Migration Megathread

AllForIt

Asking 'what can be done' is just a rise, designed to draw out the racists, in the hope someone might say deport them all.

There is lots that can be done. Stop further migration to Europe. Limit freedom of movement within Europe to only people who are natives of Europe. Or stop freedom of movement within Europe altogether.

On freedom of movement within Europe, exactly how beneficial is this anyway. It always seemed to me to be an overly regarded luxury. How many ppl actually move within Europe as they would their own country for work? Very very few I'd imagine, an elite few perhaps. The Brits didn't think it that much of an advantage when most didn't think it was that important and knew they would loose it voting Brexit, and most would never taken advantage of it anyway. It was just the idea of it that seems lovely, but practically it's not that important to the vast majority of people.

BonnieSituation

If only a "few" or an "elite few" avail of freedom of movement then it's not really an issue is it?

So what purpose would here be to ending it? is it simply because you haven't found a use for it that you have decided that it's useless?

---

I have countless friends who have availed of it whether it was TEFL in Spain in their 20s or seeking a pretty big promotion in the Netherlands or Germany, that they couldn't get in Ireland. Not to mention the friends I've made from all over Europe that I was able to make because they could move to Dublin, Cork or Galway etc.

In fact, I postponed a place (paid and funded by the Danish State) on a Masters in Aalborg last year to finish up a contract I had with a company in Ireland.

And of course how many have returned to their "Erasmus" countries after graduation? A shít tonne I'd wager!

So you see, freedom of movement isn't for "elites" and no one is asking you to avail of it. It's your choice - and the famously insular Brits' -not to.

Brian?

AllForIt wrote: »

Asking 'what can be done' is just a rise, designed to draw out the racists, in the hope someone might say deport them all.

There is lots that can be done. Stop further migration to Europe. Limit freedom of movement within Europe to only people who are natives of Europe. Or stop freedom of movement within Europe altogether.

On freedom of movement within Europe, exactly how beneficial is this anyway. It always seemed to me to be an overly regarded luxury. How many ppl actually move within Europe as they would their own country for work? Very very few I'd imagine, an elite few perhaps. The Brits didn't think it that much of an advantage when most didn't think it was that important and knew they would loose it voting Brexit, and most would never taken advantage of it anyway. It was just the idea of it that seems lovely, but practically it's not that important to the vast majority of people.

Sorry, but this is all over the place.

Freedom of movement only matters to the elite? When things are back to normal, please take notice of who makes your sandwich or coffee.

In high tech companies, people move all over Europe to fill the skill gaps. Myself included.

Dannyriver

Brian? wrote: »

Sorry, but this is all over the place.

Freedom of movement only matters to the elite? When things are back to normal, please take notice of who makes your sandwich or coffee.

In high tech companies, people move all over Europe to fill the skill gaps. Myself included.

UK needed to bring in a large number of Romanians last week to pick fruit, due to the fact that there weren t enough UK citizens willing to do the work

BonnieSituation

Dannyriver wrote: »

UK needed to bring in a large number of Romanians last week to pick fruit, due to the fact that there weren t enough UK citizens willing to do the work

Worse than that, they brought them in to train fruit pickers!!!

Sand

Brian? wrote: »

Freedom of movement only matters to the elite? When things are back to normal, please take notice of who makes your sandwich or coffee.

In high tech companies, people move all over Europe to fill the skill gaps. Myself included.

Freedom of movement is a bit of a red herring in any case. It is not as if people couldn't move to another European country beforehand. As it is, it is often used by people who are essentially guest workers. They work. They return home. To the extent they stay on, Christian Europeans will integrate into another Christian European country in one generation. This is different the mass migration creating foreign enclaves. The gangs grooming 19,000 British schoolgirls in 2019 are not French, Italian or Polish in origin.

