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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Mediterranean migrants- specific questions
Comments
-
Here's an excerpt for the Foreign Affairs article seeing as you didn't feel the need to register to read it. There's a lot of sources hyperlinked within the article butAs in Tonga, so in Europe and across the world: the cross-border movement of people can boost prosperity more powerfully than other forms of globalization. Trade liberalization can expand countries’ output by a few percentage points—worth having, to be sure, but generally not transformative. International capital flows can in principle improve the allocation of the world’s savings, but they can also misfire, triggering crises. Migration, in contrast, can generate vast increases in living standards. “The gains to eliminating [migration] barriers amount to large fractions of world GDP,” the development scholar Michael Clemens has argued, that are “one or two orders of magnitude larger than the gains from dropping all remaining restrictions on international flows of goods and capital.”
For receiving countries, meanwhile, the verdict on migration is even more favorable. A good example of the benefits is to be found in the United Kingdom—despite the fact that many Britons deeply resent immigrants. Contrary to popular mythology, the United Kingdom’s immigrants are, on average, better educated, more productive, and less of a burden on public services than native-born citizens. Almost half of the British-born work force left school at 16 or younger; fewer than one in five foreign-born workers abandoned the classroom so early. At the other end of the spectrum, 46 percent of recent immigrants to the United Kingdom in 2005 stayed in education until age 21 or beyond; only 16 percent of native Britons were as well educated. Meanwhile, just over a third of British residents are either too young or too old to work and pay taxes, whereas the vast majority of migrants are in the prime of their productive years. In London, where 37 percent of residents were born abroad, migrants account for fully 60 percent of the labor force in parts of the city.
Consider a natural experiment in Denmark. Starting in the early 1990s, Denmark took in refugees from countries such as Bosnia, Iraq, and Somalia, boosting the share of non-EU migrants in the population from around 1.5 percent in 1994 to 4.7 percent in 2008. The officials in charge of this asylum program paid no heed to the skills, education, or job preferences of migrants, nor did they consider the skill gaps in the regions of Denmark to which the refugees were allocated. Rather, they settled people according to where public housing was available and later according to the location of their relatives. At least two-fifths of the newcomers lacked postsecondary education, few spoke Danish, and many came from cultures very distant from northern Europe’s. If an influx of outsiders was ever going to damage a host country’s economy, here surely was a ripe example.
Remarkably, this damage did not materialize. A 2013 working paper by Mette Foged of the University of Copenhagen and Giovanni Peri of the University of California, Davis, considered the impact of this influx, particularly on one of Denmark’s most vulnerable groups: its low-skilled native workers. Foged and Peri’s study found that the influx of migrants to Denmark had no negative impact on wages. Instead, as refugees came in, low-skilled native-born workers shifted into different jobs, sometimes using their command of Danish to differentiate themselves from the newcomers. What is more, the number of low-skilled jobs in the economy increased: proof that humans can sometimes substitute for machines, in a reversal of the familiar teleology. Because of these adaptations, the wages and job prospects of low-skilled native workers either improved or stayed the same.
The Danish study is especially striking because it disposes of the standard objection to the optimistic view of the economic effects of migration, which is that migrants harm native workers in ways that are invisible to researchers. Earlier studies from the United States had tracked the response of native wages to migration in particular towns, finding that wages of low-skilled workers in places with high migration rose roughly as fast as in those with low migration. Critics of those studies, however, objected that natives who suffered job losses might move, thereby disappearing from the sample. But Denmark’s workers are tracked nationally, no matter where they go, as are their fluctuating work fortunes. The positive verdict from the Danish study is all the more powerful because it held up even under this comprehensive tracking.0 -
Here's an excerpt for the Foreign Affairs article seeing as you didn't feel the need to register to read it. There's a lot of sources hyperlinked within the article but
Is there a link to Danish study? Its not just for these migrant questions that I've noticed this problem, which is that in some medium to long term studies they assess from 90's to mid 2000's only, so only through a period of economic growth.
I could carry out a study like that and honestly say Irish house prices always rise, it would be true but would ignore the cyclic nature of our economic system (ironically ignoring statistical outliers events (sharp crashes) contributed to the crunch)0 -
The migration at present differs from the past is that many are fleeing a war . They are not just coming to work.
The other side of the coin is that the electorate do not want large numbers of asulum seekers .The EU quota system has failed which proves this .
