The Age of Migration: The EU and the US in Crisis

[Sebastian]

All summer the news has covered the unfolding catastrophe that is the Migration Crisis along the southern borders of the European Union. Not only is it a humanitarian crisis triggered by unceasing warfare in Africa and the Middle East, but also the ravages of climate change in already marginal agricultural areas.

Moreover, it is an economic and social crisis as Europe attempts to absorb millions of people arriving with no money, no food and little education. Some European nations are reacting by closing borders (Hungary), erecting border controls in the Schengen Area (Denmark, Slovakia) and reevaluating asylum policies as discontent rises amongst European populations over the crime and poverty that coincided with large influxes of immigrants.

Sweden, a nation long open to immigrants (33% of the population is not Swedish born), is now considering new regulations as crime skyrockets to unprecedented levels (30 bomb attacks this summer) in their third largest city, Malmo, (now majority migrant) as housing and jobs become scarce. Some are attempting to do what they can (Germany) to help the migrants but can't deal with raw numbers coming in (300,000 this year alone arrived in Germany).

Populist parties long considered fringe players, like the Swedish Democrats, now top the polls. In the US, the rise of Donald Trump as the GOP front-runner mirrors the EU's discontent as the American public confronts a government that has long talked of comprehensive immigration reform but has passed no meaningful legislation. Indeed, it has long been fashionable in the EU to view any discussion of immigration reform as an exercise in racism. However, we know see that no discussion of the matter has led to devastating consequences and has allowed irresponsible actors like Trump and the Swedish Democrats to control the narrative.

How should the EU and US respond to the growing crisis? Should they allow migrants in? Do native cultures have the right to not be overwhelmed by unlimited immigration? Should they manage immigration or should they help solve the underlying problems of war, poverty and climate change? Maybe all of the above.

Good article on why this has become such a huge issue in so short a time. And yes, we actually can blame the US (Libya and Syria) for much of this....

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6146/europe-migration

@gourimoko @jking948 @jlj3184

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

How should the EU and US respond to the growing crisis? Should they allow migrants in?

Yes.

Do native cultures have the right to not be overwhelmed by unlimited immigration?

Yes

Should they manage immigration

Yes.

or should they help solve the underlying problems of war, poverty and climate change? Maybe all of the above.

No.

I'm a big believer in cultural superiority, and I could absolutely see why most Western//Central European nations prefer their culture to that of the areas from which many of these migrants are coming. And if immigration happens quickly enough that cultural assimilation cannot occur, the culture will end up drifting towards that of the migrants, and away from that of the natives.

 

[Adam]

I would challange the idea that migration is not being discussed. I cant walk down to the town without hearing it being discussed. Just a little anecdotal evidence in mytown of approx 60,000 people we have had significant EU migration, mainly polish. the town is now moving towards 10% migrants. People hate it. but they are idiots. Every measurement shows migration benefits the economy in the UK, but my god everyone is so scared about shops with a different language on the front or people speaking a different language in the streets.

This is not even touching on the non-eu migration that is the real issue, but my point is people wont tolerate people who come over to work and pay taxes, then people who come over from syria with just their kids and shirts on their back have no chance of open arms from the UK. Its disgusting.

this shows the recent effort by the EU and how bad we are at chipping in

So i think the argument of there is not enough space if frankly nonsense, but there is a lot of political capitol in playing to peoples fears and the murdock press love to whip up a storm.

I think the main issue locally as a lot of things in the UK is actually about class. Most of the migrant workers in the UK from the EU are fulfilling working class jobs and living working class lives, their ambition and ability to join the culture is low (they wont be here forever just for a while) during the 50s-70's we had mass migration from india and pakistan. This caused huge social upheaval but over time they have made their own aspects of the UK culture and have set up business and achieved great things. That doesnt seem to be a focus of the eastern european migrants and i think that winds up a lot of UK citizens who either see them as a threat to their low paid unskilled jobs (despite the fact that alot of them would see themselves too proud to work in the fields etc..) or just a huge increase in the great unwashed.

But there might be hope. The opposition party (labour) is having leadership votes right now and one candidate (jeremy corbyn) is standing up to most perceived wisdom in parliament. As a socialist MP of many years he offers an actual change in the way the country works, which quite frankly now is the equivalent of policys by twitter trends.

