Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Mediterranean migrants- specific questions

1252628303150

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,028 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    The author of that article seems to have a chip on his shoulder that Britain isn't doing what he considers enough.
    There are a lot of things claimed in the article that I would like to see backed up.
    Especially the claim of.
    If you want any of the claims backed up, look at the Commission's report which is exactly what the author is reporting on. This is clearly stated in the article.
    Also a 0.2% increase in GDP, for transit and host countries is IMO not a big enough increase to be using it as a selling point.
    Especially when you consider the medium to long term economic and social consequences of trying to integrate such a large number of migrants at once.
    Sweden comes out as having the largest economic benefit with a 0.5% increase, but it's telling that the potential biggest beneficiary is doing a U-turn on its refugee policy.
    Actually, o.2% GDP would constitute a fairly large boost to the EU's economy, considering recent low growth rates . If we can improve our economies while helping out people fleeing genocide and persecution, what's your problem?

    Sweden's issue is that they're taking a disproportionate number of refugees, requiring the burden to be shared across the EU. Although refugees will have a small net positive impact on the EU's economies, they still require large investments upfront which is a heavy burden for a country like Sweden to do without support.


  • Registered Users Posts: 414 ✭✭kettlehead


    The French Prime Minister has stated that Europe should take no more refugees and that the solution lies in the Middle East.
    Mr Valls said he will repeat that message when he addresses the SPD congress in Germany on December 12th. “I told [vice chancellor and chairman of the SPD] Sigmar [Gabriel] we cannot receive any more,” he said.
    “This doesn’t mean I’m criticising Germany. Germany made a choice which is to her honour, but she has to assume her responsibilities. Do you think Belgium or France will receive more refugees today? No. No. No. For me, things are very clear. The solutions are over there [in the region].”

    The source is today's Irish Times.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,028 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    kettlehead wrote: »
    The French Prime Minister has stated that Europe should take no more refugees and that the solution lies in the Middle East.



    The source is today's Irish Times.
    I completely agree with him: the question is how far the EU is willing to go to ensure this. In the past, refugee crisis were ended by military intervention as in Iraqi Kurdistan and Kosovo. The US is showing a marked unwillingness to do anything of the sort in Syria so it's unlikely this will be resolved anytime soon.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭JPNelsforearm


    Nodin wrote: »
    You seem to be confusing immigration with refugees.

    That - according to the information on the you tube site - is a version of a 1996 anti-immigrant demonstration made by one Roy Beck, an anti-immigration campaigner and founder member of the extremist NumbersUsa, regarded by the Southern Poverty Law centre as a hate group.

    A jewish organisation that promotes and defends mass/illegal immigration...ok.. Its like asking the refugee council of Ireland, for their opinion, they are a biased lobby group, with an anti nationalist agenda. Also, I have to laugh that putting your own people and citizens first is defined as hate by the SLPC, what a fifth column.

    Immigration and refugees from the third world are the same thing when you dont have any vetting procedures, and even when you do have vetting its still a burden depending on the region and education level you allow in, as well as the dependents issue.
    If every immigrant/refugee was intelligent, well educated, young, healthy and came in sustainable number and filled an acute need, no one would have an issue. Thats not the case.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,028 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    A jewish organisation that promotes and defends mass/illegal immigration...ok.. Its like asking the refugee council of Ireland, for their opinion, they are a biased lobby group, with an anti nationalist agenda. Also, I have to laugh that putting your own people and citizens first is defined as hate by the SLPC, what a fifth column.
    Yeah, it's all those dastardly Jews and their organisations. Won't someone please stop them?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭JPNelsforearm


    Lockstep wrote: »
    Yeah, it's all those dastardly Jews and their organisations. Won't someone please stop them?

    Is the SPLC not a jewish organisation?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,028 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    Is the SPLC not a jewish organisation?

    Some of its founders were Jewish but it's not a Jewish organisation. Even if it was, why is this relevant?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭JPNelsforearm


    Lockstep wrote: »
    Some of its founders were Jewish but it's not a Jewish organisation. Even if it was, why is this relevant?

    Considering the position of all major jewish groups in the states in regards to immigration, the SPLC classing an anti immigration group as a "hate group" is hardly impartial, citing the SPLC means nothing, they toe the party line.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,028 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    Considering the position of all major jewish groups in the states in regards to immigration, the SPLC classing an anti immigration group as a "hate group" is hardly impartial, citing the SPLC means nothing, they toe the party line.

