Refugee Crisis 2 - a warm welcome in Germany

[DireWolfSpirit]

I think many of these comments are framing this refugee question wrong. All kinds of comments about challenges or problems associated with opening the door to a large influx. But hardly any mention of the opportunity that hundreds of thousands of new minds, ideas, talents will come with them.

I mentioned previously Steve Jobs- son of a Syrian immigrant. I would also include not only Barak Obama, but no fewer than 6 of the present candidates for U.S. President, all sons of immigrants. http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-06-25/immigrant-roots-link-six-2016-candidates

Who is to say what greatness may rise from future generations of these refugees? Some see problems, I see opportunity!

[The guy from the Vale]

I think many of these comments are framing this refugee question wrong. All kinds of comments about challenges or problems associated with opening the door to a large influx. But hardly any mention of the opportunity that hundreds of thousands of new minds, ideas, talents will come with them.

I mentioned previously Bill Gate- son of a Syrian immigrant. I would also include not only Barak Obama, but no fewer than 6 of the present candidates for U.S. President, all sons of immigrants. http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-06-25/immigrant-roots-link-six-2016-candidates

Who is to say what greatness may rise from future generations of these refugees? Some see problems, I see opportunity!

 

The IT guru who was the son of a Syrian immigrant isn't Bill Gates but Steve Jobs ;)

 

That said, I agree with you that while there are some short and medium term problems associated with migration, in the long term it is almost always a benefit to the target country.

[Jo498]

The flip side is the brain drain the home countries experience if the smartest and most ambitious people leave. If I had a choice between no I-phones and $third-world-country becoming peaceful and better developed because smart person stayed there, it seems rather obvious that the second option would be better. Of course, we do not have the choice and for the persons themselves it might be far more advantageous to emigrate because their talents could not be developed in the same way at home, but it seems obvious that draining 3rd world countries of a large percentage of their best educated and smartest people will not improve the condition of these countries.

[Jacques the Japer]

What about my post makes me a doomsayer exactly? Read the US Department of Defences ' report on climate change and the impacts it will have on regime stability in the Middle East and Africa. What im saying is that yes, if we are going to resort to half arsed measures to please the hashtag crowd then yes, we all are fucking doomed.

 

Canada, The UK, Australia and Even effing Venezuela are just following the same refugee policy that nations have been following since the refugee conventions inception, Limits to migration and camps for processing exist throughout the world, its the UN that desperately needs the funding to properly run these places.

 

Germany wants to get all the benefits migration brings but socializes the costs to all its neighbours in the Balkans and along the med, that is a fact.

 

Also, I regards to the "brain drain" it is a well known phenomenon that occurs in developing countries irrespective of

 whether they're at war or not- see South Africa, and eastern Europe as good examples, But the good thing is you can be sure (Usually that these types of migrants wont have as adverse effects on social services as unskilled immigrants would, the UK for instance has been employing doctors and nurses from commonwealth countries for many years now.

 .

[The guy from the Vale]

@Jo, sure, in an ideal world I'd prefer that too. But at least in Syria, brain drain will happen anyway, in one of two ways: Either these brains (and the appended humans...) leave, or they get blown to pieces. Personally, I prefer the first option.

[sToNED_CAT]

I think many of these comments are framing this refugee question wrong. All kinds of comments about challenges or problems associated with opening the door to a large influx. But hardly any mention of the opportunity that hundreds of thousands of new minds, ideas, talents will come with them.

 

There's no doubt some of them really have valuable skills. But as whole, based on immigrants from the same demographic group that already are in Europe, they become net drain on welfare systems and EU economies.

[sToNED_CAT]

So you think that Europe, whose industrialisation has been one of the greatest contributors to climate change, should close its borders to climate refugees.

 

There are no real climate refugees and there won't be any in next centuries. Climate change IS REAL, but is so slow and insignificant that even 3rd world countries will be able to adapt. OVERPOPULATION is the real problem. Just look the the population of Africa and Middle East 30 years ago, now and projected population in 2050. Even if global warming turns out to be complete bogus and temperatures stop to climb, they won't be able to cope with such demographic time bomb.

[Gasp of Many Reeds]

 

There are no real climate refugees and there won't be any in next centuries. Climate change IS REAL, but is so slow and insignificant that even 3rd world countries will be able to adapt. OVERPOPULATION is the real problem. Just look the the population of Africa and Middle East 30 years ago, now and projected population in 2050. Even if global warming turns out to be complete bogus and temperatures stop to climb, they won't be able to cope with such demographic time bomb.

Whilst time will tell with Sub-Saharan Africa, the birth rate has in recent years declined across most of the Muslim world, to the extent that it's moving towards the global average* (with some notable countries, e.g. Saudi, Morocco, Libya, Tunisia, Iran and Turkey being below average by some estimates) and will probably soon in reach levels similar to parts of Europe (indeed has already done so in the UAE, Bahrain and Qatar). My guess is that a continued growth in education and economic development will lead to similar declines in sub-Saharan African birth rates within the next few decades.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_birth_rate

 

*Which has been decreasing for some time now.

[The Iceman of the North]

 

There's no doubt some of them really have valuable skills. But as whole, based on immigrants from the same demographic group that already are in Europe, they become net drain on welfare systems and EU economies.

In the short run perhaps, but hardly in the long run.

 

ETA: As for draining the welfare system, the argument could well be that the welfare system in Northern Europe depend on these immigrant to provide the needed care for the elderly. They may not be needed to fund the care for the elderly, but they are needed to actually do the job.

[Happy Ent]

ETA: As for draining the welfare system, the argument could well be that the welfare system in Northern Europe depend on these immigrant to provide the needed care for the elderly. They may not be needed to fund the care for the elderly, but they are needed to actually do the job.

 

I’ve never understood that argument except for the social signalling part.

 

Do you assume immigrants never get old? I simply don’t get it.

 

If you want to argue for immigration because of protecting the welfare system, providing jobs, ideas, etc., then you need to implement the highly selective immigration policies of Canada, the US, Australia, etc. These countries [i]joust about make it[/i] in the sense that the unquestionable benefits provided by some of the  immigrant population just about manages to counterbalance the unquestionable problems arising from it. (The data, alas, is mostly tied to demographics. Not even Canada is able to benefit from Somali population, every country benefits from immigration from South East Asia. If we stratified this by IQ, we might find a less racist explanation, which would be great.)

 

Europe currently provides massive data that the European immigration model (where we select on the basis of perceived need instead of quality of human capital) provides mainly adverse effects for the economy. (Not to speak of the consequences of social cohesion etc. I’m rich enough to pretend to myself that don’t care much about wealth, so the economic argument holds little traction for my anyway.)

[Happy Ent]

That said, I agree with you that while there are some short and medium term problems associated with migration, in the long term it is almost always a benefit to the target country.

 

… but not for the target population. (The US is the best example of that.) That‘s the whole point, and you’re not being constructive by ignoring the most important argument.

 

In fact, I don’t really know of any example of a welfare state that has benefitted from non-selective immigration. I’d be interested if you could provide an example. 

[sToNED_CAT]

The hilarious thing is that those countries praising economic benefits brought by new immigrants were closing their labor markets to workforce from eastern Europe just few years ago aka Polish plumbers scare. :lol:

[The guy from the Vale]

 

… but not for the target population. (The US is the best example of that.) That‘s the whole point, and you’re not being constructive by ignoring the most important argument.

 

In fact, I don’t really know of any example of a welfare state that has benefitted from non-selective immigration. I’d be interested if you could provide an example. 

 

Switzerland accepted 700'000 refugees from the Balkans in the 1990es, while having a population of around 7 million. I have yet to see the Swiss economy crumble under the burden, in spite of all the Cassandras.

[DireWolfSpirit]

The IT guru who was the son of a Syrian immigrant isn't Bill Gates but Steve Jobs ;)
 
That said, I agree with you that while there are some short and medium term problems associated with migration, in the long term it is almost always a benefit to the target country.

Yikes.... That was a brain hiccup, i meant Jobs not Gates. Posted that one right before going to bed , thanks for correcting that!
Here's the previous post from the first thread/closed.

Steve Jobs was the son of a Syrian migrant! http://www.huffingto...4b002d5c075ec83

[DireWolfSpirit]

The IT guru who was the son of a Syrian immigrant isn't Bill Gates but Steve Jobs ;)
 
That said, I agree with you that while there are some short and medium term problems associated with migration, in the long term it is almost always a benefit to the target country.

DP edit

[Northernmonkey]

 

I’ve never understood that argument except for the social signalling part.

 

Do you assume immigrants never get old? I simply don’t get it.

 

The population as a whole is getting older (ie. there are more and more pensioners) and as new immigrants tend to be young and healthy they're vital to offsetting that. Also a lot of EU immigrants actually go home to their countries of birth to retire.

[Tijgy]

Some news: the EU Parliament give positive advice to the Commission proposal to oblige countries to split 40 000 refugees in two years. 

 

(to make it so universal as possible, the information from EU parliament itself: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20150903IPR91518/html/MEPs-approve-first-emergency-rules-for-distributing-asylum-seekers-in-the-EU

 

In few days the Council will give their opinion. 

 

The EU is sooo slow! 

[Fragile Bird]

… but not for the target population. (The US is the best example of that.) That‘s the whole point, and you’re not being constructive by ignoring the most important argument.
 
In fact, I don’t really know of any example of a welfare state that has benefitted from non-selective immigration. I’d be interested if you could provide an example.

Not exactly what you asked for, but in 1978-79 when the Vietnamese boat people crisis ramped up, the Canadian government said they would bring in 20,000 people (maybe 25, I can't remember) on an orderly basis, and the Canadian people rose up and said screw that, we need to bring more people in faster. We took in 50,000 in less than a year, and 137,000 over time. I think Australia did as well. Those numbers exceed what the US did per capita, 827,000 admitted there. Canada is not a welfare state compared to many European countries, but it's a lot closer to them than the US is.

I heard an interview with a retired Immigration officer who said in an era before personal computers, they processed 1,500 people every 5 days. They were 'selecting' people, but let's face it, they had no way to check credentials (if the person had any) or stories. We definitely let in criminals and gang members, but overall the effort has worked out extremely well. Not only did many open businesses and hire both fellow refugees and other Canadians, their kids are now setting up branches of their businesses in Vietnam, helping their homeland and creating trade relations with Canada.

We are in the middle of an election, and people are pretty riled up about pictures of dead children on the beach and the slow process put in place by the current government. I am feeling more confident by the day that we will have a new government in October, and both opposition parties have vowed to bring in more Syrian refugees and at a dramatically faster pace.

[Fragile Bird]

I expect that when the war in Syria eventually ends, if the current government gets turfed, many people will go back to re-build their country.

[sToNED_CAT]

Switzerland accepted 700'000 refugees from the Balkans in the 1990es, while having a population of around 7 million. I have yet to see the Swiss economy crumble under the burden, in spite of all the Cassandras.

 
And then they voted for extremely restrictive immigration laws, without doubt because of all good experiences.
 

Some news: the EU Parliament give positive advice to the Commission proposal to oblige countries to split 40 000 refugees in two years.

(to make it so universal as possible, the information from EU parliament itself: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20150903IPR91518/html/MEPs-approve-first-emergency-rules-for-distributing-asylum-seekers-in-the-EU

40 000 is just the beginning. Now the talk is about 160 000 and it will go much higher. It doesn't matter though, eastern european countries won't accept it and if Germany and co. try to push it down their throat it will destroy EU.

 

I expect that when the war in Syria eventually ends, if the current government gets turfed, many people will go back to re-build their country.

Hardly. I expect 10% to return, at most. In fact they will have difficulties to deport even those people who won't be eligible for asylum. Once they are in, they'll stay in.