In Ireland 90% are bogus and most failed asylum seekers get leave to remain after appeals and about 8% refugee status. I suspect as there are no stats on the number of these people actually working its a low figure . You would have otherwise some publicity seeking politican gloating how wonderful they are .The single procedure was not implemented which may help to relieve the situation. The present asylum system is really a mess and not fit for purpose. We have a growing homeless crisis so to give an amnesty and take in more asylum seekers is just foolish.0 -
The migration at present differs from the past is that many are fleeing a war . They are not just coming to work.
The other side of the coin is that the electorate do not want large numbers of asulum seekers .The EU quota system has failed which proves this .
In Ireland 90% are bogus and most failed asylum seekers get leave to remain after appeals and about 8% refugee status. I suspect as there are no stats on the number of these people actually working its a low figure . You would have otherwise some publicity seeking politican gloating how wonderful they are .The single procedure was not implemented which may help to relieve the situation. The present asylum system is really a mess and not fit for purpose. We have a growing homeless crisis so to give an amnesty and take in more asylum seekers is just foolish.
You seem to be jumbling a lot of things together there.0 -
Selective quoting out of context to make your point. That's a fairly underhand tactic.You said
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?
Care to point out where I said "Sweden wants a refugee crisis and to see people fleeing their homes"?
Looks like the EU has struck a deal with Turkey, so the current crisis isn't a fore gone conclusion.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 guess I'll have to repeat myself then.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 pointed out the obvious bias in the blog and he's comparing countries that aren't giving people refugee status with ones that are.
Which is a ridiculous thing to do.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.
They just said they believe the focus should be elsewhere, that's not a rejection.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.
If people want to focus on whatever part of the study that they want they are more than welcome to.
And if the figures are put in for completeness then it suggests that the study would be incomplete without them.
The Migration Observatory are happy to list the figure on their website.
So I'll keep on using it legitimately, in spite of your protestations.
In your opinion. In my opinion there is. I doubt we're going to agree on this issue.There really isn't anything onerous about registering (for free) to read an article.
So it would be great to put the issue to one side and for you to stop making little jibes about it, like in your last post.
Do a search in the article for the word "neutral".Where in the article is his claim refuted?
Then post both that sentence.
So you agree that the are economic downsides as well. Good.The "economic risk" for Slovenia and the Netherlands is the short-term expenditure required to deal with the refugee crisis.
You don't need a source to allege bias.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.
And I've addressed the CREAM report above.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'd like to see how close the model used for the simulation is to these migrants arriving.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.
I'd also like to see what levels of employment these simulations are based on.
Because several EU countries that have taken in large numbers of refugees so far(Figure 2, Page 7), are seeing quite large gaps in employment levels between immigrant population and native populations.
There's a 13% difference in the case of Sweden, rising to 27% for migrants who have been in the country for less than five years.
Both figures are significantly worse than the OECD average.
When you look at employment rates by specific countries of origin(Page 5) you can get rates of roughly 40% for Iraqi migrants and as low as 25% for Somali migrants.
Compared to 63% for all immigrants and 76% for the native born population.
Yes current limited information suggestion that these migrants are low skilled.
The additional growth figure for the EU, according to Table 4(Page 52), that takes into account this low skill level, shows an additional GDP growth rate of just 0.06% for this year.
It also show a GDP per capita decrease and a real wage decrease for every year till 2020.
Meaning than on average people living standards will be reduced.0 -
I'm not sure what's selective about it, here's the quote in full[/quote]jackofalltrades wrote: »Selective quoting out of context to make your point. That's a fairly underhand tactic.
Care to point out where I said "Sweden wants a refugee crisis and to see people fleeing their homes"?
I repeat, do you genuinely think this is what Sweden wanted? I seriously doubt Sweden welcomes any refugee crisis. Which involves people fleeing their homes and seeking refugee elsewhere.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.
No doubt it will help but Turkey policing its borders better isn't going to solve the crisis.jackofalltrades wrote: »Looks like the EU has struck a deal with Turkey, so the current crisis isn't a fore gone conclusion.jackofalltrades wrote: »I guess I'll have to repeat myself then.
I've pointed out the obvious bias in the blog and he's comparing countries that aren't giving people refugee status with ones that are.
Which is a ridiculous thing to do.