    What party line is this? Some sort of Jewish hivemind?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭JPNelsforearm


    Lockstep wrote: »
    What party line is this? Some sort of Jewish hivemind?

    No, obviously not, the party line of jewish organisations is pushing mass immigration, the SPLC is no different, therefore it is not impartial when it comes to the debate.
    http://forward.com/news/179296/jews-unite-behind-push-for-immigration-reform/
    Simple google search
    http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/immigration.pdf

    Obviously they are not a hivemind, so some individuals may differ, but when all your major leaders, groups, lobbyists etc toe the same line.... Groups that toe that line can be discarded as impartial sources. Same with LaRaza, Irish immigrant council etc etc etc


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    A jewish organisation that promotes and defends mass/illegal immigration...ok.. Its like asking the refugee council of Ireland, for their opinion, they are a biased lobby group, with an anti nationalist agenda. Also, I have to laugh that putting your own people and citizens first is defined as hate by the SLPC, what a fifth column.
    ...........

    I've never heard of it or read of it described as such by any creditable source, not that I'm entirely sure what a "jewish organisation" is supposed to be in this instance. Who are they supposedly a "fifth column"for?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Lockstep wrote: »
    Yeah, it's all those dastardly Jews and their organisations. Won't someone please stop them?

    Sites been messed up for me so never got to check links etc for previous argument.

    About that organisation I wouldn't say they are Jewish conspiracy but they have some huge biases going on about what they call hate groups. Google their press release about classifying MRA's as hate groups but not classing extreme Rad Fems the same way (SCUM manifesto etc).


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭JPNelsforearm


    Nodin wrote: »
    I've never heard of it or read of it described as such by any creditable source, not that I'm entirely sure what a "jewish organisation" is supposed to be in this instance. Who are they supposedly a "fifth column"for?

    A fifth column is a group that works against the interests of the native population. Take the major jewish groups in the states, they advocate/lobby for mass immigration, which the majority of the populace has always been opposed to. And seeing as how jews self designate themselves as "separate"(dual citizenship/loyalty to Israel etc) to mainstream US society, that is the behaviour of a fifth column, changing the ethnic make up of the US to suit themselves.
    LaRaza, the hispanic group would also fall into this catagory, an out group of people advocating population change to suit themselves.

    Same with gun rights, all major jewish organisation lobby for gun control, undermining the constitution.

    Read that pdf I posted above.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    A fifth column is a group that works against the interests of the native population. Take the major jewish groups in the states, they advocate/lobby for mass immigration, which the majority of the populace has always been opposed to. And seeing as how jews self designate themselves as "separate"(dual citizenship/loyalty to Israel etc) to mainstream US society, that is the behaviour of a fifth column, changing the ethnic make up of the US to suit themselves...........

    So Jews can't be American?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,028 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    No, obviously not, the party line of jewish organisations is pushing mass immigration, the SPLC is no different, therefore it is not impartial when it comes to the debate.
    http://forward.com/news/179296/jews-unite-behind-push-for-immigration-reform/
    Simple google search
    http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/immigration.pdf

    Obviously they are not a hivemind, so some individuals may differ, but when all your major leaders, groups, lobbyists etc toe the same line.... Groups that toe that line can be discarded as impartial sources. Same with LaRaza, Irish immigrant council etc etc etc

    The SPLC isn't impartial because it's a Jewish organisation (it's actually not, but whatever)?
    It's not like Jews are capable of independent thought or anything, right?


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Mod Note:

    What's going on? Conspiracy theories as to why there is mass migration into Europe belong in the Conspiracy Theories forum. Not in the Politics forum.

    JPNelsforearm, your comments are coming accross as borderline anti-semtic, which has no place on boards.ie. Any further comments of that nature will result in a ban.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,147 ✭✭✭JPNelsforearm


    Lockstep wrote: »
    Why are they not impartial on immigration? Because they're Jewish? They don't have to toe any line: they're an independent organisation and not forced to comply with some shadowy Jewish restrictions. Claiming they're biased just because they're Jewish is ridiculous.
    So its just a coincidence that every major jewish group and donor are pro immigration?
    Im not claiming there are "shadowy jewish restriction" Im pointing out, with evidence, that as a major jewish group they have been pro immigration since their inception, as "coincidentally" have every other major jewish group.
    http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/CofCchap7.pdf



    As Ive pointed out above, had LaRaza been cited I would have pointed out that the majority of Hispanic groups support mass/illegal immigration. Is that saying there is some "shadowy Hispanic restriction" on being anti immigration? Or saying that all US hispanics are pro immigration? No, its pointing out that Hispanic groups are biased and untrustworthy, and yes, that they all toe the same line.

