Mass immigration: should we embrace it or not?

[San Lumen]

I never said I supported open borders

But under my hypothetical I likely wouldnt be here today because of your policy

Its so easy for you to say send them back. You've never known the kind of situation my ancestors faced. You've never known dictatorship, religious persecution, lack of basic freedoms, the possibility of being imprisoned for who you love or speaking out against the government, or a country torn apart by civil war.

>implying I'd want to send you back

I thought you were going on about how we should let anybody in because persecution etc. etc.

So what if you wouldn't be here under such a policy, you are already here today and so am I. We don't make decisions based on what was best for us in the past but what is best for us in the present/best future outcome.

If someone is facing prosecution in their country then yes we should let them in and allow them to have a better life.

Many of the people coming to Europe from Syria or Eritrea and other places are fleeing civil war and dictatorship in hopes of a better life.

You've never know what its like to live under such conditions. Its so easy for you to say you'd deny them entry and send them back.

[Scandinavian Nations]

When people from a different culture consistently do more illegal things than people from the core culture, treating the symptoms (reducing the crime rate) may be better accomplished by removing the high-crime cultures.

Sure. And since brain tumors only occur in brains, the best treatment is to remove everyone's brain.

It would've been, if it was an optional part.

The appendix is. And so are Muslims.

[Neutraligon]

I agree a lot of the problems are with class rather then multiculturalism. Although, in the US at least, class and race tend to be rather connected.

There's truth to that, but it's important to think about the sequence of cause and effect.

In the case of many people the poverty on moving to the US came about due to their race, or they were forced into poverty (slavery type thing). When it is difficult to get a high paying job due to your race you tend to live in poverty.

As to immigration, I am iffy on the concept. I think countries do have the right to determine who can cross their borders, in fact I think that is rather necessary to the stability of a society.

It's not 'necessary' unless you are bound to 'national identity' as your governing principle. If you accepted that the modern common 'nationstate' is a relatively new invention, and considered solutions that involved stability on both a greater and lesser scale, national borders are largely irrelevant.

Even without modern nationstates, there was some control in who came and went in certain territories and who was or was not accepted into the tribe. THe area covered was certainly smaller, but the equivalent controls did exist.

[The of Japan]

A country with a developed infrastructure, a stable government, and a functioning police system has nothing to fear from immigration.

And what if our infrastructure, policing and government are inadequate? Said problems woould have to be addressed before immigration was increased.

Cough cough Lebanon 1970s cough cough

[The East Marches]

Yes, Canadians clearly lack backbone to say what must be said :^)

Though in more seriousness, I suspect you may soon be affected by what the rest of the West is going through. I wish you lot good luck.

What's your opinion on Trudeau?

I don't believe that is the topic of the thread. Ask me in RWDT.

[Grave_n_idle]

First, even if everything about AGW proves to be true - so far it doesn't

In what way? Anthropogenic global climate change isn't speculation - it's observable.

This isn't the thread to discuss it - you're going to have to accept that people are going to move, en masse, due to climatic concerns WHETHER OR NOT 'AGW' is 'true'.

- it projects at worst 1m of sea level rise by 2100, which isn't even "soon".

2100 is very soon when we're talking about the potential movements of billions of people.

Second, environmental changes can't by themselves result in mass migration. The necessary prerequisite for mass migration is countries opening their borders to it. No open borders, no mass migration.

They'll migrate. People do. Closed borders can slow it, but don't stop it.

Putting it in flippantly simple terms - if a billion people turns up on America's south border, it doesn't matter how many guns you've got or how high the wall is.

And that's why we need to be thinking of REAL solutions. Now.

[The East Marches]

>implying I'd want to send you back

I thought you were going on about how we should let anybody in because persecution etc. etc.

So what if you wouldn't be here under such a policy, you are already here today and so am I. We don't make decisions based on what was best for us in the past but what is best for us in the present/best future outcome.

If someone is facing prosecution in their country then yes we should let them in and allow them to have a better life.

Many of the people coming to Europe from Syria or Eritrea and other places are fleeing civil war and dictatorship in hopes of a better life.

You've never know what its like to live under such conditions. Its so easy for you to say you'd deny them entry and send them back.

I've been to such places though and seen the type of person it produces. I don't believe it is wise to be taking the war torn, hungry and damaged people both mentally/physically. They cost money and are a net burden when we are on the edge of a economic revolution which will be painful.

We are under no obligation to save everyone. This is just your opinion. This election in the States and other elsewhere confirm this view as not a winning platform.

[Huaxia]

Humans have always been a migratory species; it's how we've come to cover (almost) every continent after all. It seems rather silly to think that we can or should change this defining trait, and indeed given the near certainty of climate change, we should all get used to increased and new migration patterns across the globe. Very likely we or our children and certainly our grandchildren will be on the move to avoid the effects of shifting weather patterns, flooding, drought, etc.