Actually, you do. Accusations of bias aren't a trump card that can be used to dismiss arguments without any other substance. The appeal to bias is an old one but the onus is on you to show that he is biased. I doubt many would agree that a highly qualified senior economist for the World Bank writing for the Brookings Institution is a dispreputable source so you'd need to show how he is biased.jackofalltrades wrote: »You don't need a source to allege bias.
If anything, that countries which deny refugee status still see economic benefits highlights the role refugees can have on growth: they're overwhelmingly working in the informal sector rather than in employment where they can be taxed and contribute to national finances.jackofalltrades wrote: »They just said they believe the focus should be elsewhere, that's not a rejection.
If people want to focus on whatever part of the study that they want they are more than welcome to.
And if the figures are put in for completeness then it suggests that the study would be incomplete without them.
The Migration Observatory are happy to list the figure on their website.
So I'll keep on using it legitimately, in spite of your protestations.
Actually, it is a rejection: the Daily Mail and Telegraph took the same position you are: using the CREAM report's data to argue that non-EU migrants are a net loss. The authors note this is "misleading" and highlight why this argument is incorrect. This is explicit in the Guardian articlejackofalltrades wrote: »And I've addressed the CREAM report above.
Using a report to argue a position which the report's own authors reject is the most interesting case of straw-clutching I've seen on this forum yet.
Grand, I've reproduced the main points of the article for you above. Feel free to go over it. If you want to see the individual source within the article though, register and read it yourself.jackofalltrades wrote: »In your opinion. In my opinion there is. I doubt we're going to agree on this issue.
So it would be great to put the issue to one side and for you to stop making little jibes about it, like in your last post.
The sources the article includes all highlight the positive economic growth from refugees. Saying that refugees' impact is "at leas neutral" is not a refutation, presumably they're covering themselves in case any other data emerges.jackofalltrades wrote: »Do a search in the article for the word "neutral".
Then post both that sentence.
As I said above, refugees require investment in the short term. Hence why they can strain domestic finances and require the burden to be shared across the EU.jackofalltrades wrote: »So you agree that the are economic downsides as well. Good.0 -
Read the report and if there's any areas you want further clarification on, feel free to contact the Commission and ask for further info.jackofalltrades wrote: »I'd like to see how close the model used for the simulation is to these migrants arriving.
I'd also like to see what levels of employment these simulations are based on.
Sweden clearly has notable shortcomings in its approach to migrant integration.jackofalltrades wrote: »Because several EU countries that have taken in large numbers of refugees so far(Figure 2, Page 7), are seeing quite large gaps in employment levels between immigrant population and native populations.
There's a 13% difference in the case of Sweden, rising to 27% for migrants who have been in the country for less than five years.
Both figures are significantly worse than the OECD average.
When you look at employment rates by specific countries of origin(Page 5) you can get rates of roughly 40% for Iraqi migrants and as low as 25% for Somali migrants.
Compared to 63% for all immigrants and 76% for the native born population.
On the whole, migrants contribute more than they take out
Likewise, humanitarian migrants display "greater entrepreneurial qualities and reported a higher proportion of income from their own unincorporated businesses and this income increased sharply after five years of residency"
Likewise, as reported hereTheir economic impact approaches that of natives as they age and assimilate. But the positive effect can be substantial: Carlos Vargas-Silva of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford reported this year that letting in 260,000 immigrants a year could halve the UK’s public debt 50 years from now. “There are more than a dozen good studies now that point to a net positive effect of migrants on the economy,” says Goldin.
“Most data shows the economic impact is generally positive,” agrees Betts, especially when immigrants are well educated, as most Syrians are. “Unlike ordinary migrants, refugees didn’t choose to come,” says Betts, potentially making their impact slightly different.. But that means they will go home if they can, or if not, adapt like other migrants.
Yes, as I've mentioned several times, refugees require initial investment to ensure economic integration.jackofalltrades wrote: »Yes current limited information suggestion that these migrants are low skilled.
The additional growth figure for the EU, according to Table 4(Page 52), that takes into account this low skill level, shows an additional GDP growth rate of just 0.06% for this year.
It's over the medium and long term that their economic impact increases.
I don't recall ever arguing that refugees have a great economic impact from year one. It's over time.