    Im not saying this, or making it up btw, These are jewish orgainisation saying it themselves, publishing it themselves.

    http://www.ajc.org/site/c.7oJILSPwFfJSG/b.8467015/k.CC42/Immigration_Reform.htm

    http://forward.com/news/179296/jews-unite-behind-push-for-immigration-reform/

    http://www.hias.org/sites/default/files/10.17.2013_safe_act_sign-on_letter.pdf

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-groups-join-call-to-accept-syrian-refugees-into-us/


    to bring it back to the video, its incorrect to label an anti immigration group a hate group, when the labelers are so clearly biased.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 36,787 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Do not dispute a mod warning on thread. Please PM the mod in question.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,220 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Lockstep wrote: »
    If you want any of the claims backed up, look at the Commission's report which is exactly what the author is reporting on. This is clearly stated in the article.

    The closest thing I could find in the article is this.
    Applying such results in the current situation needs to be done with care, however.
    Refugees are a diverse group and may, moreover, not have the same profile (country of origin, age, gender, education and skillset) as the wider group of migrants considered in earlier studies.

    Reliable data on the education level of the people in the current migration wave are still scarce, but information gleaned so far suggests it may be comparatively low.
    Refugees are more likely than labour migrants to work below their qualification level (partly because of language problems and partly because prior qualifications and experiences obtained outside the host country are sometimes undervalued, according to some studies).
    While wages tend to catch up over time, they generally start from a very low level for refugees.
    Lastly, the employment rate of refugees is inclined to catch up to those of other migrants over time, albeit stopping short of reaching the ones of labour migrants.
    Labour-market outcomes thus crucially depend on how quickly and how well refugees are integrated.
    I'd like to see a study showing the net contributions of just refugees.
    Because it looks like the projections are based on all types of migrants.
    Lockstep wrote: »
    Actually, o.2% GDP would constitute a fairly large boost to the EU's economy, considering recent low growth rates .

    Up to 0.2%, that's the absolute best. It could be 0.1% or 0.05%.
    And yes in the context of poor EU growth that figure looks good.
    But compared to moderate or strong growth it's a very small figure.
    And then you have to look at what else would lead to comparable or better economic growth if public money was being spent.
    If we can improve our economies while helping out people fleeing genocide and persecution, what's your problem?
    What's my problem, feels like I've walked into a bar fight. :)
    My problem is people trying to sell this crisis to the public on economic grounds.
    If and it's a large if, while there's a short-term return due to increased spending, this crisis also represents a financial risk to some countries.
    Medium to long term it's very hard to know how this will pan out.
    Looking at Sweden which has already taken in a large number of refugees it doesn't look promising.
    Lockstep wrote: »
    Sweden's issue is that they're taking a disproportionate number of refugees, requiring the burden to be shared across the EU.
    Although refugees will have a small net positive impact on the EU's economies, they still require large investments upfront which is a heavy burden for a country like Sweden to do without support.
    Sweden clearly show's just how ludicrous the suggestion of an economic benefit to this crisis is.
    They would have the most to gain in term of a short-term GDP increase and they've started to close the door.