Good example: If you migrate to the UK and you are from india you have to earn £30,000 a year to keep your visa (so dont be a teacher or a nurse) but dont open a restuarant, thats not allowed.

anyway not sure what this adds to the debate just my thoughts. I teach a lot of migrants and most of them are great kids (although they do smoke too much)

 

[Sebastian]

I would challange the idea that migration is not being discussed. I cant walk down to the town without hearing it being discussed. Just a little anecdotal evidence in mytown of approx 60,000 people we have had significant EU migration, mainly polish. the town is now moving towards 10% migrants. People hate it. but they are idiots. Every measurement shows migration benefits the economy in the UK, but my god everyone is so scared about shops with a different language on the front or people speaking a different language in the streets.

This is not even touching on the non-eu migration that is the real issue, but my point is people wont tolerate people who come over to work and pay taxes, then people who come over from syria with just their kids and shirts on their back have no chance of open arms from the UK. Its disgusting.

this shows the recent effort by the EU and how bad we are at chipping in

So i think the argument of there is not enough space if frankly nonsense, but there is a lot of political capitol in playing to peoples fears and the murdock press love to whip up a storm.

I think the main issue locally as a lot of things in the UK is actually about class. Most of the migrant workers in the UK from the EU are fulfilling working class jobs and living working class lives, their ambition and ability to join the culture is low (they wont be here forever just for a while) during the 50s-70's we had mass migration from india and pakistan. This caused huge social upheaval but over time they have made their own aspects of the UK culture and have set up business and achieved great things. That doesnt seem to be a focus of the eastern european migrants and i think that winds up a lot of UK citizens who either see them as a threat to their low paid unskilled jobs (despite the fact that alot of them would see themselves too proud to work in the fields etc..) or just a huge increase in the great unwashed.

But there might be hope. The opposition party (labour) is having leadership votes right now and one candidate (jeremy corbyn) is standing up to most perceived wisdom in parliament. As a socialist MP of many years he offers an actual change in the way the country works, which quite frankly now is the equivalent of policys by twitter trends.

Good example: If you migrate to the UK and you are from india you have to earn £30,000 a year to keep your visa (so dont be a teacher or a nurse) but dont open a restuarant, thats not allowed.

anyway not sure what this adds to the debate just my thoughts. I teach a lot of migrants and most of them are great kids (although they do smoke too much)

I think I should have qualified my original post as you are correct insofar that the UK has been discussing immigration for a long, long time now (hello, Enoch Powell and the Rivers of Blood!) thanks to the Empire and then the Commonwealth. The UK tends to be more conservative on the subject than many of its peers and it has had the effect of a continued dialogue for the past few decades that has allowed debate on the issue to mature.

However, my observation is that many of the other Northern European nations, particularly the Nordics, Benelux countries and Germany, have not had meaningful dialogue since 1989. In many of those countries there were really only two viewpoints: One either accepted the idea of unlimited immigration with generous benefits for migrants without question, or one was labeled a racist. Major parties glossed over legitimate concerns regarding the strain large numbers of refugees posed, such as housing, jobs, assimilation and overall carrying-capacity, because they dismissed questions of policy as the rants of a right-wing lunatic fringe. Unfortunately, by lumping legitimate concerns together with the xenophobic nonsense sputtered by neo-Nazis into one verboten topic, the governments of those nations not only failed to address what would logically happen if migrant numbers increased greatly, but they also lost the ability to hear what concerned constituents had to say on the matter.

The result was the rise and legitimization of Far-Right parties like the UKIP, Swedish Democrats, the PVV of Geert Wilders and Venstre in Denmark who were the only ones discussing immigration policy in a meaningful, if not awful manner. It allowed parties who had been consigned to the fringes of their nation's political landscape to seize the narrative by correctly pointing out that the establishment parties had ignored both the concerns of the people and the structural weaknesses of their various immigration policies. The consequences of having, in some instances, those overly-zealous parties in power is having sensible solutions overlooked in favor of knee-jerk draconian measures resulting from the lack of mature dialogue on the issue over the years.

 

[Adam]

In some ways the immigration problem follows the same cause as the traffic issues in the UK. In the 1970's the government surveyed the road network to decide how much investment to put in. In the end it was decided that only minimal investment was needed because most of the traffic would be gone in 10 years due to flying cars.

When the free movement of people from eastern Europe was first considered it was though only a few thousand would move. That seems silly now but thats why a lot of countries are left scrambling. Luckily in the UK UKIP is so shambolically stupid they are no real threat to power but the fear they spread has infected the conservative party, not due to ideology but due to the threat of losing votes. Now we have stupid legislation designed to make headlines instead of a real difference.

I think if people had the chance to be sold on a vision of integration that was detailed in terms of its cost and benefit long term, if people were reminded the reason syrian refugees want so desperately to leave. Immigration from outside the EU is a mainly humanitarian issue, hell im surprised loads of Greeks haven't joined them.