This is due to the EU's increasing underlying population of the EU. Given the small amounts of refugees arriving relative to the EU's population, there's not much they can do there. As for wages, the report highlightsjackofalltrades wrote: »It also show a GDP per capita decrease and a real wage decrease for every year till 2020.
Meaning than on average people living standards will be reduced.a fall in wages compared to baseline brings the labour market back into equilibrium. This is partly reflecting a composition effect as earlier studies point to relatively low wages for refugees when entering the labour market0 -
Yes, it's linked in the article.RDM_83 again wrote: »Is there a link to Danish study?
You can see it hereabstract wrote:Using longitudinal data on the universe of workers in Denmark during the period 1991-2008 we track the labor market outcomes of low skilled natives in response to an exogenous inflow of low skilled immigrants. We innovate on previous identification strategies by considering immigrants distributed across municipalities by a refugee dispersal policy in place between 1986 and 1998. We find that an increase in the supply of refugee-country immigrants pushed less educated native workers (especially the young and low-tenured ones) to pursue less manual-intensive occupations. As a result immigration had positive effects on native unskilled wages, employment and occupational mobility.
False equivalence. The study analyses data up until 2011 (well into the financial crisis) so it's hardly just looking at a time of economic growth. At any rate, I'm not sure why this is relevant. It's analysing the net impact of non-EU migrants. Which is shown to be positive.RDM_83 again wrote: »Its not just for these migrant questions that I've noticed this problem, which is that in some medium to long term studies they assess from 90's to mid 2000's only, so only through a period of economic growth.
I could carry out a study like that and honestly say Irish house prices always rise, it would be true but would ignore the cyclic nature of our economic system (ironically ignoring statistical outliers events (sharp crashes) contributed to the crunch)
Keep in mind this isn't the only source I've provided: none show a negative impact from refugee arrivals. If you've any sources to show otherwise, I'd like to read them.0 -
You're just strawmanning now.I repeat, do you genuinely think this is what Sweden wanted? I seriously doubt Sweden welcomes any refugee crisis.
Which involves people fleeing their homes and seeking refugee elsewhere.
Which is rich coming from someone who takes offence to even a claimed misinterpretation of a vague post.
Here's what I said.Jackofalltrades wrote:Also this is what Sweden wanted, why should we share their burden?
They wanted to be a multicultural country
No you don't. That's a ludicrous suggestion.Lockstep wrote:Actually, you do.
Go write to the Migration Observatory and get them to stop listing the figure then.Actually, it is a rejection: the Daily Mail and Telegraph took the same position you are: using the CREAM report's data to argue that non-EU migrants are a net loss.
The authors note this is "misleading" and highlight why this argument is incorrect.
This is explicit in the Guardian article
Using a report to argue a position which the report's own authors reject is the most interesting case of straw-clutching I've seen on this forum yet.
If you can't follow really simple instructions then I can't really do much more to help you understand the point.The sources the article includes all highlight the positive economic growth from refugees.
Saying that refugees' impact is "at leas neutral" is not a refutation, presumably they're covering themselves in case any other data emerges.0 -
Advertisement
-
You're missing the main point.Sweden clearly has notable shortcomings in its approach to migrant integration.
On the whole, migrants contribute more than they take out
Likewise, humanitarian migrants display "greater entrepreneurial qualities and reported a higher proportion of income from their own unincorporated businesses and this income increased sharply after five years of residency"
Likewise, as reported here
The report uses a wider migrant group as the model to predict the outcomes for refugees.
It argues that care should be used in applying these results because the refugees profile may not match the profile of the wider group of migrants.
In the above section I showed that this is definitely the case for Sweden.
With certain groups that would be predominately made up of refugees having significantly worse outcomes.0 -
Wanting to be multicultural and wanting lots of refugees to show up are not the same thing. At all. You said we shouldn't have to share their burden right after saying it's what they wanted in relation to a post on the refugee crisis. How else do you expect this to be interpreted?jackofalltrades wrote: »You're just strawmanning now.
Which is rich coming from someone who takes offence to even a claimed misinterpretation of a vague post.
Here's what I said.
Yes you do.jackofalltrades wrote: »No you don't. That's a ludicrous suggestion.