    Also this is what Sweden wanted, why should we share their burden?
    They wanted to be a multicultural country, their policies created a strong pull effect to their country.
    And now that it's happening they're panicking and doing a U-turn, mistakenly believing that this flow is a tap that you can just turn off.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,220 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    I meant to reply to this sooner.
    Lockstep wrote: »
    Even Lebanon which has taken in vast numbers of refugees has seen refugees as an economic benefit , stimulating domestic demand and encouraging exports.
    Has Lebanon seen the influx of Syrians as an economic benefit?
    Because that just looks like a blog done by an economist with an obvious agenda.
    He's advocating for the EU taking in significantly more refugees, which judging from his article I'd guess to be 13-14 million refugees.
    With proper planning and goodwill, EU countries would be able to welcome a vastly larger share of refugees than they have been doing so far.
    This is also what more and more proud EU citizens have been demanding.
    I'd say very few EU citizens are advocating taking a vastly larger share of refugees and I'd say it only got smaller since that article was written.
    The comparison in the article is also flawed, the treatment and resulting financial outlaw is radically different.
    Lebanon doesn't grant these people refugee status, it doesn't have to give them the same rights as Lebanese citizens, is helped with funding from the UN and doesn't seem to provide them with accommodation.
    Which studies are these? The CREAM report highlights that while overall non-EU nationals in the UK are a net drain, this is not the case for those who have arrived since 1999.
    The Guardian highlights that this is due to those being in the country beforehand not having their contribution factored in: only their drain.
    But that's the only figure that really bears consideration.
    Similarly, Denmark saw no economic problems with its refugees from the 1990s.
    You have to register to read that article.
    Likewise the head of the Migration and Development Initiative at the Center for Global Development, a Washington think tank note that “There’s not any credible research that I know of that in the medium and long term that refugees are anything but a hugely profitable investment"
    From reading the article that statement is based on a study of refugees migrating to the US in the 1970's.
    Which really wouldn't apply to modern day Europe with our extensive welfare states.
    The article itself also states that refugees in some studies have had a neutral financial effect, which contradicts the "hugely profitable investment" idea.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 386 ✭✭Nichard Dixon


    Nodin wrote: »
    So Jews can't be American?

    Of course they can be fully American, but they may choose not to be to a greater extent than other groups.

    As to the general discussion here, it is fallacy to believe that whatever effects occur are linear. Because 50,000 refugees do OK does not mean that 500,000 will.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,274 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    The closest thing I could find in the article is this.


    I'd like to see a study showing the net contributions of just refugees.
    Because it looks like the projections are based on all types of migrants.



    Up to 0.2%, that's the absolute best. It could be 0.1% or 0.05%.
    And yes in the context of poor EU growth that figure looks good.
    But compared to moderate or strong growth it's a very small figure.
    And then you have to look at what else would lead to comparable or better economic growth if public money was being spent.


    What's my problem, feels like I've walked into a bar fight. :)
    My problem is people trying to sell this crisis to the public on economic grounds.
    If and it's a large if, while there's a short-term return due to increased spending, this crisis also represents a financial risk to some countries.
    Medium to long term it's very hard to know how this will pan out.
    Looking at Sweden which has already taken in a large number of refugees it doesn't look promising.


    Sweden clearly show's just how ludicrous the suggestion of an economic benefit to this crisis is.
    They would have the most to gain in term of a short-term GDP increase and they've started to close the door.

    Also this is what Sweden wanted, why should we share their burden?
    They wanted to be a multicultural country, their policies created a strong pull effect to their country.
    And now that it's happening they're panicking and doing a U-turn, mistakenly believing that this flow is a tap that you can just turn off.

    I don't know why you think Sweden can't change policy and take in less or even no more refugees.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,028 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    I meant to reply to this sooner.


    Has Lebanon seen the influx of Syrians as an economic benefit?
    Because that just looks like a blog done by an economist with an obvious agenda.
    He's advocating for the EU taking in significantly more refugees, which judging from his article I'd guess to be 13-14 million refugees.
    He's a highly qualified economist who works for the World Bank and writing for one of the most reputable think tanks in the world. So I'm not sure what his "obvious agenda" is, other than writing a sourced article?
    I'd say very few EU citizens are advocating taking a vastly larger share of refugees and I'd say it only got smaller since that article was written.
    The comparison in the article is also flawed, the treatment and resulting financial outlaw is radically different.
    Lebanon doesn't grant these people refugee status, it doesn't have to give them the same rights as Lebanese citizens, is helped with funding from the UN and doesn't seem to provide them with accommodation.
    Actually, it'd likely be the other way around: seeing as the funding comes from the UN (for example, the World Food Program imports a lot of its food) and its investment in the refugees is very low, with refugees often living in squalid conditions
    Compare this to the EU's approach which would involve public spending (refugees would be educated, money spent on building houses etc) and it'd be a
    Incidentally, the article lists to academic reports showing the economic benefits of refugees.

