A punch in the gut - European Migration Forum

[Little Miss Sunshine]

My impression of the OP's "logical end result" is that it's probably supposed to be an improved treatment of refugees by the EU and the individual member states.

So those people who are already or will inevitably get into Europe regardless of the current immigration laws or any future changes (for better or worse).

It's quite impossible to argue against that, I hope.

Damn right :) it's about the conditions and provisions given to refugees. But many people keep mixing up the concept of refugees with economic migrants or even social tourists, so it's difficult to implement change in an effective way because the general public has been ill-informed from the get go. Hence the desperate need for better information.

[Rorshach]

On the separating refugees w/economic migrants, that's a general misunderstanding (at least here in Norway).

Norway has had no immigration since the '70s. However, we have anti-immigration parties (Progress Party, first and foremost) campaigning against immigration. The reasons are that we have 1) asylum seekers (who we let in very few of) and 2) family reunions (from workers who came here back in the day, and also at present).

Funnily enough, no-one mentions that immigration to Norway is first and foremost skilled labour from Europe. This was true even before Schengen.

As for conditions for those asylum seekers that do come here, they're not great. I organize a little football training for those who want on Saturdays (asylum seekers, that is), so I've seen the houses they are put in. Wouldn't want to live there myself - and they are 18 persons living there. Their cases may take years to resolve, all while they are living on stand-by, with little offered in terms of school/activities/anythingatall.

Not feeling too proud about that.

[baxus]

Funnily enough, no-one mentions that immigration to Norway is first and foremost skilled labour from Europe. This was true even before Schengen.

Yeah, the bar for immigrating to Norway is set rather high. I know several people who have immigrated to Norway in the last year or two all of them with university diplomas.

One of them is my college buddy, an electrical engineer who is now working for some Norwegian oil company or some such.

The other two are a married couple who have graduated Norwegian and English language, respectively.

Another married couple I know are thinking of doing the same - she's a landscape architect and he's a civil engineer.

[Little Miss Sunshine]

On the separating refugees w/economic migrants, that's a general misunderstanding (at least here in Norway).

Norway has had no immigration since the '70s. However, we have anti-immigration parties (Progress Party, first and foremost) campaigning against immigration. The reasons are that we have 1) asylum seekers (who we let in very few of) and 2) family reunions (from workers who came here back in the day, and also at present).

Funnily enough, no-one mentions that immigration to Norway is first and foremost skilled labour from Europe. This was true even before Schengen.

As for conditions for those asylum seekers that do come here, they're not great. I organize a little football training for those who want on Saturdays (asylum seekers, that is), so I've seen the houses they are put in. Wouldn't want to live there myself - and they are 18 persons living there. Their cases may take years to resolve, all while they are living on stand-by, with little offered in terms of school/activities/anythingatall.

Not feeling too proud about that.

That particular conference was about non-EU migrants, but there is another one curently going on regarding the defence of a border-free EU and the rights of EU expats, most of which currently fall on the cathegory that you've mentioned there in Norway. I am one of those migrants aswell (though obviously not living in Norway) :)

[Happy Ent]

I've asked several times before and haven't gotten an answer, but I'll ask again. Why is it that immigrants have such a hard time in Europe? You don't see that time kind of inability to assimilate here in the U.S.. Of course, immigrants can be themselves here; wear traditional clothing, practice their religion, isolate themselves if they so choose to (which none of them do, at least here in NYC). And yes, we have our fair share of bigots and xenophobes too.

Big question. There are a number of answers. Those you mention I don’t need to repeat, but maybe the following non-exhaustive list contains some new information to you.

1. First and foremost, the US and Canada have very strict immigration policies. The US immigrant population is selected for being highly skilled. They also speak the language of the host country. (On average, and disregarding quota refugees and yadda yadda. I hope I don’t need to mention that every time.) But look at how Somalis are faring in Canada, for instance (hint: not well), and imagine that this dynamic would be the typical situation.

2. The European labour market (on average and yadda yadda) is much more difficult to get into than the US. Strong unions, enormous minimum wage, generations-long history of social democracy. It’s a socialist paradise, and that comes at a price. If you aren’t highly skilled, don’t speak the language, don’t have a degree we recognise, and don’t have a social network, there is no job for you. Low-skilled, low-paying jobs simply do not exist.

3. Ethnic homogeneity. European societies do not have (on the average and yadda yadda) a tradition for multiculturalism. Social cohesion is built on shared histories and cultures. Contrast that to the US, where social cohesion is built on a common loyalty to the nation. Nationalism and ethnocentrism are both valid methods for achieve social cohesion and trust (I like neither very much but must admit that they work), but the differ in how easy they are to assimilate into.

4. Incentive structures. European social systems are built on huge, tax-based welfare systems. The Scandinavian economies in particular (which are the cleanest implementations of “the European model” and also have the hardest time integrating recent immigrants) signal a very tempting incentive structure that does a poor job at attracting immigrants with a protestant work ethic.

5. Current culture clashes. In instructive map is the two-dimensional plot from the world values survey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Values_Survey . You can see protestant Europe at the opposite end of the cultures that are the source of very large number of immigrants. In particular (and the map does not visualise that) Northwestern Europe is incredibly narrow in these values.

[Little Miss Sunshine]

For those who are interested I will share again the webstream link to the Forum, because there is another public discussion panel happening right now!

[The Iceman of the North]

I've asked several times before and haven't gotten an answer, but I'll ask again. Why is it that immigrants have such a hard time in Europe? You don't see that time kind of inability to assimilate here in the U.S.. Of course, immigrants can be themselves here; wear traditional clothing, practice their religion, isolate themselves if they so choose to (which none of them do, at least here in NYC). And yes, we have our fair share of bigots and xenophobes too.

Several good points have already been mentioned, but I thought I should mention a few more.

First of all the lack of integration is somewhat exaggerated. As mentioned, most of the immigrants coming to Europe in the past few decades are refugees, not economic immigrants, thus integration naturally take some time, but in general second generation immigrants are well integrated, with some exceptions. Among the exception are large immigration from former colonies, ending up in 'ghettoes' in countries with very low social mobility.

The two brothers that Altherion mentioned above became orphans early on, and even if they got 'proper' French education, they lived in areas in France with endemic unemployment and poverty and as good a chance of escaping this vicious cycle as Inner City African Americans does in the US. Because their family came from the North African colonies, and they have a different ethnic and religious background than other French people, they are more visible than poor ethnic French people in the same situation.

[Solmyr]

As harsh as the anti-immigration policies of many European countries have been lately, one must ultimately ask the uncomfortable question - what if that is what the majority of people in that country truly desire? Yes, emigrants have it pretty bad, especially those coming from war-torn countries, but is it the responsibility of European citizens to accommodate them and bear the burden of their integration?

Most people are not willing to pay that cost and compromise their own standard of living. It's not due to selfishness or greed, but because they believe they and their countrymen and women have earned that lifestyle and do not perceive it as fair to simply give it away.

[The Iceman of the North]

Most people are not willing to pay that cost and compromise their own standard of living. It's not due to selfishness or greed, but because they believe they and their countrymen and women have earned that lifestyle and do not perceive it as fair to simply give it away.

Or in other words because of selfishness and greed.

[Solmyr]

Or in other words because of selfishness and greed.

Do you believe that the people in Europe have not earned their standard of living?

or

Do you believe that them having earned it and wanting to keep it is a manifestation of selfishness and greed?

[The Mance]

Do you believe that the people in Europe have not earned their standard of living?

Well, if nothing else, you have to admire their foresight in choosing to be born in a stable, developed, economy. I mean, seriously, if someone decides to be born in a war-torn, poverty stricken, 3rd world cesspool, they should just stay there.

[Solmyr]

Well, if nothing else, you have to admire their foresight in choosing to be born in a stable, developed, economy. I mean, seriously, if someone decides to be born in a war-torn, poverty stricken, 3rd world cesspool, they should just stay there.

Your sarcasm, although appreciated, has no bearing on my argument.

P.S. If this turns into another "check your privilege" thread, I'm out.

[Suttree]

P.S. If this turns into another "check your privilege" thread, I'm out.

Promise?

[Solmyr]

Promise?

Out of the thread, not the forum. Don't get your hopes up ;).

[The Iceman of the North]

Do you believe that the people in Europe have not earned their standard of living?

Not most of people living in Europe today. They have 'earned' their current standard of living partly through the luck of being born in stable, wealthy countries, who got there by exploiting and destabilising the countries where the immigrants come from.

Personally, my standard of living can be attributed partly to a decision back in the 30'ies where the labour unions, the trade organisations, and the government got together and decided that instead of treating each others as mortal enemies, they should work together to maximise the welfare of everyone, and partly a decision by my ancient ancestors to settle down in a land that although with poor climate, turned out to have plenty of resources that became vital during the past 150 years or so like water and hydro-power potentials, and oil, combined with the wise people who have managed these resources in an optimal way.

[The Mance]

Your sarcasm, although appreciated, has no bearing on my argument.

Fine. Whatever the effects of the efforts by any particular individual in Europe has had towards "earning" their standard of living I would say are far eclipsed by the immediate advantages bestowed by the accident of their birth locale. Therefore, no, I don't believe that they should have any claim to an exclusive right to those advantages.

[Solmyr]

Not most of people living in Europe today. They have 'earned' their current standard of living partly through the luck of being born in stable, wealthy countries, who got there by exploiting and destabilising the countries where the immigrants come from.

Personally, my standard of living can be attributed partly to a decision back in the 30'ies where the labour unions, the trade organisations, and the government got together and decided that instead of treating each others as mortal enemies, they should work together to maximise the welfare of everyone, and partly a decision by my ancient ancestors to settle down in a land that although with poor climate, turned out to have plenty of resources that became vital during the past 150 years or so like water and hydro-power potentials, and oil, combined with the wise people who have managed these resources in an optimal way.

I agree we owe much of our current well-being to our ancestors. But here's the thing - those ancestors did a lot of the great things they did to make the lives of future generations better. And so do we, today. The difference being that what was once on a regional scale is now becoming more and more global. So the impact Europeans make to in the fields of technology, health care, mitigation of climate change, etc, would be reaped by people all over the world in the future.

What our ancestors did, they mostly did so that we (the people who live in the same regions) could inherit. In that regard they were more selfish and greedy than we are. And, consequently, if we assume the same future trend, then we are also more selfish and greedy in comparison to what future generations could be. However, since these future generations have not yet come, and our ancestors have already lived, it is far more realistic to compare ourselves to the latter.

And this is why I do not call us selfish or greedy, because the only measure by which we are such is imaginary.

Fine. Whatever the effects of the efforts by any particular individual in Europe has had towards "earning" their standard of living I would say are far eclipsed by the immediate advantages bestowed by the accident of their birth locale. Therefore, no, I don't believe that they should have any claim to an exclusive right to those advantages.

How do we propose to rectify this great injustice? A person has to be born somewhere and we're a long way off from making all places on earth equally attractive to live in. Would randomly allocating all newborns to areas in the world, thus preventing Europeans (and other first worlders) from monopolizing the advantages of living where their ancestors did, solve the issue?

[The Mance]

How do we propose to rectify this great injustice? A person has to be born somewhere and we're a long way off from making all places on earth equally attractive to live in. Would randomly allocating all newborns to areas in the world, thus preventing Europeans (and other first worlders) from monopolizing the advantages of living where their ancestors did, solve the issue?

Well, a start would be for people to at least acknowledge these inequities, where they exist, and to temper the sense of entitlement that develops where people are handed advantages through accident of birth.

[The Fallen]

My guess would be it's mainly the much higher unemployment level here (around 5% in the US right now vs. over 20% in most of southern Europe). Together with the fact that immigrants must jump many bureacratic hoops to get a job legally, this often leads to them working illegally doing shit jobs and getting payed very poorly. This also has the effect of them being perceived negatively by many locals. Finally it may be that your view of immigration in the States might not be the whole picture. Mexican illegal immigrants in southern states might have a much harder time than immigrants in NYC, who might be better educated or have more resources (though I don't know this, please don't take offense if you are an expert in the field or something...).

I'm not an expert, no. And thanks for the response.

First, you're right, most, if not all, of my experiences have been in the northeast of the U.S.. I would imagine it may be worse in the south. Also, as a Latino (born in Puerto Rico, raised in the States) I probably have a different outlook than other segments of the population.

I also mentioned that we have our fair share of bigots (and arguably a whole political party) who would love nothing more than running Mexicans and Central/South Americans out of their communities, if they could.

But overall, I still think that there's a better atmosphere of acceptance here that allows immigrants to be themselves and eventually Americans. And that's true for all ethnic groups. But it's not always a paradise nor perfect.

Happy Ent and The Iceman of the North, thanks for the responses. I've always wondered what the general attitude was towards immigrants.

[SeanF]

In the US the data has long since debunked the "take our jobs" myth and clearly shows that immigrants are a net positive to the native born population. Are things so different in Europe?

As for being a large drain on social services, that made the myth list as well. Here is a recent study from University College London

Xenophobia FTW!

Panel A of the report (p.41) shows a negative net contribution of £104 bn from non-EEA immigrants between 1995-2011, compared to a positive contribution of £8 bn from EEA immigrants. That is doubtless due in part to the fact that the former are much less likely to be in work than the latter and also, many are now past retirement age. But, it does conflict with the way that the study was headlined.

In the USA, I should think welfare provision in general is far less generous than in the UK or in the rest of the EU.