Mediterranean migrant crisis.

[Ultimatum]

Do you think illegal immigrants have the right to stay in the EU

No.

, such as with an amnesty?

I don't support offering amnesty to illegal immigrants--all this does is encourage people-traffickers and, before you know it, the problem becomes permanent. This is the problem that America faces.

That would resolve existing legal problems and make it possible to sort out any future problems with immigration?

What would? Offering amnesty?
It would do the total opposite by encouraging people-smugglers to traffick their people across the borders--it's like sticking a plaster over a gushing wound.

 

[Laika]

No.



I don't support offering amnesty to illegal immigrants--all this does is encourage people-traffickers and, before you know it, the problem becomes permanent. This is the problem that America faces.



What would? Offering amnesty?
It would do the total opposite by encouraging people-smugglers to traffick their people across the borders--it's like sticking a plaster over a gushing wound.

Would you therefore deport them? Or is there a middle ground?

 

[Ultimatum]

Would you therefore deport them? Or is there a middle ground?

This is going to depend on where abouts in the EU we're talking about: the main gateways at southern Europe or the final destinations at northern Europe?
For the former, instant deportation is needed. They arrive at European shores, we treat them for illnesses, and we send them back on seaworthy vessels.
For the latter, the middle ground must be adopted--current residing illegal immigrants should be ignored (illegal immigrants at the borders must be deported), as it costs a small fortune to deport even one of them. But this must not be conflated with offering amnesty to these individuals, lest we become inundated.

EDIT: Keep in mind that they're generally economic immigrants from Africa and the Middle-East, very few of the people that gets taken in actually qualify as verified refugees under the convention rules. All they need to do is throw away their passport.

 

[Laika]

This is going to depend on where abouts in the EU we're talking about: the main gateways at southern Europe or the final destinations at northern Europe?
For the former, instant deportation is needed. They arrive at European shores, we treat them for illnesses, and we send them back on seaworthy vessels.
For the latter, the middle ground must be adopted--current residing illegal immigrants should be ignored (illegal immigrants at the borders must be deported), as it costs a small fortune to deport even one of them. But this must not be conflated with offering amnesty to these individuals, lest we become inundated.

EDIT: Keep in mind that they're generally economic immigrants from Africa and the Middle-East, very few of the people that gets taken in actually qualify as verified refugees under the convention rules. All they need to do is throw away their passport.

I can't see how not giving an amnesty solves the problem, as if it costs that much to deport just one illegal immigrant we leave the problem unsolved. They remain persons without legal rights or protections in this country. If I were to assume immigrants were a problem because they undercut wages of nationals, it means we have a defacto underclass which live in virtual servitude in this country.

I guess that illegal immigration has only recently become a problem as people have become more mobile with the development of cars, trains and air travel. The concept of the nation-state is one that developed in the 18th and 19th century and it's colloiding with the mobility offered by 21st century transport. Assuming people become more mobile over time, surely this problem will get worse and we will have to consider something closer to open borders?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

A record-number of asylum-seekers have been making their way across the Mediterranean Sea--most taking the route from Libya to Italy in unseaworthy boats. Some of these "asylum-seekers", as reported by the Italian press, are actually Islamic extremists who seek to do wrong to our continent; many of them want the taste of easy welfare as offered by many northern European countries.

And the European Union now expects us to accommodate these migrants! And do you know what? As members of the EU and, therefore, bound by the 1951 Convention on Refugees, the ECHR and the Lisbon Treaty, with its Charter of Fundamental Rights, we are totally and utterly impotent to do anything about it.
We have voluntarily surrendered our ability to make our own decisions.

We may not be as powerless as thought. The UK government has quite firmly said they will not take part in any mandatory quota, I don't see it happening.

 

[Wirey]

A record-number of asylum-seekers have been making their way across the Mediterranean Sea--most taking the route from Libya to Italy in unseaworthy boats. Some of these "asylum-seekers", as reported by the Italian press, are actually Islamic extremists who seek to do wrong to our continent; many of them want the taste of easy welfare as offered by many northern European countries.