    But that's the only figure that really bears consideration.
    It's really not. Non-EU arrivals since 1999 have been a net contributor to the UK and the figures for those before this are misleading. As the economists behind the CREAM report note:
    Dustman and Frattini say it is misleading to use the £118bn figure as the Telegraph and Mail have done. As they point out, this is based on the cost of all immigrants living in Britain between 1995 and 2011. This isn’t migrants who arrived in Britain in the late 1990s and 2000s but all the non-UK born people living in Britain at that time. More than 90% of them will have arrived in Britain long before 1995, including Britain’s large long-settled Asian and Caribbean communities who were born abroad.
    The authors say this doesn’t tell us anything about how much these people have cost Britain in net terms because it ignores their contribution during the first 45 years of their residence.The authors say they have only reported these figures “for completeness” and such figures are “difficult to interpret” which is why they believe the discussion should focus on the positive contribution made by migrants who have arrived in Britain since 2000. It also tells us far more about what our attitude should be towards migrants now coming to Britain.


    You have to register to read that article.[/quite]
    Registration is free and you can read one article a day without charge. It's readily accessible.

    From reading the article that statement is based on a study of refugees migrating to the US in the 1970's.
    Which really wouldn't apply to modern day Europe with our extensive welfare states.
    The article itself also states that refugees in some studies have had a neutral financial effect, which contradicts the "hugely profitable investment" idea.
    No it's not, that's one report he cites. He also says:
    “There’s not any credible research that I know of that in the medium and long term that refugees are anything but a hugely profitable investment"


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,028 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    The closest thing I could find in the article is this.
    Is that the closest you could find? The report goes into much greater detail than that
    Studies from
    the International Organisation for Migration (IOM)
    and the OECD, among others, typically point to a
    small impact on growth and public finances in the
    medium term, which can be positive when migrants
    are well integrated into host country labour
    market. For example, the fiscal impact of
    cumulative waves of migration has been close to
    zero in the OECD on average over the past 50 years. However, the fiscal
    impact tends to vary according to the category of
    migrants, with labour migrants generally having the
    largest positive impact. Thus in the medium to long run, budgetary
    positions can improve. Research indicates that non-
    EU migrants typically receive less in individual
    benefits than they contribute in taxes and social
    contributions.
    Employment is usually the single
    most important determinant of a migrant’s net
    fiscal contribution
    The area you've relied on is the Commission highlighting that variables will occur. This is why they take various different models using different variables in the subsequent sections. Even when the EU's labour force is increased by low-skilled arrivals, the following is deduced
    Turning to the second simulation where the
    increase in the labour force is based on low-skilled
    workers, the positive impact on growth is more
    limited. GDP is in this case expected to be close to
    0.2% higher in the medium term

    I'd like to see a study showing the net contributions of just refugees.
    Because it looks like the projections are based on all types of migrants.
    They are but even when the Commission report assumes the arrivals are all very low skilled, the economic impact is still positive. Given this is the area you seem to have an issue with for the refugees (being less skilled than other migrants), it doesn't look like it'd have much of an impact.
    Up to 0.2%, that's the absolute best. It could be 0.1% or 0.05%.
    And yes in the context of poor EU growth that figure looks good.
    But compared to moderate or strong growth it's a very small figure.
    And then you have to look at what else would lead to comparable or better economic growth if public money was being spent.
    Well obviously it'd be great if the EU had moderate or strong growth. Noone would disagree with this. But that's all in theory. Unfortunately, the EU isn't in a position for wishful thinking. Given the sluggish EU growth rates, any benefit is to be welcomed. Even if the refugees had zero impact on our economies, surely this should be welcomed: if you could save someone's life without it having any impact on your finances, would you do it?
    What's my problem, feels like I've walked into a bar fight. :)
    My problem is people trying to sell this crisis to the public on economic grounds.
    If and it's a large if, while there's a short-term return due to increased spending, this crisis also represents a financial risk to some countries.
    Medium to long term it's very hard to know how this will pan out.
    Looking at Sweden which has already taken in a large number of refugees it doesn't look promising.
    Well, it's not really a large "If", is it? The Commission has already predicted that it'll be a positive impact on EU economic growth. Sure it's only a prediction but if we start dismissing economic forecasts by reputable organisations, we're entering into some extremely dubious economic territory.