[Grave_n_idle]

Sure. And since brain tumors only occur in brains, the best treatment is to remove everyone's brain.

It would've been, if it was an optional part.

The appendix is. And so are Muslims.

You're going to treat brain cancer by removing the appendix?

You're... not a doctor, are you?

My point was that you're suggesting a cure for a symptom that is nonsensical. If people who are disenfranchised, living in poverty, discriminated against in employment.. if those people tend to commit more crime (speculative, but let's go with it) - then it isn't their culture that is the problem - it's how they are being treated.

If you literally are not allowed to integrate, you aren't ultimately culpable for your failure to integrate.

[Grave_n_idle]

I wish that this wasn't a real 'argument' that's actually being made.

That was meant as a joke tbh. Though it'd be an effectively slogan for encouraging a Dutch style solution to the sea trying to drown us.

I assumed it was joke - which is why I said I wish it wasn't an argument that was REALLY being made.

[Dumb Ideologies]

No. Immigration should be restricted to a low quota for that absolutely essential to the economy in order to allow intense programs to integrate immigrants properly into wider society rather than them grouping together and forming a society within a society.

[San Lumen]

No. Immigration should be restricted to a low quota for that absolutely essential to the economy in order to allow intense programs to integrate immigrants properly into wider society rather than them grouping together and forming a society within a society.

And how would you determine who is absolutely essential?

[Dumb Ideologies]

No. Immigration should be restricted to a low quota for that absolutely essential to the economy in order to allow intense programs to integrate immigrants properly into wider society rather than them grouping together and forming a society within a society.

And how would you determine who is absolutely essential?

A points-based system developed in consultation with industry and focused on the short-term needs of the economy. Medium-and-long term needs should be dealt with through educating and training the domestic population.

[Ostroeuropa]

No. Immigration should be restricted to a low quota for that absolutely essential to the economy in order to allow intense programs to integrate immigrants properly into wider society rather than them grouping together and forming a society within a society.

What do you think of my proposal that we don't have quotas, but that immigrants need a job to come, and that if a company does hire an immigrant they have to pay a fine, the proceeds of which will be used to train native workers for that occupation in future.

This means companies will only hire immigrants if it actually is necessary, since it costs them cash, and means that we can have a flexible economy without hard-immigration caps.

If you directly link the fines to training and don't allow the money to go elsewhere, it'd look like (numbers are bollocks):

"We need an extra 4,000 Nurses on the NHS. There aren't enough brits to do it. So we'll hire them, pay the subsequent 4 million pound fine, and that 4 million will go toward training programmes for nurses here, so hopefully in future years we can recruit locally."

Obviously the public service example is wonky, but still works okay. It'd be best in the private sector. Maybe fines for private, quotas for public, or something.

[Scandinavian Nations]

Putting it in flippantly simple terms - if a billion people turns up on America's south border, it doesn't matter how many guns you've got or how high the wall is.

Staying flippant - it doesn't matter indeed, because you don't use small arms on an area target, there are special weapons for that. But realistically, they won't come in a billion-sized crowd, and after you open fire just once, the rest will quickly reconsider if they really have to migrate.


Hypothetically, if the worst comes to worst, preserving the Western civilization is still more important than raw population numbers. But it won't come to that. America and Western Europe aren't attracting immigrants with their climate, they're attracting immigrants with their infrastructure and economy.

[San Lumen]

No. Immigration should be restricted to a low quota for that absolutely essential to the economy in order to allow intense programs to integrate immigrants properly into wider society rather than them grouping together and forming a society within a society.

What do you think of my proposal that we don't have quotas, but that immigrants need a job to come, and that if a company does hire an immigrant they have to pay a fine, the proceeds of which will be used to train native workers for that occupation in future.

This means companies will only hire immigrants if it actually is necessary, since it costs them cash, and means that we can have a flexible economy without hard-immigration caps.

If you directly link the fines to training and don't allow the money to go elsewhere, it'd look like (numbers are bollocks):

"We need an extra 4,000 Nurses on the NHS. There aren't enough brits to do it. So we'll hire them, pay the subsequent 4 million pound fine, and that 4 million will go toward training programmes for nurses here, so hopefully in future years we can recruit locally."

fining a company for hiring immigrants and those with work visas is totally absurd and will never happen. And what if someone works for a bank in the US and gets a transfer to London or Frankfurt? Should the company fine itself then?

Why should someone who wants to work for Ted Baker or Ralph Lauren be denied just because they are an immigrant? Their hopes and dreams should be crushed because your anti immigrant. Isn't that a form of discrimination?