And the European Union now expects us to accommodate these migrants! And do you know what? As members of the EU and, therefore, bound by the 1951 Convention on Refugees, the ECHR and the Lisbon Treaty, with its Charter of Fundamental Rights, we are totally and utterly impotent to do anything about it.
We have voluntarily surrendered our ability to make our own decisions.

Yes, those pesky immigrants and their desire to flee poverty, war, and pestilence for 'easy welfare'. That's what's happening.

I'll bet the Miq'mac people said the same things about those filthy Europeans. These immigrants are Africa's version of our pioneers, and you know what? They're tougher than us mentally. In 100 years, they'll own the place. We have voluntarily decided to watch TV and eat Doritos while the rest of the planet eats us alive.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Making an heroic effort and ignoring the USians attempts to hijack a European thread, I'd point out that we are under no obligation to accept economic migrants: that was confirmed yesterday by a UN spokesperson. And even if the treaties we foolishly signed oblige us to accept "refugees" and we don't, what then? A UN/EU policeman coming round to arrest Cameron and May? I think not. As for the Africans, if their countries are in such a mess, why don't they do something about it? If Britain is a more desirable place to like than Nigeria, that's because we made it so: no one came with aid packages to do it for us.

 

[Wirey]

Making an heroic effort and ignoring the USians attempts to hijack a European thread, I'd point out that we are under no obligation to accept economic migrants: that was confirmed yesterday by a UN spokesperson. And even if the treaties we foolishly signed oblige us to accept "refugees" and we don't, what then? A UN/EU policeman coming round to arrest Cameron and May? I think not. As for the Africans, if their countries are in such a mess, why don't they do something about it? If Britain is a more desirable place to like than Nigeria, that's because we made it so: no one came with aid packages to do it for us.

Um, actually, didn't the Romans?

 

[Kirran]

Making an heroic effort and ignoring the USians attempts to hijack a European thread, I'd point out that we are under no obligation to accept economic migrants: that was confirmed yesterday by a UN spokesperson. And even if the treaties we foolishly signed oblige us to accept "refugees" and we don't, what then? A UN/EU policeman coming round to arrest Cameron and May? I think not. As for the Africans, if their countries are in such a mess, why don't they do something about it? If Britain is a more desirable place to like than Nigeria, that's because we made it so: no one came with aid packages to do it for us.

I almost feel this is satire.

Colonialism, artificial borders, mismatched infrastructure and ongoing economic exploitation aren't something that can just be sorted out so simply.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I almost feel this is satire.

Colonialism, artificial borders, mismatched infrastructure and ongoing economic exploitation aren't something that can just be sorted out so simply.

You may be right, but allowing literally tens of thousands of people to pour into your country certainly isn't the solution.

 

[Wirey]

You may be right, but allowing literally tens of thousands of people to pour into your country certainly isn't the solution.

True, but there aren't many better ones. You can't expect those people to agree to lay down and die to avoid inconveniencing some rich people.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

True, but there aren't many better ones. You can't expect those people to agree to lay down and die to avoid inconveniencing some rich people.

The problem is we have no real way of discerning between people who are actual asylum seekers, and those who are just experiencing poverty. If we let in thousands, more will come.

No one can blame them of course, they are in search of a better life for themselves and their loved ones. But there also exists the reality that we do not have the capacity for all these people, we can't just open our borders to the entirety of Africa. Let's work with these countries, investing effort into real international development to help the countries that now house them build their infrastructures and a system that can look after its own people. It's not a quick and easy fix, but opening our borders doesn't really help much more, it only encourages more and more to come, believing us to be an easy place to get into, when we have a strain on our housing, healthcare, transport and are currently trying to deal with an enormous budget deficit.

We would also be practically advertising to members of ISIS, "Look, if you pretend to be a runaway asylum seeker, you can get into this country easy!" That's really not the message we want to send, it's a legitimate security threat.