    Remember, this isn't just about economics: it's about how we treat those fleeing persecution and genocide. Doubtless, most would agree that we should help those in need but the usual opposition to this is economic: that we can't afford to take in refugees or they will negatively affect our economies. The best estimate is that this is not the case, so even if you want to argue purely on economic grounds, it looks like the opposite is true. If you want to argue against this, please provide some data to support your claim.
    Sweden clearly show's just how ludicrous the suggestion of an economic benefit to this crisis is.
    They would have the most to gain in term of a short-term GDP increase and they've started to close the door.

    Also this is what Sweden wanted, why should we share their burden?
    They wanted to be a multicultural country, their policies created a strong pull effect to their country.
    And now that it's happening they're panicking and doing a U-turn, mistakenly believing that this flow is a tap that you can just turn off.
    Not quite: Sweden has had a liberal immigration and asylum policy for years. Despite this, they still felt that during a refugee crisis, they would be a welcoming place.
    However, even if refugees will be a net benefit over time, they require investment in the short term, especially in order to ensure they're productive in the long run. As much as Sweden stands to gain economically (0.5% of GDP according to the EU Commission) while maintaining its values, a huge number of arrivals is a heavy burden for any single country to invest in at once.


    This is not what Sweden "wanted": I seriously doubt Sweden wants a refugee crisis and to see people fleeing their homes. Like it or not, the refugees were coming to Europe anyway even as the EU made the crossing more dangerous. A couple of countries (Germany and Sweden) realised this and sought to ensure the crisis was addressed. Other countries sat on their hands, refused to pitch in and smirked as Germany and Sweden struggled to integrate so many refugees. It's a European crisis and requires a European solution, the burden must be shared across the EU.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,220 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Lockstep wrote: »
    He's a highly qualified economist who works for the World Bank and writing for one of the most reputable think tanks in the world. So I'm not sure what his "obvious agenda" is, other than writing a sourced article?
    From the website.
    This blog was first launched in September 2013 by the World Bank in an effort to hold governments more accountable to poor people and offer solutions to the most prominent development challenges.
    Lockstep wrote: »
    Actually, it'd likely be the other way around: seeing as the funding comes from the UN (for example, the World Food Program imports a lot of its food) and its investment in the refugees is very low, with refugees often living in squalid conditions
    Compare this to the EU's approach which would involve public spending (refugees would be educated, money spent on building houses etc) and it'd be a
    Incidentally, the article lists to academic reports showing the economic benefits of refugees.
    I think you're missing the end of a sentence there.
    It's really not. Non-EU arrivals since 1999 have been a net contributor to the UK and the figures for those before this are misleading. As the economists behind the CREAM report note:
    You'd expect new arrivals to be net contributors and people who have been there a long time not to be, because they are much older.
    That's why you have to look at the net figure, which is what the study does.
    Yes older peoples contributions aren't factored in but neither are younger peoples possible drain.
    The study gives a snapshot of migrants contributions and drain over a wide age range.
    Thus giving a balanced picture.
    Registration is free and you can read one article a day without charge. It's readily accessible.
    I know registration is free, I'm not going to the trouble of registering to read an article though.
    No it's not, that's one report he cites. He also says:
    This is how I read it from the article.
    But beyond the upfront costs of processing and settling refugees, the perceived burden of refugees on a host economy may not be as significant as it seems. “There’s not any credible research that I know of that in the medium and long term that refugees are anything but a hugely profitable investment,” says Michael Clemens, a senior fellow who leads the Migration and Development Initiative at the Center for Global Development, a Washington think tank.

    Clemens cites a study by Kalena Cortes, a Texas A&M professor who followed refugee and non-refugee immigrants who arrived in the U.S. in the late 1970s. Cortes found that it took the refugees a few years to get on their feet. But soon the refugees were out-earning non-refugee immigrants, and adding more value to the economy each year than the entire original cost of receiving and resettling them.
    How can the be "anything but a hugely profitable investment" when the outcome can be financially neutral?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Of course they can be fully American, but they may choose not to be to a greater extent than other groups.

    That's a comment that would come as a shock to most Americans be they Jewish or non-Jewish. They "pledge their allegiance" same as any other "full American".


