seriously overcrowded.

So, from my experience, I'm against free economical imigration. I don't see how is it any different from a guy entering forcefully in my house and claiming a room for himself. The fact that this house may have been built by my father, doesn't give that guy the same privileges that I have. And mind you, when my father was paying taxes, he was also doing it for his children and grandchildren.

There are also other issues with illegal immigrants: Functional warps appear in the way our democracy operates. A significant percentage of people can't vote for their rulers. Other people vote for them. Those who can vote are more likely to vote on a more chauvinistic basis. Nationalism goes up. Antitheses sharpen. Hatred goes through the roof.

Mind you, Greeks have traditionally ranked among the most anti-racist people. They still are. But when you see things from the inside it gets a lot harder to maintain your lofty views.

Finally, I don't think that there is any real issue here. Illegal immigration is ...ehmm... illegal. Is there any country without restrictions, more or less severe ? What kind of a domino would withdrawal of said restrictions create ? My guess is that after the smoke would settle down, the haves (ex-poor) would try to hedge their belongings from the have-nots. This is the human nature. Now, if you try to impose on people to share their belongings... hasn't this been already tried out with terrible results ?

 

[Earthborn]

Foreigners would work without social security, at least when they first came here, so they were extremely cheap. I guess it's difficult to avoid xenophobia when you have lost your job.

Sounds to me like an excellent argument for making all of them legal immigrants. Then they'll have the same protections as other workers, wouldn't be so ridiculously cheap and wouldn't outcompete other workers so severely. The more illegal you make these immigrants, the more likely they will be the victims of employers who see them as a cheap disposible workforce.

Crime has gone up

Again, a good reason to legalize them. Keeping them illegal just provides criminals with cheap labour and keeps immigrants in situations where they are in close contact with crime.

Ever since immigrants started getting legal, we have faced other problems: The already inadequate health and education system have become seriously overcrowded.

If they are legal they also contribute to these systems by taxes and premiums. Most new immigrants are young and fairly healthy, so they will contribute to the system, without taking too much out of it.

There are also other issues with illegal immigrants: Functional warps appear in the way our democracy operates. A significant percentage of people can't vote for their rulers.

Again a good reason to make them legal.

I don't see how is it any different from a guy entering forcefully in my house and claiming a room for himself.

I see a huge difference. When someone enters your house, he invades your privacy. If he starts to live in the same street, he does not. Privacy is only relevant when it comes to entering individual homes, not entering societies of millions of people.

 

[Jon_in_london]

I'm in favour of controlled/restricted immigration.

Basically there are good reasons to have immigration controls. High levels of immigration in time of high unemployment are almost certain to generate inter-ethnic tensions along the "they are stealing our jobs" line. The truth of this sentiment is irrelavent- it happens regardless. Even in times of labour shortage, high immigration can be problematic because the situation WILL change over the coming years and we get the old "they are stealing our jobs " again. We have seen in the UK that immigrants repatriate themselves in large numbers if they cannot find work. There are currently quite a number of eastern europeans sleeping rough in London who would like to get home but cant afford the bus-fare.

Another argument against mass immigration is the ghetto-fication of communities. This leads to a failure to integrate and assimilate with the natives and leads to inter-ethnic tensions not just between immigrant communities and the natives but between different immigrant groups.

There are also problems with the welfare state. If immigrants are allowed in without the means to support themselves they become a burden on the state- occupying taxpayers' resoucres that should rightfully go to pensioners or natives who have contributed to the pot {I do of course recognise that welfare leeching by certain natives is also a problem and that they should be forced to work for the taxpayers money they recieve}. It is quite simply not an option to deny support to immigrants who cannot support themselves. It is quite beyond our remit as humans to deny medical attention to a sick child simply because the child is an immigrant. Problems will also arise with homelesness and a resulting increase in crime as desperate immigrants turn to it as a last resort to feed/clothe themselves and their families.