 

[Wirey]

The problem is we have no real way of discerning between people who are actual asylum seekers, and those who are just experiencing poverty. If we let in thousands, more will come.

No one can blame them of course, they are in search of a better life for themselves and their loved ones. But there also exists the reality that we do not have the capacity for all these people, we can't just open our borders to the entirety of Africa. Let's work with these countries, investing effort into real international development to help the countries that now house them build their infrastructures and a system that can look after its own people. It's not a quick and easy fix, but opening our borders doesn't really help much more, it only encourages more and more to come, believing us to be an easy place to get into, when we have a strain on our housing, healthcare, transport and are currently trying to deal with an enormous budget deficit.

We would also be practically advertising to members of ISIS, "Look, if you pretend to be a runaway asylum seeker, you can get into this country easy!" That's really not the message we want to send, it's a legitimate security threat.

Well put. But I'm still going to call you a name. After all, this is the internet, Mr. Pee-Pee Pants!

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Colonialism, artificial borders, mismatched infrastructure and ongoing economic exploitation aren't something that can just be sorted out so simply.

> Colonialism was decades ago.
> Borders which followed ethnicity would leave much of Africa in a patchwork of micro-states.
> You only get exploited if you let them do it.

Blaming everything on the colonial period is cant. UN reports have made it plain that Africa's problems are based on corruption, war, and overpopulation. If you think colonialism was bad, read some descriptions of pre-colonial Africa: kings doing a roaring trade selling people into slavery; mass human sacrifice (search the internet for the Dahomey Customs); cannibalism (still going strong in Liberia according to Médecins Sans Frontières); etc.

 

[Kirran]

> Colonialism was decades ago.
> Borders which followed ethnicity would leave much of Africa in a patchwork of micro-states.
> You only get exploited if you let them do it.

Blaming everything on the colonial period is cant. UN reports have made it plain that Africa's problems are based on corruption, war, and overpopulation. If you think colonialism was bad, read some descriptions of pre-colonial Africa: kings doing a roaring trade selling people into slavery; mass human sacrifice (search the internet for the Dahomey Customs); cannibalism (still going strong in Liberia according to Médecins Sans Frontières); etc.

Not saying it's all due to colonialism. Didn't help though.

You can only be exploited if you allow somebody to exploit you? I don't believe that's the case.

Africa's got troubles. Of various origins.

I think the UK, as an example, should take 100,000+ net immigrants a year. We can do that fine.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Not saying it's all due to colonialism. Didn't help though.

You can only be exploited if you allow somebody to exploit you? I don't believe that's the case.

Africa's got troubles. Of various origins.

I think the UK, as an example, should take 100,000+ net immigrants a year. We can do that fine.

Wow, really? Wage compression is already bad enough as it is.

Migrants are willing to work for less than nationals. As such, British workers suffer from wage compression as a result. This only breeds more racial strife and tension within communities. 100,000+ a year is far too high.

Unless you'd put requirements on the workers to be high-skilled?

If not, it would be very bad. We have more than enough low-skilled workers and it's driving down wages. Currently for non-EU migrants you do actually have to contribute something to the economy to be deemed welcome. If you remove the requirements completely it would do a lot of damage.

 

[Kirran]

Wow, really? Wage compression is already bad enough as it is.

Migrants are willing to work for less than nationals. As such, British workers suffer from wage compression as a result. This only breeds more racial strife and tension within communities. 100,000+ a year is far too high.

Unless you'd put requirements on the workers to be high-skilled?

If not, it would be very bad. We have more than enough low-skilled workers and it's driving down wages. Currently for non-EU migrants you do actually have to contribute something to the economy to be deemed welcome. If you remove the requirements completely it would do a lot of damage.

Only those in the bottom 5% of earners suffer from lower wages as a result of immigration. The top 95% of earners benefit from it, in terms of wages.

I would not put requirements. The low-skilled are generally more in need of help.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that immigrants do make life, on average, worse in this country. I don't believe it to be true, but let's assume so.