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,028 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    From the website.
    Right: a reputable economist from a reputable organisation writing for a reputable think tank.
    What's the problem here?
    I think you're missing the end of a sentence there.
    Damn phone, apologies. It should say "It'd be a different picture given that they'd be spending more money and contributing to greater economic growth"
    WHich ties in with the Commission's report highlighting the economic benefits to both increased spending on refugees and their own contributions.
    You'd expect new arrivals to be net contributors and people who have been there a long time not to be, because they are much older.
    That's why you have to look at the net figure, which is what the study does.
    Yes older peoples contributions aren't factored in but neither are younger peoples possible drain.
    The study gives a snapshot of migrants contributions and drain over a wide age range.
    Thus giving a balanced picture.
    As the study's authors highlight, they're looking at recent arrivals. They included older non-nationals for completeness but note they're not comparable as the study isn't able to account for their contributions beforehand. Nonetheless, recent non-EU migrants are a net benefit to their host country, contributing more than they consume.
    It's fascinating you're trying to push an angle for the study while ignoring what its own authors have said on the matter.

    I know registration is free, I'm not going to the trouble of registering to read an article though.
    If you can't be bothered to read a free article then there's not much I can do.
    This is how I read it from the article.

    How can the be "anything but a hugely profitable investment" when the outcome can be financially neutral?
    Because the refugees arrive, work and contribute. Which is exactly what the Cortes study finds and Clemens has yet to see any evidence that refugees are not an economic asset.

    An array of sources (the European Commission, the CREAM report, a World Bank senior economist and think tanks) highlight the economic benefits of refugees. You've yet to produce a single source to counter these.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,220 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Lockstep wrote: »
    Is that the closest you could find? The report goes into much greater detail than that

    They are but even when the Commission report assumes the arrivals are all very low skilled, the economic impact is still positive. Given this is the area you seem to have an issue with for the refugees (being less skilled than other migrants), it doesn't look like it'd have much of an impact.
    Those models are still based on migrants rather than specifically refugees.
    This is not what Sweden "wanted": I seriously doubt Sweden wants a refugee crisis and to see people fleeing their homes.
    Stop making things up.
    I never claimed that Sweden wanted a refugee crisis or to see people leaving their homes.
    A couple of countries (Germany and Sweden) realised this and sought to ensure the crisis was addressed. Other countries sat on their hands, refused to pitch in and smirked as Germany and Sweden struggled to integrate so many refugees. It's a European crisis and requires a European solution, the burden must be shared across the EU.
    Germany and Sweden didn't think through what they were doing and made foolish decisions.
    Decisions that came back to burn them.
    Their decisions are going to make any kind of burden sharing even more difficult.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,220 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Lockstep wrote: »
    Right: a reputable economist from a reputable organisation writing for a reputable think tank.
    What's the problem here?
    I've already addressed my issues with the article in post #831.
    There's no point in repeating myself.
    As the study's authors highlight, they're looking at recent arrivals. They included older non-nationals for completeness but note they're not comparable as the study isn't able to account for their contributions beforehand. Nonetheless, recent non-EU migrants are a net benefit to their host country, contributing more than they consume.
    It's fascinating you're trying to push an angle for the study while ignoring what its own authors have said on the matter.
    I've already addressed this in post #836.
    "Pushing an angle", I'm just just pointing out what's in the report.
    You just don't seem to like people pointing out that aspect.
    If you can't be bothered to read a free article then there's not much I can do.
    The issue is with registering to read it, which IMO is asking too much of people.
    You'd be laughed out of most forums on this website for suggesting this.
    If there something of importance in the article feel free to post the relevant sections.
    Because the refugees arrive, work and contribute. Which is exactly what the Cortes study finds and Clemens has yet to see any evidence that refugees are not an economic asset.
    Clemens stated a "hugely profitable investment" which was refuted in the article.
    And you seem to have moved from this to "an economic asset".
    An array of sources (the European Commission, the CREAM report, a World Bank senior economist and think tanks) highlight the economic benefits of refugees. You've yet to produce a single source to counter these.
    The report by CREAM talks about migrants, not refugees.
    And it shows that they are a net drain.
    The European commission report also highlights that these refugees represent an economic risk for the Netherlands and Slovenia.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,028 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    Those models are still based on migrants rather than specifically refugees.
    Right, but the main issue here would be that refugees might be lower skilled than general migrants. But even when the Commission's report counts for low skilled migrants, it still comes out as a positive for economic growth.
    You haven't produced a single source so far. I've provided several which highlight the economic benefits of refugees and non-EU migrants.
    Stop making things up.
    I never claimed that Sweden wanted a refugee crisis or to see people leaving their homes.
    You said
    This is what Sweden wanted
    I seriously doubt Sweden "wanted" the refugee crisis to happen or for refugees to flock to them over everyone else in the EU. Unless you've any evidence to disprove this?
    What else am I making up?
    Germany and Sweden didn't think through what they were doing and made foolish decisions.
    Decisions that came back to burn them.
    Their decisions are going to make any kind of burden sharing even more difficult.
    Germany and Sweden were two of the only countries which took an proactive approach. A few tried to keep refugees out (Hungary) and mostly the EU's nations sat on their hands. Like it or not, the refugees are coming. It's up to us to decide how to handle it and keeping them out seems exponentially difficult.
    I've already addressed my issues with the article in post #831.
    There's no point in repeating myself.
    You didn't address anything. All you did was claim a reputable and well-qualified World Bank economist writing for Brookings had an "obvious agenda". If you can disprove his arguments, feel free to provide relevant citations but you'll need to do better than that if you expect others to disregard what would be objectively seen as a solid source.
    I've already addressed this in post #836.
    "Pushing an angle", I'm just just pointing out what's in the report.
    You just don't seem to like people pointing out that aspect.
    Again, you didn't address anything. The economists who wrote the report explicitly state that their findings aren't intended to include arrivals before 2000 and they rejected attempts by the Daily Mail to use their findings as proof that non-EU migrants are a net burden. Non-EU migrants since 2000 (which is what the report is looking at) are a net positive.
    I'm genuinely amazed that you're trying to argue a point which even the reports' authors have rejected.
    I'll repost what they stated in the Guardian article seeing as you seem so intent on disregarding it.
    Dustman and Frattini say it is misleading to use the £118bn figure as the Telegraph and Mail have done. As they point out, this is based on the cost of all immigrants living in Britain between 1995 and 2011. This isn’t migrants who arrived in Britain in the late 1990s and 2000s but all the non-UK born people living in Britain at that time. More than 90% of them will have arrived in Britain long before 1995, including Britain’s large long-settled Asian and Caribbean communities who were born abroad.
    The authors say that, for example, the calculation will include people who came to Britain in 1950 but only what they paid into the state and took out in benefits and public services after 1995.