Most people only care about what they can see and believe what they are told. Politicians need to start to educate instead of pander to the populous and re-assure that the country will not run out of houses etc..

I think in Germany this has a chance to work, although culturally they were not very diverse before this so it will be a shock in that respect. The UK, with is austerity and privatization mandate based on outmoded understanding of the deficit relies on a fear the country is going bust to get the public to swallow all the public sector cuts. This means they cant invest and so everyone thinks one of the few economies that is actually working doesn't have the money, which is wrong

Spain i understand, they are having their own problems (not helped by the millions of brits living their not paying any tax)

I cant help it, my ideology prevents me from thinking its a bad thing. Change is always bad if not managed well. In 20 years time it will be normalised. Its just the next step in globalisation. As long as they work and pay taxes i don't care. Now corporations who base themselves in ireland to avoid tax, they are the ones crippling my country

Surely in the states immigration is vital to fulfill the bottom of the wage ladder, keeping costs down in construction etc. If any country should be open to immigration it should be the US surely?

 

[Sebastian]

In some ways the immigration problem follows the same cause as the traffic issues in the UK. In the 1970's the government surveyed the road network to decide how much investment to put in. In the end it was decided that only minimal investment was needed because most of the traffic would be gone in 10 years due to flying cars.

When the free movement of people from eastern Europe was first considered it was though only a few thousand would move. That seems silly now but thats why a lot of countries are left scrambling. Luckily in the UK UKIP is so shambolically stupid they are no real threat to power but the fear they spread has infected the conservative party, not due to ideology but due to the threat of losing votes. Now we have stupid legislation designed to make headlines instead of a real difference.

I think if people had the chance to be sold on a vision of integration that was detailed in terms of its cost and benefit long term, if people were reminded the reason syrian refugees want so desperately to leave. Immigration from outside the EU is a mainly humanitarian issue, hell im surprised loads of Greeks haven't joined them.

Most people only care about what they can see and believe what they are told. Politicians need to start to educate instead of pander to the populous and re-assure that the country will not run out of houses etc..

I think in Germany this has a chance to work, although culturally they were not very diverse before this so it will be a shock in that respect. The UK, with is austerity and privatization mandate based on outmoded understanding of the deficit relies on a fear the country is going bust to get the public to swallow all the public sector cuts. This means they cant invest and so everyone thinks one of the few economies that is actually working doesn't have the money, which is wrong

Spain i understand, they are having their own problems (not helped by the millions of brits living their not paying any tax)

I cant help it, my ideology prevents me from thinking its a bad thing. Change is always bad if not managed well. In 20 years time it will be normalised. Its just the next step in globalisation. As long as they work and pay taxes i don't care. Now corporations who base themselves in ireland to avoid tax, they are the ones crippling my country

Surely in the states immigration is vital to fulfill the bottom of the wage ladder, keeping costs down in construction etc. If any country should be open to immigration it should be the US surely?

I think the underlying issues driving migration are far more serious than they have been in the past six decades and that a new Age of Conflict and Climate Change will drive migrants North into the EU in numbers never before seen. Much of Africa is at war, arable land is diminishing and the population is inexplicably exploding. Coupled with unceasing war in the Middle-East, the EU cannot expect a respite any time soon. This is no crisis centered on a small war in the Balkans; this is the consequence of landmasses populated by 1.5 billion people, who hate each other, engaged in a constant state of violence and horror while suffering through climate change. There is no end in sight so long as the global powers take no interest in helping these nations get on their feet. It is the disintegration of Yugoslavia x100 except without any plan to stop the fighting or a KFOR to aid in rebuilding efforts.

Quite frankly, NATO's ill-conceived adventurism in Libya, and the US' stupid, visionless policy in Syria and Iraq, only lifted the lid on a disaster well in the making. People won't stop coming because the alternative is worse than risking death in the Mediterranean.

As for the US, I don't think most are opposed to immigration. I think that the unlimited and unobservable nature of a border with no controls is what unnerves people. I am pretty liberal but even I would like to know who is coming across and how many. There is indeed a real number of how many immigrants a nation can safely welcome in a given year without risking huge economic and societal damage.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

However, my observation is that many of the other Northern European nations, particularly the Nordics, Benelux countries and Germany, have not had meaningful dialogue since 1989. In many of those countries there were really only two viewpoints: One either accepted the idea of unlimited immigration with generous benefits for migrants without question, or one was labeled a racist. Major parties glossed over legitimate concerns regarding the strain large numbers of refugees posed, such as housing, jobs, assimilation and overall carrying-capacity, because they dismissed questions of policy as the rants of a right-wing lunatic fringe. Unfortunately, by lumping legitimate concerns together with the xenophobic nonsense sputtered by neo-Nazis into one verboten topic, the governments of those nations not only failed to address what would logically happen if migrant numbers increased greatly, but they also lost the ability to hear what concerned constituents had to say on the matter.

