Europe: Close the Borders

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Regarding your first paragraph, yeah, but, as you say, that's not an immigration problem. That's a working class problem (specifically a working class male problem). Incidentally, it's probably an even more important explanation for the rise of the "far-right" movement in Europe. In Sweden those immigrants were largely from Yugoslavia. But I'd say the problem you're describing is hitting "original natives" about as hard as those old immigrants.

It is absolutely not an immigration problem but it is one of the biggest problems regarding what is often euphemistically described as 'the immigration problem'. You aren't going get the cosy, well-integrated communities that most people in politics say that they want unless you deal with that problem. Which, of course, is not a problem of immigration at all.

Yeah, that's probably the case (especially if you throw in various other issues - lower middle class support for far-right parties is hardly insignificant - as well), which isn't surprising as for the most part the phenomenon is one of protest voting (with racist attitudes being more the thing that makes the far-right option palatable; though I generalise to a gross and excessive extent).

Depends what you're looking at, really. Sticking with Britain again, across the whole country that's certainly true (in part because in the places that have suffered the most over the past third-of-a-century - the coalfields and maritime industrial areas - have always been, and still are, very white), but in the areas I mentioned specifically it's more complicated. The 'immigrants' have probably been hit harder, but then they were always lower down so perhaps it just looks that way, though... again... maybe not everywhere. Because things get even more complicated when you remember that in (for example) Birmingham, a lot of working class white families were living in slums until the 60s.

This is verging on a digression.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What Beet has proposed in this thread is certainly a hard-right position.

As for that being the current position of the left (however defined), that may well be so (though as this thread was originally about party politics and so on, you shouldn't ignore the tendency to use supposedly 'strong' language on the subject and to talk about the need for common cultural whatevers. Not that anyone buys it). But, of course, the current position of the mainstream right can also be caricatured in that way - as one of sticking its head in the sand and occasionally bleating about multi-culturalism without ever bothering to define it or what was once defined as 'pretending to discourage immigration' - although (of course) it's actually a vote winner, some of the time, which makes it different in one very important way.

The fundamental problem is that there is no single solution because we aren't actually talking about a single problem. One big issue, for example, is the fact that relations between the police and minority groups are usually beyond terrible. Generally there's nothing even remotely resembling trust there. That has all kinds of implications to the other issues raised in this thread, (in obvious ways, yes, but also by occasional overcompensation) but there's no easy solution to it.

Maybe a comment on the regrettable state of public discourse on these general issues would be a good idea. Though it's kind of a given, isn't it? A majority of newspapers sold in Britain regularly contain deeply inflammatory articles on the subject and I'm fairly sure that's true of some other countries (I do like to think that our press is worse than any other on that kind of thing - in order to stay sane).

[Gustaf]

I'm not entirely sure what your policy-prescription here is? (and I'll note that I think things would be a lot worse without the capitalism you seem to abhor).

I'm aware that this is not a very inventive idea, but basically to fight poverty and inequality. And particularly to focus the political debate on that, instead on side issues like the burqa or illegal immigrants or stuff like that.

And by the way I don't 'abhor' capitalism, but I don't affirm it either.

I suspected that and it's a noble idea and all, but you're not going to "fix" poverty and inequality in the Third World anytime soon. So, while that persists the problem of immigration will still be around. I'd agree that debating burqas isn't the best idea.

Al: I'm not sure I disagree sufficiently with your last post to want to add anything. But, yeah, the rampant racism in  certain British tabloids does not exist in any Swedish newspaper (and is furthermore completely unimaginable).

[Serenity Now]

immigration- CLOSE THE BOARDS

I remember that one.. who wrote that? Was it Josh22?

[republicanism]

I suspected that and it's a noble idea and all, but you're not going to "fix" poverty and inequality in the Third World anytime soon. 

No no, I was indeed talking about poverty and inequality here in our countries.
I think Sibboleth made the point about the Indopaks in Britain, who moved to the industrial areas because there were the jobs. Now, the jobs are gone. Same here in Germany. May be not as worse as in post-Thatcherite Britain, but still. Help those run-down communities and you win the future.

Job opportunities are the best weapon both against rascism (at least against some forms of racism, of course there is upper class racism, too) as against social distress (with the unavoidable consequence of a higher crime rate) among immigrants.

[Gustaf]

I suspected that and it's a noble idea and all, but you're not going to "fix" poverty and inequality in the Third World anytime soon. 

No no, I was indeed talking about poverty and inequality here in our countries.
I think Sibboleth made the point about the Indopaks in Britain, who moved to the industrial areas because there were the jobs. Now, the jobs are gone. Same here in Germany. May be not as worse as in post-Thatcherite Britain, but still. Help those run-down communities and you win the future.

Job opportunities are the best weapon both against rascism (at least against some forms of racism, of course there is upper class racism, too) as against social distress (with the unavoidable consequence of a higher crime rate) among immigrants.

But there are billions of terribly poor people in the Third World. If given the oppotunity many of them will obviously want to come to the West. If we have open borders that is going to be a problem.