The situation in the UK has been made enormously worse by the PC desire to class all illegal immigrants as "Asylum Seekers". I assume this was invented by bleeding-heart lefties to shame people who hold adverse views on illegal immigrants {they arent illegal immigrants they as asylum seekers!!}

While I agree with awarding refugee status to genuine asylum seekers, there has to be system of control in place that enures that illegal entrants are deported asap and not allowed to simply disappear as they are at the moment. I also think that refugess should be repatriated when the situation in their home-country changes but should be given the opportunity to apply for permanent resident/citizen status after a given period of time. At the moment, if your grand-parents were British, you can get an 'ancestry visa' and claim citizenship after 4 year. I would therefore say that a refugee should not be awarded permanent resident status before 6 years and citizenship before 8 year of continual residence- with evidence of integration and contribution to society.

Im in favour of legal immigration on the basis of a points system similar to that used by Australia and NZ.

 

[El Greco]

Sounds to me like an excellent argument for making all of them legal immigrants. Then they'll have the same protections as other workers, wouldn't be so ridiculously cheap and wouldn't outcompete other workers so severely.

What kind of argument is this ? Do you live in another universe, or what ? How can a country of 10 million make all immigrants legal ? We already have 5 million of them. Can you imagine what legalizing ALL of them means ? How many more will they come ? Will we make ALL of them legal ?

The more illegal you make these immigrants, the more likely they will be the victims of employers who see them as a cheap disposible workforce.A gain, a good reason to legalize them.

Once more, do you know of any country that legalizes ALL immigrants, or do you propose a new system of your own ?

Keeping them illegal just provides criminals with cheap labour and keeps immigrants in situations where they are in close contact with crime.If they are legal they also contribute to these systems by taxes and premiums. Most new immigrants are young and fairly healthy, so they will contribute to the system, without taking too much out of it. Again a good reason to make them legal.

Do you realize that we don't have the infrastructure for this ? Do you have any idea what happens in a school of 1000 kids when you put in there 1000 more ? Do you want me to speak about the hospitals ? Do you want me to mention the public services which are unable to serve so many people ? The housing problem ? Do you want more ?

I see a huge difference. When someone enters your house, he invades your privacy. If he starts to live in the same street, he does not. Privacy is only relevant when it comes to entering individual homes, not entering societies of millions of people.

No, there is no difference. If you don't like the "my house" example, then think about another house that I have and nobody lives in. Is someone justified to take it because he has no house of his own ? "Societies" are not abstract things. Societies have properties. The state has property. We pay for it, we are not allowed to damage it and we can also sell it.

Frankly, I think that you don't have the slightest idea of the real dimensions of the problem.

 

[El Greco]

Sounds to me like an excellent argument for making all of them legal immigrants.

And I'm really amazed at how you propose something like this without having he slightest idea about our society, the problems we face, they problems the immigrants face, their numbers, our numbers, how many immigrants are already legal, what our infrastructure can handle, the social issues, the religious issues, the fact that this doesn't happen anywhere in the world, etc.

I'm also amazed with myself that I even answered.

 

[Jon_in_london]

I do know that there are people on this board that are in favour of having no immigration controls at all.

Frankly, I find this absolutely ill-thought out.

 

[Earthborn]

We already have 5 million of them. Can you imagine what legalizing ALL of them means ?

Let's turn that around: what does it mean for a country to have 5 million people living in it with no legal rights, no legal protection and who are basically at the mercy of organised crime? Is that any less disruptive to that society than making them all legal?

How many more will they come ?

Probably a lot, especially if only a single country would dare to do it. Unfortunately countries are constantly competing to make their immigration laws tougher, which just results in making it harder on other countries. Somehow the solution must ultimately lie in open borders around the globe, which I readily admit won't happen very soon.

Once more, do you know of any country that legalizes ALL immigrants, or do you propose a new system of your own ?

A system of my own. A super-Schengen. A worldwide free flow of people and goods. Pretty much Utopia right now, but it might become an inevitable result of globalisation. I will readily admit that it isn't an option right now, and no country can start it on its own. But I do believe that keeping immigration restricted causes more problems than it solves, so one day the world will need to get rid of those restrictions.

Do you realize that we don't have the infrastructure for this ? Do you have any idea what happens in a school of 1000 kids when you put in there 1000 more ? Do you want me to speak about the hospitals ?

No country has the infrastructure for it, but what doesn't exist can be built. And with a little bit of luck, globalisation will make many parts of the world richer, so people don't have to move around so much for economic reasons.

If you don't like the "my house" example, then think about another house that I have and nobody lives in. Is someone justified to take it because he has no house of his own ?