"But bias!" isn't a trump card you can use to disregard articles you dislike or which contradict your opinions. If you think something is biased, you need to show why this is the case. Especially when it's something which would objectively be seen as an authoritative source (A senior World Bank economist writing on Brookings)
Why would I do that? The report's authors have already rejected the claim you're trying to make. I'm not sure what else needs to be said here.jackofalltrades wrote: »Go write to the Migration Observatory and get them to stop listing the figure then.
What simple instructions am I meant to follow? Please elaborate here.jackofalltrades wrote: »If you can't follow really simple instructions then I can't really do much more to help you understand the point.0 -
jackofalltrades wrote: »You're missing the main point.
The report uses a wider migrant group as the model to predict the outcomes for refugees.
It argues that care should be used in applying these results because the refugees profile may not match the profile of the wider group of migrants.
In the above section I showed that this is definitely the case for Sweden.
With certain groups that would be predominately made up of refugees having significantly worse outcomes.
Even when the Commission assumes every single refugee is low-skilled, the result is a net positive for the EU's economic growth. This is not going to be the case especially as the majority of refugees are Syrian, which prior to its civil war was a middle income country with a developed education system and over 86% literacy rates (for men, it's 92% which is important given that most arrivals in Europe are male). As such, the economic impact is likely to be significantly higher than this.
I know Somalis in Sweden are often used as an example of refugees but they amount to just 2% of arrivals0 -
-
-
Presumably due to political pressures. Unfortunately, this is too often a factor, particularly given common misconceptions and ignorance on refugees and immigrants in general. The UK is a good exampleOne wonders why they have imposed a limit as a 'uptopia' was reached from the last influx.0 -
You're really pushing this strawman aren't you.Wanting to be multicultural and wanting lots of refugees to show up are not the same thing. At all. You said we shouldn't have to share their burden right after saying it's what they wanted in relation to a post on the refugee crisis. How else do you expect this to be interpreted?
It's really rich coming from the poster who used a PEW report on the integration of American Muslims to show that extremism isn't a problem a global problem.
Given you weak explanation of that you shouldn't be going around and making things up about other posters.
If you actually went to the bother of reading most posts you know what I'm talking about.What simple instructions am I meant to follow? Please elaborate here.0 -
Mod: Handbags down please.
Less of the snarky replies, there's no need for them, especially over small, unimportant things.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, poor wording on my part. "Universal" would have been a better term than "global", the point being that Muslim extremism varies hugely by country, with US white supremacists being far more of a problem than Muslimsjackofalltrades wrote: »You're really pushing this strawman aren't you.
It's really rich coming from the poster who used a PEW report on the integration of American Muslims to show that extremism isn't a problem a global problem.
Given you weak explanation of that you shouldn't be going around and making things up about other posters.
Given that I agreed it was not a well-worded post, I'm not sure why you're so intent on using it for Whataboutery.
Do you mean where you demanded I "Post both that sentence"? I'm genuinely not sure what your trying to say there. Was it a typo?jackofalltrades wrote: »If you actually went to the bother of reading most posts you know what I'm talking about.0 -
Even when the Commission assumes every single refugee is low-skilled, the result is a net positive for the EU's economic growth. [/url]
Do you actually believe this statement? Unskilled migrants will ether be unemployed and funded by the state or displace a native from a unskilled job, no?0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,053 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 35046
Do you actually believe this statement? Unskilled migrants will ether be unemployed and funded by the state or displace a native from a unskilled job, no?
You're welcome to disprove the notion, ideally with a source.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
0 -
ancapailldorcha wrote: »You're welcome to disprove the notion, ideally with a source.
https://www.esri.ie/news/ethnicity-and-nationality-in-the-irish-labour-market/
36% of (presumably sub saharan)African Immigrants to Ireland on social welfare/unemployed0 -
-
ancapailldorcha wrote: »You're welcome to disprove the notion, ideally with a source.
The notion that a low skilled migrant will be a net positive on the economy? It's bloody obvious that is not true.
A low skilled migrant will ether be unemployed and funded by the state or will work in a unskilled job which many of the host nations unskilled workers will also have applied for unsuccessfully and still be part funded by the state. How is a unskilled migrant supposed to earn more than it costs to house, feed, educate and provide health care to himself and his family?0 -
Do you actually believe this statement? Unskilled migrants will ether be unemployed and funded by the state or displace a native from a unskilled job, no?
It's not a statement. It's a fact borne out by the above studies I've cited. Don't dismiss something because it doesn't fit your preconceptions.