I think you're right that all countries can't be lumped together. Immigration generally is a positive, but that doesn't mean that massive, uncontrolled immigration is. The reunification of Germany required Germany to absorb a massive number of people from an economically depressed region in a short period of time and it was not easy. And at least those people spoke the same language and had some of their own infrastructure and goods, unlike most of the current wave of immigrants who come with nothing. Perhaps the U.K. has a much smaller number of immigrants, but for some of the Nordics, Hungary, etc., they're not just crying wolf about a few immigrants.

The reality is as you pointed out in your initial post -- there is a huge swath of the world's population that lives in poor, comparatively dysfunctional places. And some open-borders advocates seem to operate under the delusion that you can just export those people to other nations, and they'll all just magically live much better lives without burdening their new countries. That simply isn't possible. You will, at least for a significant period of time, have the same GDP being spread among a significantly larger number of people. So quite obviously, those who lived in those nations beforehand may not be keen on that. Some of them believe that rather than mass immigration, perhaps the better solution is for those countries to start fixing themselves.

The reality is that most people in the developed, more prosperous parts of the world like the fact that they aren't living in the third world. They like the culture that led them to build that prosperous society, and they don't want the culture that lead to those other nations being dysfunctional. Who would?

That's usually the point at which you start getting people screaming about "racism", and discussion breaks down. Just because some people in those first world nations express racist opinions about immigrants does not invalidate legitimate concerns about cultural differences that others may have. That's why the rate of immigration is so important. If immigration occurs slowly enough, new immigrants will be immersed more fully in the new nation, and will be more likely to adopt the cultural mores of their new nation more quickly.

In contrast, massive immigration makes it more likely that immigrants will band together in more insular groups. And rather than them adopting the cultural mores of their new nation, parts of the host nation will start looking more like where the immigrants came from. Which is exactly what many in the host nation don't want, because they want to preserve what they value of their country so that it doesn't become more like the Third World.

 

[Cratylus]

I'm a big believer in cultural superiority, and I could absolutely see why most Western//Central European nations prefer their culture to that of the areas from which many of these migrants are coming. And if immigration happens quickly enough that cultural assimilation cannot occur, the culture will end up drifting towards that of the migrants, and away from that of the natives.

Amen, Brother Beavis! Amen!

The Superiority of Western Values in Eight Minutes
By: Ibn Warraq

The great ideas of the West—rationalism, self-criticism, the disinterested search for truth, the separation of church and state, the rule of law, equality before the law, freedom of conscience and expression, human rights, democracy—together constitute quite an achievement, surely, for any civilization. This set of principles remains the best and perhaps the only means for all people, no matter what race or creed, to live in freedom and reach their full potential. Western values—the basis of the West’s self-evident economic, social, political, scientific and cultural success—are clearly superior to any other set of values devised by mankind. When Western values have been adopted by other societies, such as Japan or South Korea, their citizens have reaped benefits.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness: this triptych succinctly defines the attractiveness and superiority of Western civilization. In the West we are free to think what we want, to read what we want, to practice our religion, to live as we choose. Liberty is codified in human rights, a magnificent Western creation but also, I believe, a universal good. Human Rights transcend local or ethnocentric values, conferring equal dignity and value on all humanity, regardless of sex, ethnicity, sexual preference, or religion. At the same time, it is in the West that human rights are most respected.

It is the West that has liberated women, racial minorities, religious minorities, and gays and lesbians, recognizing their rights. The notions of freedom and human rights were present at the dawn of Western civilization, as ideals at least, but have gradually come to fruition through supreme acts of self-criticism. Because of its exceptional capacity for self-criticism, the West took the initiative in abolishing slavery; the calls for abolition did not resonate even in black Africa, where rival African tribes took black prisoners to be sold as slaves in the West.

Today, many non-Western cultures follow customs and practices that are clear violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). In many countries, especially Islamic ones, you are not free to read what you want. Under sharia, or Islamic law, women are not free to marry whom they wish, and their rights of inheritance are circumscribed. Sharia, derived from the Koran and the practice and sayings of Muhammad, prescribes barbaric punishments such as stoning to death for adultery. It calls for homosexuals and apostates to be executed. In Saudi Arabia, among other countries, Muslims are not free to convert to Christianity, and Christians are not free to practice their faith. The Koran is not a rights-respecting document.