[republicanism]

But there are billions of terribly poor people in the Third World. If given the oppotunity many of them will obviously want to come to the West. If we have open borders that is going to be a problem.

Since 'the West' is declining in population, we need some net immigration anyways.
And of course most of the 'billions of terribly poor' you mentioned will never come near to our borders, since they are to poor even for that. They can't pay the people smuggling mafia.
It is very cynical to talk so, but 'thanks' to that there is no need to fear a humongous wave of immigration to break on the borders of Europe.

And besides you're right, I don't have a solution to the problems of the Third World. If you got one, let me hear :-)

[Gustaf]

But there are billions of terribly poor people in the Third World. If given the oppotunity many of them will obviously want to come to the West. If we have open borders that is going to be a problem.

Since 'the West' is declining in population, we need some net immigration anyways.
And of course most of the 'billions of terribly poor' you mentioned will never come near to our borders, since they are to poor even for that. They can't pay the people smuggling mafia.
It is very cynical to talk so, but 'thanks' to that there is no need to fear a humongous wave of immigration to break on the borders of Europe.

And besides you're right, I don't have a solution to the problems of the Third World. If you got one, let me hear :-)

I don't know why we need to have population growth, necessarily. Especially if we can't handle that immigration, which ties back to where the thread started.

Of course not everyone will come. That's why I made the point that there are so many and many of them so close to Europe. People who are sufficiently desperate will find ways to cover geographic distances.

My point wasn't really on how to solve the global poverty problem, but merely that it won't be solved in the near future. Thus, open borders will mean a very large flow of migrants.

(I would say that the main solution lies in fostering reliable institutions, especially in protecting private property, in order to spur economic growth. Basically to follow East Asia)

[republicanism]

I don't know why we need to have population growth, necessarily. Especially if we can't handle that immigration, which ties back to where the thread started.

We need to if we want to maintain our welfare state. I can't speak about Sweden of course, but the German welfare state struggles if the workforce becomes smaller and the brigades of pensioners become more and more.

[Beet]

Here is an interesting poll:

More also continue to support the right of people to migrate within the EU in search of work than oppose it. However, a narrow plurality are against migration from outside the EU. Across the countries polled opposition stands at 37% against support at 32%. Again, Britain is notably hostile to non-EU migration: 47% say they are against it, while only 20% are in favour – with 23% of Britons saying they are "strongly hostile".

By contrast 46% of Poles are in favour against 25% who are against. Poland is the only state among those surveyed where approval leads opposition. In Germany, 30% approve while 37% do not. In France, the figures are 30% to 39% and in Spain 33% to 39%.

Overall, 62% of the more than 5,000 people polled across Britain, Germany, Poland, Spain and France say they see themselves as "liberal" rather than "traditional" on social issues. While 24% of Europeans claim to be "very liberal", only 4% think they are "very traditional", in answer to a question specifically asking their approach to issues such as marriage, women's rights and gay rights.

These polls don't indicate overwhelming opposition to immigration, that you would expect from recent political trends in Europe. But it may be true that immigration is helping to stimulate these parties, along with law and order issues and other issues.

[Gustaf]

I don't know why we need to have population growth, necessarily. Especially if we can't handle that immigration, which ties back to where the thread started.

We need to if we want to maintain our welfare state. I can't speak about Sweden of course, but the German welfare state struggles if the workforce becomes smaller and the brigades of pensioners become more and more.

Given the fact that a large share of immigrants are not employed and that the share of employment is likely to fall if we were to bring in larger numbers, it's hard to see that solving the problem of financing pensions in the future.

It's essentially a non-solution to the demographic problem.

[Sbane]

Europe obviously needs to bring in immigrants that work. And Europe absolutely needs to do it if they want to maintain their welfare state. It's ridiculous that a lot of immigrants don't work in Europe (if true). Isn't the point of immigration to find greater opportunities (read: better jobs) in other lands? Europe needs to encourage immigration based on their needs rather than the immigrants needs (refugees for example). Both the nation and the immigrant communities will be better off for it. I can't guarantee that it will solve racial tensions (the resistance to Mexican immigration in the us would be a good example) but it will certainly help both immigrants have jobs and provide the home nation with a broader tax base.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's ridiculous that a lot of immigrants don't work in Europe (if true). Isn't the point of immigration to find greater opportunities (read: better jobs) in other lands?

What do you mean by 'immigrants'? Most post-war/post-decolonisation/etc immigrants did move to whatever country for work and usually found it. That was forty, fifty years ago in most countries, back during the long lost 'Golden Age of Capitalism'. Most of those jobs have gone, which is why these communities have such high unemployment rates. Most members of these communities have difficulties finding new work because they are generally unskilled and usually have few decent qualifications. There are also issues with labour market regulations and so on in some countries and various nightmarish housing and transport problems in others. This is not a problem of immigration, except indirectly, but is a massive contributor to various... er... problems of 'community cohesion'... yes... that seems like a functional euphemism.

[minionofmidas]

There are some communities that came here almost entirely on somewhat dodgy political persecution claims but from places it was absolutely legitimate to flee and they couldn't well be transported back to. Lebanese (they're usually called either that or "Arabs" in the media; actually quite a few of them are from Syria. Our Lebanese being poor rurals and Sunni Muslims, it should be explained. The well-connected Lebanese went elsewhere) being the most well known example. Many of these people were, for years and years, prohibited from working and forced to live on welfare. Which they got at German levels. Including benefits for extra children. And of course, got papers legalizing their stay only for the next six months or a year at a time. Honestly, can you wholly blame them for the sh!t that happened? Other people from elsewhere went through the same situation, of course, but here you got an entire community with nobody doing else. That the cities they came to congregate in mostly weren't the most booming - Berlin, Hamburg, Bremen - didn't help either. (And yes, it was possible to get work permits anyways. You needed to find an employer who absolutely wanted you, and was prepared to put up with a bit of hassle every year or so. That's pretty uphill. Certainly not the path of least resistance to even start looking, especially when you don't even know where to start.)

[Sbane]

It's ridiculous that a lot of immigrants don't work in Europe (if true). Isn't the point of immigration to find greater opportunities (read: better jobs) in other lands?

What do you mean by 'immigrants'? Most post-war/post-decolonisation/etc immigrants did move to whatever country for work and usually found it. That was forty, fifty years ago in most countries, back during the long lost 'Golden Age of Capitalism'. Most of those jobs have gone, which is why these communities have such high unemployment rates. Most members of these communities have difficulties finding new work because they are generally unskilled and usually have few decent qualifications. There are also issues with labour market regulations and so on in some countries and various nightmarish housing and transport problems in others. This is not a problem of immigration, except indirectly, but is a massive contributor to various... er... problems of 'community cohesion'... yes... that seems like a functional euphemism.

I was talking about mainly new immigrants not working and living of the welfare state (again I am not sure how high this number actually is, or if the "problem" is just an exaggeration), rather than immigrants of past who may have become unemployed due to economic circumstances.

I guess it's different in Britain than it is in Sweden and some other countries where there might have been more recent immigration?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There's been a lot of recent immigration to Britain, just not from the places that culture-warriors like to fret about. One group in particular have contributed greatly to an increase in the amount and variety of picked vegetables available in supermarkets.

As for new immigrants immediately ending up on some kind of state support; usually (as Lewis has pointed out) we're talking about groups that emigrated for other reasons. So in Britain there was all that hysterical bollocks about 'bogus asylum seekers' (actual media term) about a decade ago and so on. There are usually all sorts of restrictions on where they can live, what sort of work (if any) they can do and so on.

[Gustaf]

Europe obviously needs to bring in immigrants that work. And Europe absolutely needs to do it if they want to maintain their welfare state. It's ridiculous that a lot of immigrants don't work in Europe (if true). Isn't the point of immigration to find greater opportunities (read: better jobs) in other lands? Europe needs to encourage immigration based on their needs rather than the immigrants needs (refugees for example). Both the nation and the immigrant communities will be better off for it. I can't guarantee that it will solve racial tensions (the resistance to Mexican immigration in the us would be a good example) but it will certainly help both immigrants have jobs and provide the home nation with a broader tax base.

I don't think the current welfare state can be upheld through immigration, because many aspects of that welfare state bars immigration from going smoothly. A price you pay for generous welfare is a reliance on social cohesion and a barrier for people to get into the labour   market. Or at least it's difficult. The solution probably lies in encouraging people to start working earlier and stop working later.

Whether we have immigration out of solidarity with those who are persecuted or for our own self-interest is a bit unclear. Politicians tend to try and confuse those two issues for political leverage, but they're quite different.

[Torie]

How are all those Eastern Europeans fitting in, in Britain? They were everywhere in London when I was there 3 years ago, and apparently favored immigrants per government policy.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How are all those Eastern Europeans fitting in, in Britain? They were everywhere in London when I was there 3 years ago, and apparently favored immigrants per government policy.

A lot of them come and go, because of the lack of restrictions (interesting parallel with West Indian - especially - immigrants in the 60s; a tightening up of restrictions actually led to more people coming - and staying - here as families came over to 'beat the ban'), though a lot have settled it seems (we'll presumably get a better idea of how many when they get round to counting the census returns). As noted above, they've contributed to an increase in the amount and range of pickled vegetables on sale in supermarkets. There have been problems in a couple of areas (notably Boston. There were also issues in Wrexham initially - the BNP did well in the town in the 2007 Assembly Election for example - but things seem to have settled somewhat), but less than with other groups in the past because... well... yeah. It's obvious why.

[minionofmidas]

A lot of them come and go, because of the lack of restrictions (interesting parallel with West Indian - especially - immigrants in the 60s; a tightening up of restrictions actually led to more people coming - and staying - here as families came over to 'beat the ban')

Same thing would happen in Germany in the early years of the Kohl regime.