I don't think freedom of movement has had the intended benefit either. We are told on the one hand that there are critical skills/worker shortages in certain countries. There is epic unemployment - particularly youth unemployment - in other European countries like Spain and Greece. Yet freedom of movement is not solving the issue of matching job-seekers in one country to jobs in another. We are instead being told mass migration from outside the EU is necessary.

Dannyriver wrote: »

UK needed to bring in a large number of Romanians last week to pick fruit, due to the fact that there weren t enough UK citizens willing to do the work

The UK didn't need to do so. Sky is reporting that the 'Feed the Nation' had 30,000 applications from British workers for UK farmwork. No shortage of interest in doing the work.

A UK agricultural corporation prefers to pay low wages rather than pay decent wages to UK workers. A pittance for a UK worker is a fortune to a Romanian worker. An unholy alliance between corporate lobbyists and 'progressive' interests has created the neoliberal framework to support these corporations to bringing in cheap, disposable labour and hollowing out the UK labour market so that simple goals such as the financial stability to own a car, a house and start a family are increasingly out of reach for people in the UK. But stocks are up and diversity is our strength, right?

This is one of the reasons Labour has lost the British working class. And one of the reasons why the EU - so often the vehicle of neoliberal interests - is so reviled in the UK.

Danzy

Diversity, solidarity, internationalism, workers have more in common with each other than the bosses.

The claptrap the modern left tell each other so daddy's company keeps turning a big profit and the buy to let's are paid off by the time they inherit them, not that they'll live in such proletarian areas.

Sand

AllForIt wrote: »

Asking 'what can be done' is just a rise, designed to draw out the racists, in the hope someone might say deport them all.

It is never a serious question. I often compare the issue of mass migration to that of climate change. People will believe its credible and reasonable to expect every government in the world to co-operate without reservation to control global climate change, but at the same time they consider it bizarre and unthinkable that a single country can control its own borders and migration policy in the interests of its people, as opposed to its corporations.

If it was a serious question as to the solution, it would imply they agree there is a problem (they never do). At least there would be some criticism or challenge as to what the solution should be. Instead there is a retreat to mindless platitudes, detached from all evidence, learned by rote and reinforced by (corporate) mass media.

sid waddell

Brian? wrote: »

It was a genuine question. I regularly see walls of text like the above listing the problems with immigration into Europe. Never once do I see a suggested solution.

Oh they have a "solution" alright...

Dannyriver

Sand wrote: »

Freedom of movement is a bit of a red herring in any case. It is not as if people couldn't move to another European country beforehand. As it is, it is often used by people who are essentially guest workers. They work. They return home. To the extent they stay on, Christian Europeans will integrate into another Christian European country in one generation. This is different the mass migration creating foreign enclaves. The gangs grooming 19,000 British schoolgirls in 2019 are not French, Italian or Polish in origin.

I don't think freedom of movement has had the intended benefit either. We are told on the one hand that there are critical skills/worker shortages in certain countries. There is epic unemployment - particularly youth unemployment - in other European countries like Spain and Greece. Yet freedom of movement is not solving the issue of matching job-seekers in one country to jobs in another. We are instead being told mass migration from outside the EU is necessary.



The UK didn't need to do so. Sky is reporting that the 'Feed the Nation' had 30,000 applications from British workers for UK farmwork. No shortage of interest in doing the work.

A UK agricultural corporation prefers to pay low wages rather than pay decent wages to UK workers. A pittance for a UK worker is a fortune to a Romanian worker. An unholy alliance between corporate lobbyists and 'progressive' interests has created the neoliberal framework to support these corporations to bringing in cheap, disposable labour and hollowing out the UK labour market so that simple goals such as the financial stability to own a car, a house and start a family are increasingly out of reach for people in the UK. But stocks are up and diversity is our strength, right?

This is one of the reasons Labour has lost the British working class. And one of the reasons why the EU - so often the vehicle of neoliberal interests - is so reviled in the UK.

In fact they did 'need' to do it and spent upwards of 50, 00 euros to fly them in... as the uptake wasn t enough plus the growers felt that the skill levels of the local work force weren t up to it.