Under Islam, life is a closed book. Everything has been decided for you, the dictates of sharia and the whims of Allah set strict limits on the possible agenda of your life. In the West, we have the choice to pursue our desires and ambitions. We are free as individuals to set the goals and determine the contents of our own lives, and to decide what meaning to give to our lives. As Roger Scruton remarks, “The glory of the West is that life is an open book.” The West has given us the liberal miracle of individual rights and responsibility and merit. Rather than the chains of inherited status, Western societies offer unparalleled social mobility. The West, Alan Kors writes, “is a society of ever richer, more varied, more productive, more self-defined, and more satisfying lives.”

Instead of the mind-numbing certainties and dictates of Islam, Western civilization offers what Bertrand Russell called liberating doubt. Even the process of politics in the West involves trial and error, open discussion, criticism, and self-correction. This quest for knowledge, no matter where it leads, a desire inherited from the Greeks, has produced an institution that is rarely equaled outside the West: the university. And the outside world recognizes this superiority of Western universities. Easterners come to the West to learn not only about the sciences developed in the last five hundred years, but also about their own cultures, about Eastern civilizations and languages. They come to Oxford and Cambridge, to Harvard and Yale, to Heidelberg and the Sorbonne to acquire their doctorates because these degrees confer prestige unrivaled by similar credentials from Third World countries.

Western universities, research institutes, and libraries are created to be independent institutions where the pursuit of truth is conducted in a spirit of disinterested inquiry, free from political pressures. The basic difference between the West and the Rest might be summed up as a difference in epistemological principles. Behind the success of modern Western societies, with their science and technology, and their open institutions, lies a distinct way of looking at the world, interpreting it, and rectifying problems: by lifting them out of the religious sphere and treating them empirically, finding solutions in rational procedures. The whole edifice of modern science is one of Western man’s greatest gifts to the world. The West is responsible for almost every major scientific discovery of the last 500 hundred years, from heliocentrism and the telescope, to electricity, to computers.

The West has given the world the symphony and the novel. A culture that engendered the spiritual creations of Mozart and Beethoven, Wagner and Schubert, of Raphael and Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci and Rembrandt does not need lessons in spirituality from societies whose vision of heaven resembles a cosmic brothel stocked with virgins for men’s pleasure.

The West gave us the Red Cross, Doctors without Borders, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and many other manifestations of the humanitarian impulse. It is the West that provides the bulk of the aid to beleaguered Darfur, while Islamic countries are conspicuous by their absence.

The West does not need lectures on the superior virtue of societies where women are kept in subjection, endure genital mutilation, are married off against their will at the age of nine, have acid thrown on their faces or are stoned to death for alleged adultery, or where human rights are denied to those regarded as belonging to lower castes. The West does not need sanctimonious homilies from societies that cannot provide clean drinking water or sewage systems for their populations, that cannot educate their citizens, but leave 40-50 percent of them illiterate, that make no provisions for the handicapped, that have no sense of the common good or civic responsibility, that are riddled with corruption.

No Western politician would be able to get away with the kind of racist remarks that are tolerated in the Third World, such as the anti-Semitic diatribes of the Malaysian leader Mahathir Mohamad. Instead, there would be calls for resignation, both from Third World leaders and from Western media and intellectuals. Double standards? Yes, but also a tacit acknowledgement that we expect higher ethical standards from the West.

The Ayatollah Khomeini once famously said there are no jokes in Islam. The West is able to look at its own foibles and laugh, even make fun of its own fundamental principles. There is no Islamic equivalent to Monty Python’s Life of Brian. Can we look forward to seeing The Life of Mo anytime in the future?

The rest of the world recognizes the virtues of the West in concrete ways. As Arthur Schlesinger remarked, “When Chinese students cried and died for democracy in Tiananmen Square, they brought with them not representations of Confucius or Buddha but a model of the Statue of Liberty.” Millions of people risk their lives trying to get to the West—not to Saudi Arabia or Iran or Pakistan. They flee from theocratic or other totalitarian regimes to find tolerance and freedom in the West, where life is an open book.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

There is no end in sight so long as the global powers take no interest in helping these nations get on their feet. It is the disintegration of Yugoslavia x100 except without any plan to stop the fighting or a KFOR to aid in rebuilding efforts.

I think global powers have taken a lot of interest in helping those nations get on their feet. It just hasn't worked.

What you're really talking about is nation-building on a global scale, which I frankly don't think is possible. The developed world didn't get where it got overnight. It took a huge amount of time and capital, and those nations simply cannot commit that same amount of time and capital to developing the rest of the world while still trying to keep themselves afloat. It would end up being a drop in the bucket.