This may surprise you, but under Dutch squatting law, people are allowed to this if the building is unused by the owner for quite some time. But this is an ownership issue and not significant for the issue of immigration.

With immigration, your country just gets more inhabitants. That's all there is to it. I see no significant difference between immigrants entering a country and newborns being born in it. In both cases there is an increase in the number of people benefitting and contributing to society. I see no reason for state controlled population control whether of newborns or immigrants. Most countries in Europe have (despite low birthrates) still have an influx of immigrants that is insignificant compared to the increase of newborns anyway.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Let's turn that around: what does it mean for a country to have 5 million people living in it with no legal rights, no legal protection and who are basically at the mercy of organised crime?

..................................................................

With immigration, your country just gets more inhabitants. That's all there is to it. I see no significant difference between immigrants entering a country and newborns being born in it. In both cases there is an increase in the number of people benefitting and contributing to society. I see no reason for state controlled population control whether of newborns or immigrants. Most countries in Europe have (despite low birthrates) still have an influx of immigrants that is insignificant compared to the increase of newborns anyway.

1. It means deporting 5 million people in my book, that and making it as hard as possible for any more to enter.

2. If immigration and migration continue at their current rates, by 2030, the UK will have 7 million more inhabitants 90% of whom will be immigrants. Most immigrants settle in London and the south-east where the pressure due to population density on housing, transport, health-care and education is already so severe that things are coming apart at the seams. In addition, all of these migrants will age and become pensioners- exacerbating the already critical pressure on the taxpayers to support the aged. In short, we are already far too overcrowded on this little island and mass immigration will simply make things worse.

It is also essential to recognize that all of these immigrants will be of a foreign culture, foreign language and foreign values. See my above post on the problems this causes............

 

[El Greco]

I see no significant difference between immigrants entering a country and newborns being born in it. In both cases there is an increase in the number of people benefitting and contributing to society. I see no reason for state controlled population control whether of newborns or immigrants.

Without addressing the other issues which are already self-addressed, I'd like to point out that the above is completely inaccurate. Most European Union countries (ie the ones that have problems with immigration) have so low birthrates that actually their population declines. Greece for example would have a smaller population in 2020 if it weren't for the immigrants.

Most countries in Europe have (despite low birthrates) still have an influx of immigrants that is insignificant compared to the increase of newborns anyway.

This must be the single most inaccurate thing I've read in this forum during the last few months. Equalizing a sudden influx of 5 million immigrants -in the course of 10 years-, (most of them adults, all of them poor) with the near zero growth of Greek population (and most EU countries, for that matter).

 

[karl]

Presumably the immigrants will want jobs. If the unemployment rate is already high, allowing a large number of new immigrants would only make that situation worse.

Not necessarily. Equating a high unemployment rate with a shortage of jobs is somewhat over-simplified. At least in this day and age. It simply means that there is a shortage of the kind of jobs that the unemployed are 1) suitable for and 2) willing to take.

Failure to meet the first condition can be due to, for example, substance abuse, poor health, inexperience or lack of education. Failure to meet the second one could be due to laziness, low wages combined with high unemployment benefits, or refusing to relocate to where the job opportuinty is.

The important question is whether the immigrants will be competing for the same types of jobs as those currently unemployed. An inflow of foreigners with engineering degrees to Iraq won't negatively affect, say, their laid-off carpet store sales clerks. And the West could do with some more people willing to scrub toilets for minimum wage.

 

[richardm]

1. It means deporting 5 million people in my book

If you can find 'em, which you can't, because you made it so difficult for them to get into the country that they had to smuggle themselves in then disappear...

 

[Jon_in_london]

And the West could do with some more people willing to scrub toilets for minimum wage.

The Elizibethans had the right idea in this regard withtheir work-houses.

Personally I think that if you want to claim benefits because you arent willing to do manual/distastefull work then you should be compelled to do so. Personally I would love to see those lazy bastards that hang around drinking beer and smoking outside the social security office every morning being compelled to clean the Tube on their hands and knees.

 

[Jon_in_london]

If you can find 'em, which you can't, because you made it so difficult for them to get into the country that they had to smuggle themselves in then disappear...

It isnt that difficult to find them... but at the moment nobody is even trying!