I would still be in favour of it, because many people coming to this country, as refugees, as economic migrants, whatever, would have enough of an increase in their quality of life to make it worth it (not to mention helping out families through remittances, etc). I'm not more concerned about the welfare of British people than I am about the average person in China, in Libya, in Burundi, in Suriname.

While evidence points to immigration actually making this country better off, overall, even if that weren't true, it would still be making the world a better place.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Only those in the bottom 5% of earners suffer from lower wages as a result of immigration. The top 95% of earners benefit from it, in terms of wages.

I would not put requirements. The low-skilled are generally more in need of help.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that immigrants do make life, on average, worse in this country. I don't believe it to be true, but let's assume so.

I would still be in favour of it, because many people coming to this country, as refugees, as economic migrants, whatever, would have enough of an increase in their quality of life to make it worth it (not to mention helping out families through remittances, etc). I'm not more concerned about the welfare of British people than I am about the average person in China, in Libya, in Burundi, in Suriname.

While evidence points to immigration actually making this country better off, overall, even if that weren't true, it would still be making the world a better place.

It wouldn't be making the world a better place. It does nothing to help their countries develop a decent infrastructure and become competent governments to look after their own people. All it does is attract the poorest of the world to come here, live off benefits or have low-skilled jobs which drive down wages. A country's government's first responsibility is to its own people, and then to the wider world. Untold numbers would come if we had no requirements. This would create a huge strain on our NHS and even further worsen our housing crisis.

Remember we are already in a tricky economic situation, trying to cut down an extraordinary deficit. With such an influx of people, there is no way we could support them without increasing government spending. Increase government spending and we can't get the deficit down. Can't get the deficit down and we have to borrow more and more. Keep borrowing more and more and lenders lose confidence in us. Interest rates on our debt get higher and higher. Worst comes to worst, we default on our debts and all of a sudden, life becomes very bad for everyone in our country, and we've joined the ranks of the third-world nations.

That is the endgame for an open-arms policy of immigration in which everyone is welcome.

It sounds nice, but it just isn't sustainable and will end up very bad.

 

[Kirran]

It wouldn't be making the world a better place. It does nothing to help their countries develop a decent infrastructure and become competent governments to look after their own people. All it does is attract the poorest of the world to come here, live off benefits or have low-skilled jobs which drive down wages. A country's government's first responsibility is to its own people, and then to the wider world. Untold numbers would come if we had no requirements. This would create a huge strain on our NHS and even further worsen our housing crisis.

Remember we are already in a tricky economic situation, trying to cut down an extraordinary deficit. With such an influx of people, there is no way we could support them without increasing government spending. Increase government spending and we can't get the deficit down. Can't get the deficit down and we have to borrow more and more. Keep borrowing more and more and lenders lose confidence in us. Interest rates on our debt get higher and higher. Worst comes to worst, we default on our debts and all of a sudden, life becomes very bad for everyone in our country, and we've joined the ranks of the third-world nations.

That is the endgame for an open-arms policy of immigration in which everyone is welcome.

It sounds nice, but it just isn't sustainable and will end up very bad.

I'm not saying we don't have some cap. But it should be very high. Well over a hundred thousand.

It makes the quality of life of the people coming better.

Also, you might want to look at the amazing things that many Western-born Somalis who have repatriated are doing to build up their homeland. The economic boost to Kashmir thanks to British Pakistanis.

The firmed up trade routes, the remittances, the cultural interchange (spreading values such as democracy, secularism, feminism and so on, which I personally am in favour of).

 

[Ultimatum]

I think the UK, as an example, should take 100,000+ net immigrants a year. We can do that fine.

Absolutely not--this has to stop. The only thing that these monstrous numbers would bring with them is further disintegration, wage compression, a greater housing deficit (and, therefore, pushing the poor toward property poverty)--which would also leave us having to decimate the green belt.
You cannot make an economic case for mass-immigration at all--not even left-wing academic institutions would be smart enough to do so, lest they were to totally decimate their economical and political credibility.