Brian?

Danzy wrote: »

Diversity, solidarity, internationalism, workers have more in common with each other than the bosses.

The claptrap the modern left tell each other so daddy's company keeps turning a big profit and the buy to let's are paid off by the time they inherit them, not that they'll live in such proletarian areas.

Nice swipe at the left there, pity it has zero basis in reality.

My "Daddy's company" was a Ford Transit that went into retirement with him. His "Daddy's company" was the Irish army. I grew up in a Dublin Corporation house, I benefited from free 3rd level education, cheap post graduate education thanks to the EU and now live in an EU partner country.

So you can shove you sneers and insults. I definitely have more in common with the predominantly working class people I work with than the CEO of my company.

The irony here is that the Europeans I work with mostly share a common working class background, whereas the Pakastani, Indian and Arab guys comes from much more affluent backgrounds.

Brian?

Sand wrote: »

Freedom of movement is a bit of a red herring in any case. It is not as if people couldn't move to another European country beforehand. As it is, it is often used by people who are essentially guest workers. They work. They return home. To the extent they stay on, Christian Europeans will integrate into another Christian European country in one generation. This is different the mass migration creating foreign enclaves. The gangs grooming 19,000 British schoolgirls in 2019 are not French, Italian or Polish in origin.

I was rebutting the point that freedom of movement within the EU is only for the elite. When in fact this is completely untrue.

Why you're bringing up rape gangs is beyond me, it was nothing to do with the point at hand.

Brian?

Sand wrote: »

It is never a serious question. I often compare the issue of mass migration to that of climate change. People will believe its credible and reasonable to expect every government in the world to co-operate without reservation to control global climate change, but at the same time they consider it bizarre and unthinkable that a single country can control its own borders and migration policy in the interests of its people, as opposed to its corporations.

If it was a serious question as to the solution, it would imply they agree there is a problem (they never do). At least there would be some criticism or challenge as to what the solution should be. Instead there is a retreat to mindless platitudes, detached from all evidence, learned by rote and reinforced by (corporate) mass media.

It was a serious question. If all you do is point out problems without ever proposing solutions you're doing little more than hurling from the ditch.

For the 200th time, there are problems with mass migration. Lots of them. But there are also benefits, lots of them. In the end the benefits outweigh the problems in my estimation. So I am happy with how the system is, I just think it needs some tweeks to be better, starting with faster processing of refugees.

What solutions do you propose?

Galwayguy35

Brian? wrote: »

It was a serious question. If all you do is point out problems without ever proposing solutions you're doing little more than hurling from the ditch.

For the 200th time, there are problems with mass migration. Lots of them. But there are also benefits, lots of them. In the end the benefits outweigh the problems in my estimation. So I am happy with how the system is, I just think it needs some tweeks to be better, starting with faster processing of refugees.

What solutions do you propose?

So what are the benefits of Europe being swamped with people from Africa and other countries over the last 5 years?

You said there are lots of them so should have no trouble listing them out.

Brian?

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So what are the benefits of Europe being swamped with people from Africa and other countries over the last 5 years?

You said there are lots of them so should have no trouble listing them out.

So all of the mass migration that occurs needs to by judged by one 5 year period?

Never mind that the initial premise of europe being swamped with people from Africa is in itself a strawman.

Galwayguy35

Brian? wrote: »

So all of the mass migration that occurs needs to by judged by one 5 year period?

Never mind that the initial premise of europe being swamped with people from Africa is in itself a strawman.

It's far from a strawman and you still haven't listed the benefits of all these people arriving in Europe.

Because there are no benefits to it, none at all in fact.

Sand

Brian? wrote: »

I was rebutting the point that freedom of movement within the EU is only for the elite. When in fact this is completely untrue.

Why you're bringing up rape gangs is beyond me, it was nothing to do with the point at hand.