What it actually takes to remake another nation is best exemplified by South Korea. That was essentially a one-to-one, long-term commitment by the U.S. to try to help SK develop, put pressure on their institutions to democratize, etc. And we only had that much influence their because they needed our protection. But honestly, leaders in most of the rest of the world will tell us to fuck off if we try to tell them how to run their countries.

Much of Africa is at war, arable land is diminishing and the population is inexplicably exploding.

I don't think it's inexplicable. Historically, a part of the world that is undeveloped will have it's own built-in population limits. Inadequate sanitation, food, poor medical care, high rates of infant mortality, etc., that will keep the population from exploding. But in its well-intentioned attempts to be benevolent, the West has mitigated the kind of heart-rending suffering that goes along with that. So we've helped improved sanitation, provided food during famines, distributed vaccines, improved infant mortality.... It's much easier and cheaper to do that than it is to build an entire functioning economy, democratic system, and cultural values that foster prosperity, etc....

So we got exactly what we wanted: an increase in the live-birth rate and infant survivability, a reduction in the death rate, and an increase in life expectancy. Which inevitably leads to a massive, unsustainable population boom.

 

[Tornicade]

Its odd that the arrival of a bunch of impoverished people have increased the crime rate of these areas so significantly and the crime inciting anti immigration views from the general population.

Key factors
In terms of individuals, some key factors are seen as making a person more at risk of being in poverty such as:

• unemployment or having a poor quality (i.e. low paid or precarious) job as this limits access to a decent income and cuts people off from social networks;
• low levels of education and skills because this limits people's ability to access decent jobs to develop themselves and participate fully in society;
• the size and type of family i.e. large families and lone parent families tend to be at greater risk of poverty because they have higher costs, lower incomes and more difficulty in gaining well paid employment;
• gender - women are generally at higher risk of poverty than men as they are less likely to be in paid employment, tend to have lower pensions, are more involved in unpaid caring responsibilities and when they are in work, are frequently paid less ;
• disability or ill-health because this limits ability to access employment and also leads to increased day to day costs;
• being a member of minority ethnic groups such as the Roma and immigrants/undocumented migrants as they suffer particularly from discrimination and racism and thus have less chance to access employment, often are forced to live in worse physical environments and have poorer access to essential services;
• living in a remote or very disadvantaged community where access to services is worse.

All these factors create additional barriers and difficulties, but should be seen within the overall structural context of how a particular country chooses to distribute wealth and tackle inequality.

http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/eapn.shtml


This report is rather dated but the issues remain the same only magnified.

What they should not due is follow the US approach in dealing with a mass migration amongst states for the last 150 years.
-Denying property to those minorities forcing them to leave rural areas for urban ones
-segregation. purposely integrating these migrants by segregating them supported by a a biased inadequate infrastructure.
-Artificial manipulation of financial support.
Spending money on Migrants without addressing or providing the migrant community with an opportunity of self sufficiency. Keeping developmental money out of the hands of the migrants creates a vacuum that stifles growth, increases crime and increases migrant dependency on the ethnic majority.

to reference a prior post these actions are not cultural assimilation but cultural assasination.

Essentially if The European Nations take careful steps not to make the same mistakes the US did within its own migrant issue for generations they should be able to get things resolved

 

[Adam]

At the moment there is a petition to force the BBC to use the word refugee instead of migrant when talking about people fleeing Syria and Africa. That would help change the discussion slightly.

There is another area where migration has adversely effected the uk in a surprising way. Russian oligarch s are hiding their ill-gotten gains in London property. Causing the price to balloon and pricing most workers out of London. This had a knock on effect to the south east and most people are now caught In a renting trap with the baby boomers owning multiple properties and making money off gen x and y s predicament. Increase the wealth divide beyond any previous measure. Property is the best investment in the uk it's most peoples only chance of adding wealth to their lives

 

[Adam]

OK so ive come back here to eat a little crow. In the last 24 hours some serious cracks in the EU have started to show, looks like the whole concept of open boarders might destroy the entire EU if it cant be controlled over the next year or so. Thousands just turned up on the coast of greece in boats last night, iceland has most of its population offering beds to refugees and budpast has closed its train station to prevent migrants accessing the rest of europe. Meanwhile the UK government is trying to avoid planning an in out referendum on the EU and UKIP are sharpening their pitchforks.

In some ways i can see this mirroring the evacuee sitution in the 40's when half of london left to live in other peoples spare rooms...just a much more global version. I wonder how society will managed, can they look past the colour and culture and see the humanity

 

[Sebastian]

OK so ive come back here to eat a little crow. In the last 24 hours some serious cracks in the EU have started to show, looks like the whole concept of open boarders might destroy the entire EU if it cant be controlled over the next year or so. Thousands just turned up on the coast of greece in boats last night, iceland has most of its population offering beds to refugees and budpast has closed its train station to prevent migrants accessing the rest of europe. Meanwhile the UK government is trying to avoid planning an in out referendum on the EU and UKIP are sharpening their pitchforks.

In some ways i can see this mirroring the evacuee sitution in the 40's when half of london left to live in other peoples spare rooms...just a much more global version. I wonder how society will managed, can they look past the colour and culture and see the humanity

It is amusing to think that the Conservatives, in dragging their feet on the referendum, have actually greatly increased the chances that the UK will exit the EU. Had they went ahead with the thing in 2014 or so it would have had no chance at passing. But in 2016 or 2017 as the EU starts tearing itself apart over finances and migrants? It will be close.

 

[Sebastian]

Its odd that the arrival of a bunch of impoverished people have increased the crime rate of these areas so significantly and the crime inciting anti immigration views from the general population.

Key factors
In terms of individuals, some key factors are seen as making a person more at risk of being in poverty such as:

• unemployment or having a poor quality (i.e. low paid or precarious) job as this limits access to a decent income and cuts people off from social networks;
• low levels of education and skills because this limits people's ability to access decent jobs to develop themselves and participate fully in society;
• the size and type of family i.e. large families and lone parent families tend to be at greater risk of poverty because they have higher costs, lower incomes and more difficulty in gaining well paid employment;
• gender - women are generally at higher risk of poverty than men as they are less likely to be in paid employment, tend to have lower pensions, are more involved in unpaid caring responsibilities and when they are in work, are frequently paid less ;
• disability or ill-health because this limits ability to access employment and also leads to increased day to day costs;
• being a member of minority ethnic groups such as the Roma and immigrants/undocumented migrants as they suffer particularly from discrimination and racism and thus have less chance to access employment, often are forced to live in worse physical environments and have poorer access to essential services;
• living in a remote or very disadvantaged community where access to services is worse.

All these factors create additional barriers and difficulties, but should be seen within the overall structural context of how a particular country chooses to distribute wealth and tackle inequality.

http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/eapn.shtml


This report is rather dated but the issues remain the same only magnified.

What they should not due is follow the US approach in dealing with a mass migration amongst states for the last 150 years.
-Denying property to those minorities forcing them to leave rural areas for urban ones
-segregation. purposely integrating these migrants by segregating them supported by a a biased inadequate infrastructure.
-Artificial manipulation of financial support.
Spending money on Migrants without addressing or providing the migrant community with an opportunity of self sufficiency. Keeping developmental money out of the hands of the migrants creates a vacuum that stifles growth, increases crime and increases migrant dependency on the ethnic majority.

to reference a prior post these actions are not cultural assimilation but cultural assasination.

Essentially if The European Nations take careful steps not to make the same mistakes the US did within its own migrant issue for generations they should be able to get things resolved

To touch on your variables, I think Sweden is the perfect example of how immigration can be very successful and also why it fails if left unmanaged.

For years Sweden successfully integrated huge numbers of immigrants. Their policies were so successful that fully 1/3 of the Swedish population is foreign born. Those new Swedes helped make their adopted nation an economic power-house (given its small population) and addressed, in part, a decline in birth-rate (Can't imagine how though, Swedes are gorgeous and should be fucking each other like crazy). Newcomers were not compartmentalized from society, jobs were found, education was made available to them and many of their children became part of the Swedish tech boom (they invented Bluetooth, named after a Viking king whose name in runes is the Bluetooth icon). However...

There is a tipping point in the sheer numbers a nation can handle and Sweden reached it about 5-7 years ago. There simply isn't enough housing and jobs for so many new immigrants and the result is the ghettoization of the surplus migrants in the primary receiving city of Malmo. Impoverished people are angry people and Malmo is a fucking war zone right now. A city of 300,000 that has seen 30+ bomb attacks this summer, plus regular shootings, stabbings and the odd grenade attack. 30 years ago any murder in Sweden was a shocking event. Now, violence is a regular feature on the news.

Bottom line: A society can only absorb so many new members before it causes issues. They must be carefully integrated into society and empowered to succeed in their new home. However, the economy can only provide so much for so many. Those who are left outside the economy will resort to violence to survive. Throw in ethnic, religious or sectarian differences between them and the host nation, or other immigrants (Serbs and Eritreans killing each other in Malmo), and you have urban areas resembling Syria. Moreover, the threat of ISIS further complicates how nations not only evaluate numbers of migrants but also, possibly, place of origin.