[Dumb Ideologies]

No. Immigration should be restricted to a low quota for that absolutely essential to the economy in order to allow intense programs to integrate immigrants properly into wider society rather than them grouping together and forming a society within a society.

What do you think of my proposal that we don't have quotas, but that immigrants need a job to come, and that if a company does hire an immigrant they have to pay a fine, the proceeds of which will be used to train native workers for that occupation in future.

This means companies will only hire immigrants if it actually is necessary, since it costs them cash, and means that we can have a flexible economy without hard-immigration caps.

If you directly link the fines to training and don't allow the money to go elsewhere, it'd look like (numbers are bollocks):

"We need an extra 4,000 Nurses on the NHS. There aren't enough brits to do it. So we'll hire them, pay the subsequent 4 million pound fine, and that 4 million will go toward training programmes for nurses here, so hopefully in future years we can recruit locally."

It's better than how we do things at the moment but I support quotas because otherwise you'd still risk mass migrations and self-segregation if something happened that made a lot of very cheap labour suddenly available from abroad.

[Sanctissima]

Oh no.

Oh, no no no no no.

It is most certainly not working just fine.

I live in Canada, the most multicultural country there is, and I can attest that it simply does not work. It does away with the concept of integration and replaces it with pandering to dozens of different cultural groups. All this achieves is discord between the different cultures, because instead of integrating into a unified national identity and working together towards a common goal, they fight between themselves for their slice of the pie to the detriment of the country as a whole. The Québécois fight with the English, the Aboriginals fight with the Whites, the minorities fight with the majorities, and hardly anyone gets along. Separatism's become a huge issue, and chances are my country won't even exist come the 22nd century, or at the very least won't be nearly as large as it is today.

So no, multiculturalism is not working just fine.

Can you give proof of your claims because thats not what I've heard.

I live in the damn country, I know what it's like.

But if you want proof, see our huge problem with separatism. It isn't even just localized to Québéc anymore. Newfoundland and Alberta actually have some pretty sizable separatist movements because they identify more as Newfies and Albertans than they do as Canadians.

Nevermind the fact it's completely prevented any integration whatsoever with our Aboriginals. Hell, you can't even go a month without some tribe holding an anti-government rally. In the Maritimes, where I live, it's a bit more docile, but there's still tensions between Acadians (minority Francophones) and the rest of the Anglophone population. I don't know what you've heard, but things are far from being peachy.

[Ostroeuropa]

What do you think of my proposal that we don't have quotas, but that immigrants need a job to come, and that if a company does hire an immigrant they have to pay a fine, the proceeds of which will be used to train native workers for that occupation in future.

This means companies will only hire immigrants if it actually is necessary, since it costs them cash, and means that we can have a flexible economy without hard-immigration caps.

If you directly link the fines to training and don't allow the money to go elsewhere, it'd look like (numbers are bollocks):

"We need an extra 4,000 Nurses on the NHS. There aren't enough brits to do it. So we'll hire them, pay the subsequent 4 million pound fine, and that 4 million will go toward training programmes for nurses here, so hopefully in future years we can recruit locally."

fining a company for hiring immigrants and those with work visas is totally absurd and will never happen. And what if someone works for a bank in the US and gets a transfer to London or Frankfurt? Should the company fine itself then?

Why should someone who wants to work for Ted Baker or Ralph Lauren be denied just because they are an immigrant? Their hopes and dreams should be crushed because your anti immigrant. Isn't that a form of discrimination?

You make no argument for why it is absurd, just assert as much.
I'd say yes, they should be fined, but i'm open to negotiation on transfers and details like that.


A nation is allowed to discriminate against foreigners.
Treating people like second class citizens is fine, if they are, in fact, second class and not even a citizen. They should be denied, because their hopes and dreams are not our priority, the wellbeing of our citizens is.
A nation exists to serve its citizens and their interests, not to be a utopia unto the peoples of the world all over.

[Ostroeuropa]

What do you think of my proposal that we don't have quotas, but that immigrants need a job to come, and that if a company does hire an immigrant they have to pay a fine, the proceeds of which will be used to train native workers for that occupation in future.

This means companies will only hire immigrants if it actually is necessary, since it costs them cash, and means that we can have a flexible economy without hard-immigration caps.

If you directly link the fines to training and don't allow the money to go elsewhere, it'd look like (numbers are bollocks):

"We need an extra 4,000 Nurses on the NHS. There aren't enough brits to do it. So we'll hire them, pay the subsequent 4 million pound fine, and that 4 million will go toward training programmes for nurses here, so hopefully in future years we can recruit locally."

It's better than how we do things at the moment but I support quotas because otherwise you'd still risk mass migrations and self-segregation if something happened that made a lot of very cheap labour suddenly available from abroad.