You think corporations accessing cheap foreign labour, undermining and hollowing out the bargaining position of domestic workers, is not for the benefit of elites?

Sand

Brian? wrote: »

It was a serious question...What solutions do you propose?

You're demonstrating it was an entirely non-serious question. Against my better judgement I offered potential solutions. And here you are, asking again without ever having acknowledged the previous answer.

For the 200th time, there are problems with mass migration. Lots of them. But there are also benefits, lots of them.

List the benefits to the indigenous people. A wide array of resteraunts, right? Anything else?

In the end the benefits outweigh the problems in my estimation.

Benefits to who? What are you basing this estimation on? Your gut, or have you actually investigated the issue to make an informed decision?

So I am happy with how the system is, I just think it needs some tweeks to be better, starting with faster processing of refugees.

The benefit to yourself alone is not the same as there being a benefit to the indigenous people as a whole.

Brian?

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

It's far from a strawman and you still haven't listed the benefits of all these people arriving in Europe.

Because there are no benefits to it, none at all in fact.

I can list the benefits of migration that out weigh the problems with a lot of refugees arriving at once. I never said there were benefits to a lot of refugees arriving at once.

Brian?

Sand wrote: »

You think corporations accessing cheap foreign labour, undermining and hollowing out the bargaining position of domestic workers, is not for the benefit of elites?

If that was all that was happening, it would be terrible. It isn't though.

I think we'll educated people being able to move freely to fulfil the need for well educated people is for the benefit of all.

Brian?

Sand wrote: »

You're demonstrating it was an entirely non-serious question. Against my better judgement I offered potential solutions. And here you are, asking again without ever having acknowledged the previous answer.

I'm being 100% honest here. I never saw the answer.

List the benefits to the indigenous people. A wide array of resteraunts, right? Anything else?



Benefits to who? What are you basing this estimation on? Your gut, or have you actually investigated the issue to make an informed decision?



The benefit to yourself alone is not the same as there being a benefit to the indigenous people as a whole.

I'll come back to this when I have time.

But one question. How are you defining indigenous people? Citizens of a state or genetics?

Galwayguy35

Brian? wrote: »

I can list the benefits of migration that out weigh the problems with a lot of refugees arriving at once. I never said there were benefits to a lot of refugees arriving at once.

Go ahead so and list them.

Sand

Brian? wrote: »

I can list the benefits of migration that out weigh the problems with a lot of refugees arriving at once. I never said there were benefits to a lot of refugees arriving at once.

What you said was: "For the 200th time, there are problems with mass migration. Lots of them. But there are also benefits, lots of them. In the end the benefits outweigh the problems in my estimation. So I am happy with how the system is, I just think it needs some tweeks to be better, starting with faster processing of refugees."

So, what are the 'lots' of benefits to the indigenous population from mass migration?

Brian? wrote: »

If that was all that was happening, it would be terrible. It isn't though.

I think we'll educated people being able to move freely to fulfil the need for well educated people is for the benefit of all.

But it is happening. It is widely acknowledged that young people are falling further and further behind their parents in terms of wealth, home ownership and having the financial stability to start a family.

From this Guardian article:

- "The report by the Resolution Foundation paints a gloomy picture for all young adults across the developed world – apart from the Nordic countries. It highlights how incomes are depressed, jobs scarce and home ownership is slumping for the millennial generation compared with the baby boomers that preceded them."

- "It found that in 2014, British people born in the years around 1980 earned 13% less than those born around 1970 did at the same stage in life. In Greece this decline was 25%."

- "“Generation-on-generation progress has been all but wiped out for millennials whose home ownership rate in their late 20s, at 33%, is half that for the baby boomers at the same age (60%),” the foundation said."

-"But while UK millennials cannot access the property ladder, they are able to find jobs, in contrast to young adults in southern Europe. Resolution said the youth unemployment rate (15-30) more than doubled in Italy, Spain and Greece between the early 2000s and the years following the 2008 financial crisis, and remains above 25%.

-“In contrast, youth unemployment in the UK [at 9%] is almost as low today as it was during the 2000s, though there has been a rise in atypical working, such as zero-hours contracts and self-employment,” said the report."

-"In most developed European countries, there is now a widespread belief that young adults will be worse off than their parents – with the French the most pessimistic. Only 10% of French people think young people will be better off than their parents, while 71% believe they will be worse off."

None of this is controversial. Your refusal to acknowledge the reality of the situation only underlines how your views are not evidence based, but are instead dogmatic slogans, learned by rote.

Brian? wrote: »

I'm being 100% honest here. I never saw the answer.

We both know that's not true. You replied to the post on 2162 - "walls of text like the one above", remember? Try harder.

I'll come back to this when I have time.

Better idea is to use the time to do some research on the topic.

But one question. How are you defining indigenous people? Citizens of a state or genetics?

The UN issued an entire 46 article declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples without ever defining who indigenous people are. What do you think that means?

AllForIt

BonnieSituation wrote: »

If only a "few" or an "elite few" avail of freedom of movement then it's not really an issue is it?

So what purpose would here be to ending it? is it simply because you haven't found a use for it that you have decided that it's useless?

---

I have countless friends who have availed of it whether it was TEFL in Spain in their 20s or seeking a pretty big promotion in the Netherlands or Germany, that they couldn't get in Ireland. Not to mention the friends I've made from all over Europe that I was able to make because they could move to Dublin, Cork or Galway etc.

In fact, I postponed a place (paid and funded by the Danish State) on a Masters in Aalborg last year to finish up a contract I had with a company in Ireland.

And of course how many have returned to their "Erasmus" countries after graduation? A shít tonne I'd wager!

So you see, freedom of movement isn't for "elites" and no one is asking you to avail of it. It's your choice - and the famously insular Brits' -not to.

Brian? wrote: »

Sorry, but this is all over the place.

Freedom of movement only matters to the elite? When things are back to normal, please take notice of who makes your sandwich or coffee.

In high tech companies, people move all over Europe to fill the skill gaps. Myself included.

Forgive me if i did not express myself clearly but what I meant by using the poor choice of term 'elite' was to refer to a demographic of people who take up employment in European countries for perhaps the experience or to further their careers, not people for example such as an unskilled worker who emigrates to a small town in the west of Ireland from an eastern European country to work as a supermarket cashier because either they have no choice and/or they will be much better off doing that job here than in their native country.

In any case Irish IT workers are not emigrating to the EU in droves such that there are Irish ghettos splattered across Europe. Ditto for language teachers.

I don't know what the deal is with filling key skill shortages, or what it used to be rather, but I do have a friend that taught English in Japan and there's no freedom of movement agreement with Japan. What I'm getting at is that complete freedom of movement is overkill and there are other ways of filling key skill shortages without opening the gates to everyone.

10000maniacs

Limpy wrote: »

I reckon if we in the West stopped bombing/sanctioning some countries into the stone age less people would be forced to leave. Its an assimilate or die attitude. Case in point Libya/Ghaddifi

We are not the West, there is no such place. We are Ireland, and we have not bombed anybody into the stone age.

splashuum

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Go ahead so and list them.

I'm sure he wont list these stats relating to Finnish crime.

BarnardsLoop

10000maniacs wrote: »

We are not the West, there is no such place.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world

The Western world, also known as the West

You're entitled to your opinions, you're not entitled to your own made-up "facts".

splashuum

SNIP. Don't just dump tweets here please.

Madeleine Birchfield

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world



You're entitled to your opinions, you're not entitled to your own made-up "facts".

When people talk about the West they usually mean the United States, who is responsible for sanctioning and bombing countries like Iraq, Libya, and Yemen, and the United Kingdom, who is only a lapdog to the United States under Blair and Cameron.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: This is not a link repository. Please post more constructively than just one-liners and pasting links.