Immigrants are a valuable resource for any nation. However, resources need to be carefully managed. It is unfortunate that governments in Europe and in the US have failed to cultivate sensible immigration policies that would be more responsive to changes in the political landscape.

 

[No Regard]

To touch on your variables, I think Sweden is the perfect example of how immigration can be very successful and also why it fails if left unmanaged.

For years Sweden successfully integrated huge numbers of immigrants. Their policies were so successful that fully 1/3 of the Swedish population is foreign born. Those new Swedes helped make their adopted nation an economic power-house (given its small population) and addressed, in part, a decline in birth-rate (Can't imagine how though, Swedes are gorgeous and should be fucking each other like crazy). Newcomers were not compartmentalized from society, jobs were found, education was made available to them and many of their children became part of the Swedish tech boom (they invented Bluetooth, named after a Viking king whose name in runes is the Bluetooth icon). However...

There is a tipping point in the sheer numbers a nation can handle and Sweden reached it about 5-7 years ago. There simply isn't enough housing and jobs for so many new immigrants and the result is the ghettoization of the surplus migrants in the primary receiving city of Malmo. Impoverished people are angry people and Malmo is a fucking war zone right now. A city of 300,000 that has seen 30+ bomb attacks this summer, plus regular shootings, stabbings and the odd grenade attack. 30 years ago any murder in Sweden was a shocking event. Now, violence is a regular feature on the news.

Bottom line: A society can only absorb so many new members before it causes issues. They must be carefully integrated into society and empowered to succeed in their new home. However, the economy can only provide so much for so many. Those who are left outside the economy will resort to violence to survive. Throw in ethnic, religious or sectarian differences between them and the host nation, or other immigrants (Serbs and Eritreans killing each other in Malmo), and you have urban areas resembling Syria. Moreover, the threat of ISIS further complicates how nations not only evaluate numbers of migrants but also, possibly, place of origin.

Immigrants are a valuable resource for any nation. However, resources need to be carefully managed. It is unfortunate that governments in Europe and in the US have failed to cultivate sensible immigration policies that would be more responsive to changes in the political landscape.

Excellent post.

I would just like to add that the unhealthy political climate in Sweden has been a huge part of the problems we are seeing today, as even serious opponents of the immigration have been threatened to silence in fear of being stigmatised in the national media, of being labeled a racist, of being an object of ridicule. This has in parts led to the sudden growth of the Sweden Demokrats, which for not too many years ago was supposed to have ties to the Swedish Neo-Nazis.

After the last election in 2014, where SD became the third largest party of Sweden, Expressen, one of the biggest newspapers in Sweden, printed only a black front page with the white headline: "Yesterday 781 120 Swedes [about 13 %] voted for the Sweden Demokrats". As if it was a national tragedy.

Link to the picture: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BxjpUXhIcAAaO3H.png

More and more people are voting for the SDs (according to a poll from August, the SDs are the biggest political party in Sweden of today), because the other political parties, allied with most of the mainstream media, are in large parts ignoring the issues that arise from immigration, some of which you mentioned in your post, @King Stannis . According to the mainstream, the number one problem is the racism and xenophobia of the Swedish population. I am not saying that this isn't a problem (as a matter of fact, I think it is an ever increasing problem), but it is also an oversimplification of the matter at hand.

People aren't dumb. They see an elite of politicians and newspaper editors, with apparently no connection to their everyday reality, who are pushing forth an agenda that is slowly but surly destabilising the society around them, and in doing so, they are labelling everyone whose opinions diverge from their own for evil racists.

This pushes more and more people to vote for the SDs, because they are the only party willing to stand up against the mainstream and debate the negative issues of Sweden's immigration policies.

The immigration debate of Sweden has become highly emotional and extremely polarised throughout the years, with acts of violence and misdeeds conducted by both sides of the spectrum. If this can happen in a country as peaceful and beautiful as Sweden, I can only imagine what could happen in the more unstable countries of Europe.

Frankly, I'm worried about the future of Europe. The economies are still very much unstable, with high unemployment and sparse housing opportunities. The high number of immigrants is just complicating the issue further. The rise of nationalism and the building of fences and walls are a terrible development. This world has enough walls as it is.

This is an extremely complicated situation, with historic lines stretching all the way back to the colonisation of Africa, if not further, and I don't have too much faith in our politicians to be honest. My impression is that they are very much part of the problem they themselves are trying to solve.

I don't really know what to do, because any solution, even how good-willed it might be, just seem to bring forth a number of unseen negative consequences. Though I do know, that we can't have any more bodies being washed up on the beaches of Mediterranean Europe. That is an absolute disaster that has to stop right away.