    The authors say this doesn’t tell us anything about how much these people have cost Britain in net terms because it ignores their contribution during the first 45 years of their residence.

    “In fact, as they are now older, they are likely to have higher rates of welfare dependency and low labour force participation that does not reflect their overall contributions,” say the authors.

    As 90% of these migrants will have been living in Britain for many years, possibly decades, before 1995, it is difficult to see how Labour’s immigration policy in government between 1997 and 2010 can be held responsible for them.

    The authors say they have only reported these figures “for completeness” and such figures are “difficult to interpret” which is why they believe the discussion should focus on the positive contribution made by migrants who have arrived in Britain since 2000. It also tells us far more about what our attitude should be towards migrants now coming to Britain.

    The study firmly concludes that those coming now, and particularly those arriving from within the EU, are making an increasingly positive contribution to UK finances. And they are not doing so at the expense of the British-born labour force who are enjoying near record levels of employment.



    The issue is with registering to read it, which IMO is asking too much of people.
    You'd be laughed out of most forums on this website for suggesting this.
    If there something of importance in the article feel free to post the relevant sections.
    There really isn't anything onerous about registering (for free) to read an article. If you don't want to do this, that's fine (I'd highly reccomend reading Foreign Affairs, fascinating journal if you've an interest in international politics) but what the hey, I'll reproduce the article below.

    Clemens stated a "hugely profitable investment" which was refuted in the article.
    And you seem to have moved from this to "an economic asset".
    Where in the article is his claim refuted?
    The report by CREAM talks about migrants, not refugees.
    And it shows that they are a net drain.
    The European commission report also highlights that these refugees represent an economic risk for the Netherlands and Slovenia.
    Once again, your arguments directly contradict the authors of the report. As evidenced above, the CREAM report's economists have already rejected the argument you're advocating while the Commission report highlights the positive economic growth offered by the refugees. Even if the refugees were cost-neutral, would you not agree we should help others?
    The "economic risk" for Slovenia and the Netherlands is the short-term expenditure required to deal with the refugee crisis.


    I'll ask again, can you provide any sources? Until you do this, your attempts to allege bias or rely on arguments which your sources directly oppose are quite useless.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement