Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The idea of the American dream, that hard working people can make it probably help as well. And finally, the awful social safety net means "They're coming to steal our benefits" is much less of an issue.

It's primarily hysteria over illegal immigrants. Also, there's a popular media image of black citizens stealing all the benefits anyway, so the space is too taken up to be concerned with immigrants.

[Wimopy]

More questions, anyone?

So... are there any countries which you think handle immigration right?
What would you do in the place of refugees? (Leaving for financial or political reasons, your choice, point is that you decide you cannot stay and you likely don't have any university degree/notable qualifications)

I think the US is popular because of its movies and propaganda. Even if you see a crappy film, it plays in America. It still gives America a kind of "anything can happen here, you can be anyone" vibe. The US is traditionally the "Land of the American Dream", where anyone can work their way up to the top from nothing. Was that ever true? Hard question, but some people did make it big. Still, I know that during our lost wars of independence/revolutions, a large number of Hungarians went to the US and "rich uncle comes home from America" stories were rampant not too long ago.
Well, that's the spark anyway, in my opinion. After that come what you've already said and it all grows from there.

Perhaps it's the fact that rich or famous people live there? That might explain why Russia is popular as well (though I guess Russia is simply a case of "that border is closer")

[Loud Whispers]

Perhaps it's the fact that rich or famous people live there? That might explain why Russia is popular as well (though I guess Russia is simply a case of "that border is closer")

Give the Russians some credit lol, most of their cities may be full of only snow, slavs and krokodil but if your choice is between that or staying poor in Uzbekistan or Kyrgyzstan you're going to make the journey to get some roubles.
Though given that the rouble isn't worth what it used to be, immigration to Russia is set to fall 10%.
I should hope this trend doesn't continue, there's nothing as intriguing quite like talking to a nice east-Asian family who speak English with heavy Russian accents. Stuff like that defies every stereotype conceivable.

So... are there any countries which you think handle immigration right?

How to handle migrants depends on the country. I know how a country handles it wrong! Ha!
I think the UK should emulate the Swiss model more, but the UK is also in a rather unique position to be able to utilize the commonwealth too. In essence, it boils down to:

• Leaving the EU. Nothing can be done without this. Krauts and slavs have made this abundantly clear.
• Establishing control on the number of people entering the country to allowing only workers, students and investors.
• Deporting illegal immigrants, fining those who hire them. Same goes with any who had a part in the rape gangs, or killings.
• Have the Royal Navy patrol the Mediterranean to capture human traffickers, repatriate trafficked refugees or just send them to the Germans. Someone risking their life to cross the Med will risk their life again crossing from Calais; stop it at the Adriatic and it's never a problem.
• Give citizenship to foreign servicemen who fly British colours. It's a small thing, but is especially relevant to the Nepalese. They bloody well deserve it, and the benefits that come with it (no pun intended).
• Give asylum to informants who worked with British intelligence against terrorists like Al-Qaeda or ISIS. Pretty self explanatory, even one informant being killed because they helped Britain is one too much.
• Try to loosen restrictions on work visas between commonwealth nations. It is much too hard for some commonwealth citizens who have family in Britain, who have had them there for decades, to be able to get at the very least dual-citizenship.

I'd also add something about integration in there but... Frankly, we've managed to have passed the point of no return in the span of a single decade. Quite impressive really to see just how much damage labour managed to cause in so short a timespan. There are 84 schools in the UK where there's not a single British pupil in them. London is now a foreign country, one I am in absolute love with, but there's no denying that it feels out of place in the Isles and the city planners seem to have a disturbing enthusiasm for wiping out the city's old limestone and redbrick heritage to make way with the glass and steel of New York and Abu Dhabi. There are no Britons to assimilate into. I have no idea how you recover from that. My only idea would be to promote sovereign nationalism like the SNP or UKIP; even then I still think it's too late.

What would you do in the place of refugees? (Leaving for financial or political reasons, your choice, point is that you decide you cannot stay and you likely don't have any university degree/notable qualifications)

Excluding going to the UK and pretty much just doing what I'm doing; go to Sweden for education and benefits, and once I've got education there, work at a country with much better climate like central northern america or new zealand.

[Morrigi]

I don't think the USA's size is that relevant. It's not like we're lacking physical space to house migrants, or anyone think overpopulation is really a problem, or we'd see policy designed to reduce the number of children by natives as well.

USA's size is relevant, it has its own wealth of gas reserves, capital, natural resources, freshwater, plenty of housing, recreational facilities; with only its healthcare and public transit falling short. In the UK we have a housing crisis, education crisis (specifically relating to overcrowded classrooms), have immense strain on our aging sewage systems and the reason why there is no policy to reduce the number of children in native families is because their families are small to begin with. 84% of all British population growth is a result of immigrating families being far larger than British families. The policy to reduce births in British families would be to do nothing, because Britain's population would be declining without mass immigration and the next generations would be able to enjoy greater wealth and a less-burdened country. They tend to have 1 kid per family.

I think the more positive attitudes in the US are simply due to the fact that so much of the population is descended from immigrants or are immigrants themselves. I mean, what percentage of the population doesn't have at least one grandparent that was born abroad?

They do not hold a monopoly on being a nation of migrants. Just about every nation that was on the silk road can say the same. And they aren't nearly as popular as the USA.

The idea of the American dream, that hard working people can make it probably help as well. And finally, the awful social safety net means "They're coming to steal our benefits" is much less of an issue.
As for your table, Luxembourg is a EU member like any other, but it has a outsized banking sector, so I guess a lot of immigrants there are actually finance professionals. But I'd be wary of those numbers: they don't have error ranges, and my guess would be that all you can say for most countries is "It doesn't have much of an impact, one way or another".

*Economic impact. Which is notable especially, when considering that mass immigration was championed under labour to their public support as economically essential to the nation when as the decade passed, the evidence suggested the economic effect was either negligible as you say, or harmful as the report says. The impact itself has been great to the country.

We've got a pretty big problem regarding the fresh water thing, at least out West.


Anyway, yes, excessive migration can be a serious issue, and it should be regulated, and regulated severely if necessary.

[Loud Whispers]

The United States of America is the single largest destination for immigrants in the world, with an immigrant population of approximately 45 million out of 315 million total residents.

Something something something most Americans are immigrants gib land back to natives pl0x

Dat manifest destiny CB, too strong paradox nerf Seljuks pls

We've got a pretty big problem regarding the fresh water thing, at least out West.
Anyway, yes, excessive migration can be a serious issue, and it should be regulated, and regulated severely if necessary.

100% drought in Cali?!

[LordBucket]

I think some of the statements about the US are slightly lacking perspective. Yes, the country is large, yes there's "room" for another billion people. That's not the problem. Offering the point of view of a southern californian, "immigration" itself isn't a problem. And while illegal immigration isn't exactly a national problem, it is local problem for states on the border with mexico.

For example, according to wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States

There are ~2.9 million illegal immigrants in california. Meanwhile, California's total population is 38.8 million.

Roughly 7.4% of the entire population of the state of california are illegal aliens.

According to pewreearch.org, illegal immigrants make up 5.1% of the total US labor force, and in california, it's 9%.

Is anyone going to pretend that that's not going to have a significant effect simply because we "have room" for more people?

Many of them are not culturally integrating. Many of them don't speak english. Lots of them are taking jobs leaving starving college students unable to find work. And companies that hire illegals favor it because they can pay under the table. I don't want to be defending the tax state here, but when it's 10-15% cheaper to hire an illegal, that does create a disincentive to hire people who are here legally.

It's also a significant health concern, as large numbers of them come from poor parts of mexico and southern american countries where vaccination and sanitation standards are poor. My grandmother once hired one as a live in nurse, and the woman would not put used toilet paper in the toilet. She would put it in the trash next to the toilet, and no matter how many times we tried explaining to her that US plumbing is good enough to not break if you flush toilet paper, still she insisted on putting it in the trash. Many of these people have never been vaccinated for anything in their entire lives, they lack understanding of basic sanitation.

It might not be a national problem, but it's definitely a problem for states on the border with mexico.

[Morrigi]

We've got a pretty big problem regarding the fresh water thing, at least out West.
Anyway, yes, excessive migration can be a serious issue, and it should be regulated, and regulated severely if necessary.

100% drought in Cali?!

Exactly. We have plenty of physical room for more people, but the natural resources are stretched beyond breaking point as is, and the only way to un-fuck the water problem is going to be building desalination plants on a vast scale. This can be done, and is, but it will not be cheap.

[blackmagechill]

Many of them are not culturally integrating. Many of them don't speak english.

This is probably the biggest thing people complain about with illegal immigrants after jobs. Almost everyone who comes here legally usually knows enough English to get by and hold a conversation, and is has accepted our culture as far as they need to, but illegal immigrants are inclined not to learn the language and thusly can't integrate into the culture, even if they wanted to...

I think if you're going to live in the country you would do well to adopt it's culture to a point, and understand what is within norms and what is not. I love that when I go to any major city in the US I can find different areas that are influenced by different cultures, but I also like that I can talk to most of the people there and begin to understand their culture, without seeing anything that is totally abhorrent to me as an American.

[Sheb]

Well, first of all refugees. I think no one can really dispute that they should be able to get in. Even if we ignore our treaties obligations, I don't think anyone think that we should look up to the St Louis as a model of successful immigration policy. We could argue about who exactly deserve refugees status though (what about Erythrean that face a life of government imposed slavery? Syrians coming from a civil war? Iraki Christian and Yazidis facing approaching ISIS, gays from Uganda)? And the best solution (temporary visas or permanent resettlement) doesn't have to be the same in each case.

Now, illegal immigration is an issue, if only because it's nice to keep track on who's in country. But apart from the humanist point of view that people should be able to move where they want (which a fair number of forumgoers wish to do), it's fairly clear that you can't stop  it only with a stick. The people that we find on ships in the Med are obviously willing to risk anything to make it to Europe.

What we need is some kind of work permit program on the model of what they have in Dubai (without the human right abuse). The easiest way to stop illegal immigration is to make it legal.

Then, once they're legal, you can actually work on integrating those that want to stay. Give them language lessons, etc etc.

[wobbly]

Very nice to see slightly conflicting ideas between the UK and the US.

USA's a big fucking continent on its own; their infrastructure can handle a growing population. Differences in geography will determine differences in policies; take Australia for example. Big country, but most of it is desert. They can't handle immigration, unlike say, a country in the fertile tropics with a shit ton of room for development like Brazil.

I don't think this is really true. Even accounting for desert Australia has 1 of the smallest population densities in the world where as Brazil has incredibly over populated cities. Also saying Brazil is fertile is ignoring the problems high rainfall gives in terms of soil leeching & erosion. They're probably bad examples to pick for the point you're trying to make.

[Wimopy]

What we need is some kind of work permit program on the model of what they have in Dubai (without the human right abuse). The easiest way to stop illegal immigration is to make it legal.

Then, once they're legal, you can actually work on integrating those that want to stay. Give them language lessons, etc etc.

That actually sounds good. Within the EU or the US, people could also be moved to areas where low-skilled workforce is in high demand.
The problem is that this still would cause an extreme amount of incoming immigrants, which still have to be fed/housed/looked after. No one wants to invest so much money into something that won't give much back in the near future.

The best solution would be to solve the problems in the original countries, but that's a whole different topic and problem of its own.

[Reelya]

Are job opportunities threatened by refugees?

In Australia at least, refugees make up a very small percentage of immigrants, maybe 3% or so. But they get kicked around by politicians as a scapeoat - for cheap labour flooding into the country that the same anti-refugee politicians actually pushed for in the first place!

The previous John Howard government of Australia got a lot of grass-roots conservative voters on side by cracking down on refugees, highlighting how many refugees were "queue jumpers", yet if you look at the records, about 97% of the refugees they intercepted were found to be legimitate refugees at the end of the day, and were let into the country normally by the Howard government. So their boat-blockades did absolutely nothing except costs millions of dollars a day in deployment of naval vessels for work they're not designed to do, all for a few votes.

The Howard government was also playing both sides of the fence, too. Since big business, who bankrolled Howard's party wanted more cheap labour in Australia (which helps to crush the unions that Howards government hated), at the same time as Howard was cracking the whip, just for show, against a few refugees, they actually massively increased the number of legal economic migrants (who ARE actually taking jobs from the same blue collar workers who vote for Howard) and massively increased the number of temporary work visas where they can pay foreign workers less than minimum wage. So the whole thing smacks of hypocrisy - bully a few refugees to make yourself appear anti-immigrant to the redneck voters while opening the actual floodgates for cheap labour to keep big business happy.

[Sheb]

The problem is that this still would cause an extreme amount of incoming immigrants, which still have to be fed/housed/looked after. No one wants to invest so much money into something that won't give much back in the near future.

The best solution would be to solve the problems in the original countries, but that's a whole different topic and problem of its own.

Wait, what? The whole purpose of a work permit is that the people that come in have work, so they can perfectly pay for their food and housing themselves. The people crossing the Med at the moment are paying thousands of euros to cross the med. It'd be easy enough to sell work permits for a fraction of that price, that would undercut the smugglers and fund migration enforcement.

[Loud Whispers]

Now, illegal immigration is an issue, if only because it's nice to keep track on who's in country. But apart from the humanist point of view that people should be able to move where they want (which a fair number of forumgoers wish to do), it's fairly clear that you can't stop  it only with a stick. The people that we find on ships in the Med are obviously willing to risk anything to make it to Europe.

The refugee issue is perhaps the hardest one to resolve. You have to be able to detect the criminal and militant elements hiding amongst the refugees, you have to find a place to house the refugees and turning them back before their country has stabilized is pretty likely to result in their forced conversion or death if say, their country was destabilized by jihadists. Then there is the issue of how long they stay, for the longer they stay the harder it will get to relocate them. I look nervously to Sweden who have nutjobs like Lia Magnusson saying it's racist to want to deport asylum seekers convicted of raping Swedish women and girls. I am acutely aware of not all crossing the Med doing so with the best of intentions in mind.

What we need is some kind of work permit program on the model of what they have in Dubai (without the human right abuse). The easiest way to stop illegal immigration is to make it legal.

Well... No. The problem isn't how you get here really, but who, how many and for what end. Creating a legal avenue that makes it even easier to enter your nation is akin to legalizing theft to stop burglary; I'm not sure it'd really help.

Then, once they're legal, you can actually work on integrating those that want to stay. Give them language lessons, etc etc.

If you've got the money and are within sustainable limits, this is the ideal.

My point is that a greencard lottery encourages illegal immigration by way of the fact that when you give people the impression that it's escape to a different country illegally or die, they're going to pick the former. No fence will fix that. Even the illusion of an actually possible legal option is better than none.

A note I must make, is that spam adverts tend to advertise things people want most in life. Money, sex, big dicks, fat loss, bigger busts, whiter teeth and... There were and probably still are spam adverts for green cards.

Very nice to see slightly conflicting ideas between the UK and the US.

USA's a big fucking continent on its own; their infrastructure can handle a growing population. Differences in geography will determine differences in policies; take Australia for example. Big country, but most of it is desert. They can't handle immigration, unlike say, a country in the fertile tropics with a shit ton of room for development like Brazil.

I don't think this is really true. Even accounting for desert Australia has 1 of the smallest population densities in the world where as Brazil has incredibly over populated cities. Also saying Brazil is fertile is ignoring the problems high rainfall gives in terms of soil leeching & erosion. They're probably bad examples to pick for the point you're trying to make.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The desert's a big deal. As for Brazil, this is not an issue. Growing economy, better job prospects, increasing economic and political stability (slightly iffy on the last part) all make it worthwhile. Likewise soil erosion is not an issue, the farmers will just keep doing what they do when their cattle grazing grounds or arable land have ceased being worthwhile. They'll burn down more of the amazon and use more fertilizer. This is what they're already doing to cope with an already increasing population (both in Brazil, and across the world with more people increasing demand for crops).

Slightly off topic, road map comparison and temperature comparison of Canada and Russia:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I just find it neat how geography of a nation dictates a nation's future, and in many ways shapes policy.

[wobbly]

You do realize your maps actually prove my point. Look at that population density scale maxing at 100 or more. Compared to what Wikipedia gives for south cental england at over 600 or Singapore at over 7000.

Also your solutions to Brazils issues sound more like a massive problem then a solution. Where's that big fertile Brazil you are talking about if they turn it into a man made desert.