From the Foreign Affairs article aboveRemarkably, this damage did not materialize. A 2013 working paper by Mette Foged of the University of Copenhagen and Giovanni Peri of the University of California, Davis, considered the impact of this influx, particularly on one of Denmark’s most vulnerable groups: its low-skilled native workers. Foged and Peri’s study found that the influx of migrants to Denmark had no negative impact on wages. Instead, as refugees came in, low-skilled native-born workers shifted into different jobs, sometimes using their command of Danish to differentiate themselves from the newcomers. What is more, the number of low-skilled jobs in the economy increased: proof that humans can sometimes substitute for machines, in a reversal of the familiar teleology. Because of these adaptations, the wages and job prospects of low-skilled native workers either improved or stayed the same.0 -
Doesn't seem to have been mentioned here but it looks like Merkel is becoming even more isolated and as one of the most important players within the EU and one with presumably access to a lot of information others aren't privy to his statements are worth consideration
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/02/detain-refugees-arriving--europe-18-months-donald-tuskIn a lengthy interview with the Guardian and five other European newspapers, Tusk, the former Polish prime minister, described Merkel’s open-door policy on refugees as “dangerous” and derided data claiming that Syrian-war refugees made up a majority of those trying to get to Europe. Public confidence in governments’ ability to tackle the immigration crisis would only be restored by a stringent new system of controls on the EU’s external borders, he said.Tusk suggested that it was a myth that the majority of refugees reaching Europe were Syrians in flight from war and said that more than two-thirds were irregular migrants who should be turned back.0 -
The notion that a low skilled migrant will be a net positive on the economy? It's bloody obvious that is not true.
A low skilled migrant will ether be unemployed and funded by the state or will work in a unskilled job which many of the host nations unskilled workers will also have applied for unsuccessfully and still be part funded by the state. How is a unskilled migrant supposed to earn more than it costs to house, feed, educate and provide health care to himself and his family?
Mod:
It maybe obvious to you but that's just an opinion. When others provide links to back up their opinion the onus is on you to provide some back up to contradict those links. Otherwise the thread just becomes a mess with people repeating you're wrong over and over which ruins the thread.Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.
0 -
Yes, the endless stream of largely unskilled "refugees" is going to be a boon for Europe, financially and socially.The qualification structure of immigrants from the crisis-afflicted states of Syria, Iraq, Nigeria and Afghanistan is probably poor. According to data from the World Bank, the illiteracy rate even among the 14-24 year old age group is 4 percent, 18 percent, 34 percent and 53 percent in these countries respectively. Even in the most developed of these countries (Syria) only 6 percent of the population has a university degree, which is not equivalent to a German diploma in many cases. Although refugees tend to be male and younger than the demographic average age, one thing is still clear: they are poorly prepared for the German labour market. In addition to language courses, Germany will also need to invest in training, which will generate extra costs.
http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2015/09/22915-germanys-ifo-refugees-to-cost-ten.html?m=10 -
kettlehead wrote: »Yes, the endless stream of largely unskilled "refugees" is going to be a boon for Europe, financially and socially.
http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2015/09/22915-germanys-ifo-refugees-to-cost-ten.html?m=1
I'm not sure why you put the word refugees in quotation marks. Seeing as the vast majority of arrivals are indeed from countries with very high success, it's the most accurate term to use.
At any rate, Syria is the main one to keep an eye on given it's responsible for the majority of arrivals. Third level participation rate is currently very low due to the war and many were unable to finish college but prior to this, 25% of eligible young people attended third level
However, even if you solely look at unskilled arrivals, the economic impact is positive, as the Commission report shows.0 -
Advertisement
-
RDM_83 again wrote: »Doesn't seem to have been mentioned here but it looks like Merkel is becoming even more isolated and as one of the most important players within the EU and one with presumably access to a lot of information others aren't privy to his statements are worth consideration
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/02/detain-refugees-arriving--europe-18-months-donald-tusk
That doesn't sound very accurate: even if you disregard the UNHCR figures, just under half of asylum applications in Germany are from Syrians. And this is including asylum seekers from Balkan countries who would not be factored into Mediterranean arrival numbers.
Unless Tusk can show what his sources are, this isn't very reliable, even if you think he has insider knowledge that hasn't been released to the public.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement