Immigration

[Solly]

compete with the west for immigrants

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Boddington's


Shit, I didn't realise this!

And you are doing an economics degree too.

[Solly]

Originally posted by elijah
I have yet to see a decent argument against immigration in a nation

I hope Shi Huangdi doesn't mind me re-porting his excellent contribution.

"As I understand, Europe is undergoing a large influx of Islamic immigrants. Islamic immigrants come in at a high rate and then have a birth rate substantially higher then the native population. I have heard in some cases Islamic immigrants integrate poorly and reject the secularism around them. In Britain there was a case where a hard-line Islamic group dedicated to seeting up an Islamic State in Britain orchestrated a suicide bombing in Israel. In France I know there have been some cases where Islamic youths have attacked the country's Jewish population. I think the European countries, with some interest in preserving a free and secular state, may wish to formulate policies so as to avoid ever having an Islamic majority sometime down the road."

for cultural enrichment

Why is it when we accept other cultures to the West, it is seen as enriching and diversifying, yet when American culture spreads, it is seen as a plague by those very same people who claim to like enrichment and diversification?

diversification, and acceptance of others. It helps to break peope out of their closed, complacent minds, and think in a more open, liberal, wide and accepting manner. This would be a good thing.

I might be more open and accepting if we weren't bringing in people who five years down the line will be tempted to slam a plane against Buckhingham Palace.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
The "They're stealing our jobs" line always makes me wonder why people think the number of available jobs is a static number.

The economy will grow due to the increase in population, the subsequent growth in the economy then creates more jobs.

Let's make a little equation shall we?

Y(p) = national income
p = population
Y/p = income perhead.

Yes, sure, an increase in p will lead to an increase in Y(p). But the effect on Y/p is ambiguous.

If you seriously think an increase in p will increase Y/p, please tell me why you think a native worker is less productive than a newly arrived one?

[DanS]

If you seriously think an increase in p will increase Y/p, please tell me why you think a native worker is less productive than a newly arrived one?

In many instances, this is the case. The US has gained rather extraordinarily from our Indian immigrants, for instance.

[Solly]

I'm assuming exogeneity - mostly true for Europeans but maybe not for the US.

[DanS]

You're going to have to back up your assumption. It's probably not a good one. The latest studies re immigration in the US have surprised almost everyone.

[Heresson]

The question is, will the disparity be so much that it will force people to emmigrate? Perhaps for a few decades. It is most likely that it will change within my lifetime, which isnt a long period of time in terms of demographics.

Up till then, there'll be millions of immigrants already in your state.

We should certainly help to accelerate through peaceful means, the economies and the suffering (often caused by us) in the source nations. However, I do not see a connection with these "great waves of immigration". What an individual does is down to that individual.

I disagree. If economy is growing, and people are happy where they live, there's no need for emmigration.
How are sufferings of poorer states caused by the richer ones? I don't think it is like that. It's not Europe that made Africa poor. It's always been.

Indeed it is, and a very prudent question. What makes me sure is that one has two communities not physically separated by miles of ocean or land, living in close proximity. As time goes on, the interaction will increase, and ultimately, they will be one community.

That's naive; Immigrants tend to live in one quater. People can live years not getting to know the language or habits of their new state. And it will be them to bring up their children - the school won't change that.

Im not saying that this time wont be turbulent, but like all things, the wider trend will be closer integration. For example, look at the difference between 1st generation black and asian immigrants in britain, and their children and grandchildren. The 2nd and 3rd generations are part of british culture, british society. It aids our evolution as a culture.

Why do You call it "evolution". Is society any better only because it is multiple?

Because soon they will find a job (assuming that we let them, but then that is down to us and not them), from which they can pay income tax, and contribute back to society. You pay them benefits for a few months at best, theyre working and paying taxes for years. Meantime, they can be contributing to society, the actual jobs they can do are vital. Already in Britain, they are prepared to take on jobs others wont do, but it is also increasing the net amount of brainpower in this society, increasing our rate of progress.

You are right, of course. But will an uneducated not knowing any language but his own person find job so easily? And will He really be willing to do ANY job?
It is probable that He'll try to earn money in some other way...

If you really believe that the bible, the torah etc is the true word of god, and not a human interpretation, then you will also believe that women are not deserving of equal rights

Not quite, if I go back to the New Testament only.

and various other illogical nonsense.

Nothing that God says is illogical.

A text writtenf for a desert culture thousands of years ago has little relevance in society today.

That's the problem. And that's one of the main differences between Christianity and Islam. While CHristianity believes that words of the Bible were inspired by God, and learnt to interpretate it in relevance to the time it was said; when it comes to Islam, it is believed by its followers that Qur'an is the exact word of the God, to the extent it can not be translated or "modernised" linguistically. Therefore, the interpretation of it will always be much stricter. And in fact I believe that fundamentalists are somewhat right.
If You believe that what it says is right, You can't interpretate it otherwise than the strict meaning.

With regards to the law, all semetic religions that I know of permit a breaking of the law in its current format. The question is whether that is active. One should not persecute an entire religion, an entire community, simply because a defining feature of that community is used to justify acts against the law. Its a slipperly slope of different interpretations of the law. The danger is the people can get the same attitudes towards ethnic minorities as the Germans did in the 30's towards the Jews.

You're wrong with what You've said, as a Jew could not stop being Jew, and You can (well....) convert.

[Solly]

Originally posted by DanS
You're going to have to back up your assumption. It's probably not a good one. The latest studies re immigration in the US have surprised almost everyone.

Sorry, totally missed this thread somehow.

You're just comparing the output of one productive group of your immigrants (Indians) to the average productivity of all of our immigrants.

I would imagine that the US has more control over which Indian immigrants it accepts than the control the UK over which immigrants of any nationality it accepts or is forced to accept.

I still find it hard to accept that a immigrant chosen at random (which is effectively what immigrants landing at our shores are) have a higher productivity than workers who have been brought up here.

However, if the governments have a degree of choice over who to accept, the matter is definitely complicated somewhat.

[DanS]

I still find it hard to accept that a immigrant chosen at random (which is effectively what immigrants landing at our shores are) have a higher productivity than workers who have been brought up here.

Our studies tend to shatter these kinds of assumptions. Among our most highly educated immigrants are Africans. After working here for a while, these immigrants are paid more on average than black American citizens from birth, which in turn is not that different from what a white American citizen from birth will earn.

Boddington's WAGs and "hard to accepts" just aren't good enough. You have to do the work to find out what the reality is.

I would imagine that the US has more control over which Indian immigrants it accepts than the control the UK over which immigrants of any nationality it accepts or is forced to accept.

You can't be serious. Immigration controls in the US are a joke. By and large, pre-9/11 the US had almost no control over immigration. Come on a tourist visa. Find a good job. Fit right in and nobody will question you. Post-9/11 hasn't settled down enough to know if this is continuing.

[Solly]

By and large, pre-9/11 the US had almost no control over immigration. It was a joke. Come on a tourist visa. Find a good job. Fit right in and nobody will question you. Post-9/11 hasn't settled down enough to know if this is continuing.

This still implies a certain selectivity. Those coming to work would not come over unless they expect to be able to achieve a high enough wage to survive/support family/etc. Therefore more talented immigrants.

UK offers benefits to all asylum seekers (a large proportion of our "immigrants"), meaning they don't have to work for a living or necessarily be talented.

And come on..I'm a studying Economist - I come up with theories then wait a while to validate them.

[Solly]

False Panacea of Immigration

However, in Ireland...

...the influx of skilled labour substantially increased the productivity of the Irish economy...

http://www.fas.ie/FAS_Review/immigration.html

[DanS]

Oh I see you're backpedalling. Before we continue, let's make sure we agree on your earlier comments.

You're just comparing the output of one productive group of your immigrants (Indians) to the average productivity of all of our immigrants.

Wrong. I compared the average among a group of immigrants to the average among a comparable native born group.

I would imagine that the US has more control over which Indian immigrants it accepts than the control the UK over which immigrants of any nationality it accepts or is forced to accept.

Wrong. The US has precious little control.

I still find it hard to accept that a immigrant chosen at random (which is effectively what immigrants landing at our shores are) have a higher productivity than workers who have been brought up here.

Wrong. You just admitted that your immigrants aren't chosen at random.

[Solly]

And immigrants contribute to the vitality of our institutions because they tend to be more intellectually vigorous as well as harder-working than natives. How much of this vigor is due to being "hungry" rather than settled and affluent, how much due to their being self--selected for vigor among the populations they come from, and how much due to the stimulating effects of living in the tension of two cultures are open questions, but not crucial in this context.

And this kind of sums it up. It mostly depends on the circumstances in which the migrants arrive.

http://www.libertyhaven.com/thinkers/juliansimon/whatabout.shtml

[Solly]

It takes more vigour and a confidence in your abilities to go to a nation, get a tourist visa and work illegally than it does to drift to a nation illegally and obtain benefits and start to work down the line.

This vigour might lead to a shor-term gain in productivity.