Eh, quotas are good too I agree. But i'm concerned it'll end up with gridlock as right wing neoliberals cockblock training programmes and cry about the need to remove the quota to get skilled workers.
This system would address that eventuality

[Des-Bal]

And what if our infrastructure, policing and government are inadequate? Said problems woould have to be addressed before immigration was increased.

If there's a realistic concern that the state is going to collapse in the next four or five years, that your police have no monopoly of the use of legitimate force, and you can't get information from one side of your country to the other on your best day then yes you should seriously consider limiting immigration.

[Anastasia]

fining a company for hiring immigrants and those with work visas is totally absurd and will never happen. And what if someone works for a bank in the US and gets a transfer to London or Frankfurt? Should the company fine itself then?

Why should someone who wants to work for Ted Baker or Ralph Lauren be denied just because they are an immigrant? Their hopes and dreams should be crushed because your anti immigrant. Isn't that a form of discrimination?

You make no argument for why it is absurd, just assert as much.
I'd say yes, they should be fined, but i'm open to negotiation on transfers and details like that.


A nation is allowed to discriminate against foreigners.
Treating people like second class citizens is fine, if they are, in fact, second class and not even a citizen. They should be denied, because their hopes and dreams are not our priority, the wellbeing of our citizens is.
A nation exists to serve its citizens and their interests, not to be a utopia unto the peoples of the world all over.

Unless that state happens to be a wealthy western one, then for some reason they have to accommodate everyone that shows up.

[San Lumen]

fining a company for hiring immigrants and those with work visas is totally absurd and will never happen. And what if someone works for a bank in the US and gets a transfer to London or Frankfurt? Should the company fine itself then?

Why should someone who wants to work for Ted Baker or Ralph Lauren be denied just because they are an immigrant? Their hopes and dreams should be crushed because your anti immigrant. Isn't that a form of discrimination?

You make no argument for why it is absurd, just assert as much.
I'd say yes, they should be fined, but i'm open to negotiation on transfers and details like that.


A nation is allowed to discriminate against foreigners.
Treating people like second class citizens is fine, if they are, in fact, second class and not even a citizen. They should be denied, because their hopes and dreams are not our priority, the wellbeing of our citizens is.
A nation exists to serve its citizens and their interests, not to be a utopia unto the peoples of the world all over.

Your policy would cost companies thousands if not millions and cause great harm to the economy.

So what your saying is no one should be allowed to immigrate and work visas should be done away with? I suggest your come to the Ralph Lauren headquarters then or go to one of the big banks in London and tell all their "foreign employees" to quit their jobs and allow Brits or americans to do it.

I never said a country should be a utopia to the world

[Ostroeuropa]

You make no argument for why it is absurd, just assert as much.
I'd say yes, they should be fined, but i'm open to negotiation on transfers and details like that.


A nation is allowed to discriminate against foreigners.
Treating people like second class citizens is fine, if they are, in fact, second class and not even a citizen. They should be denied, because their hopes and dreams are not our priority, the wellbeing of our citizens is.
A nation exists to serve its citizens and their interests, not to be a utopia unto the peoples of the world all over.

Your policy would cost companies thousands if not millions and cause great harm to the economy.

So what your saying is no one should be allowed to immigrate and work visas should be done away with? I suggest your come to the Ralph Lauren headquarters then or go to one of the big banks in London and tell all their "foreign employees" to quit their jobs and allow Brits or americans to do it.

I never said a country should be a utopia to the world

It would indeed cost companies thousands if not millions. It would not harm the economy, it would merely redistribute wealth to areas we are apparently lacking and allow us to train locals to do the jobs we need them to do. Are you a proponent of Trickle Down Economics or something?
Are you seriously arguing public expenditure on education causes great harm to the economy? That's absurd.

People should be allowed to immigrate if it is in the interests of the citizens of the nation to allow them to do so. The immigrants feelings and priorities are not relevant.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

But if you want proof, see our huge problem with separatism. It isn't even just localized to Québéc anymore. Newfoundland and Alberta actually have some pretty sizable separatist movements because they identify more as Newfies and Albertans than they do as Canadians.

Not to be rude, but what the hell are you talking about? None of the provinces other than Quebec have a significant separatist movement (and I'm setting the bar very low here, since I don't even know of the existence of any Western independence parties), and Quebec's ceased to exist as a significant force way back in 2011.

Nevermind the fact it's completely prevented any integration whatsoever with our Aboriginals. Hell, you can't even go a month without some tribe holding an anti-government rally. In the Maritimes, where I live, it's a bit more docile, but there's still tensions between Acadians (minority Francophones) and the rest of the Anglophone population. I don't know what you've heard, but things are far from being peachy.

The First Nations are advocating for better treatment and dialogue with the government, not separatism or ethnic nationalism. And again government-First Nations relations are the best they've been for a long long time.