Is immigration positive or negative to the EU?

[Geilinor]

They also have demographic time-bomb of an ageing population creating a problem of social care provision.

To solve that you'd need highly educated, skilled migrants who contribute taxes

There are likely many highly educated people interested in migrating to Japan if they were allowed to do so.

[Marcurix]

To solve that you'd need highly educated, skilled migrants who contribute taxes

There are likely many highly educated people interested in migrating to Japan if they were allowed to do so.

Love of anime and manga are must have prerequisites. *nod*

[Totally Not Leningrad Union]

What the fuck am I even reading?
Dude, did you come from 4chan or Tumblr or some shit?

Some people from tyrannical Islamic states come here to escape the tyranny that CIA has imposed on their home-lands.

Some people are Mad evil Priests who want to set up tyranny here.

What part of the words 'Mad evil Priests' do you NOT understand

I have diagrams.

This is implying that Islam makes countries tyrannical

[Calimera II]

Muslim immigration is bad.

Why?

Because it has brought more bad than good.

[Othelos]

Very positive. The EU is rich and lazy, so they need poor and active people to come in to keep the economy functioning. How easy is it these days to find a French maid (for example)?

You've clearly never been to Europe.

[Othelos]

Why?

Because it has brought more bad than good.

How so?

[Geilinor]

Why?

Because it has brought more bad than good.

They haven't imposed Islamist laws on anyone.

[Estado Paulista]

And seeing as America is a settler colonial state that is built and maintains itself on not just immigrating into lands of other nations without permission but also bona fide disregarding their cultures and forcing American way of life upon them it's a pretty hypocritical thing for White America to bitch about.

What? Why would America need to seek permission from these "other nations"? America doesn't need anyone's permission to set up immigration laws, or to invite immigration from other countries. I'm sorry to say this, but these nations you talk about are not nearly as special, important, or significant as you think. They do not own America.

[Parti Ouvrier]

What's so negative about the free movement of labour?

[Totally Not Leningrad Union]

What's so negative about the free movement of labour?

Nothing? I asked if it was positive or negative, implying it was positive.

[Volantyz]

Some people from tyrannical Islamic states come here to escape the tyranny that CIA has imposed on their home-lands.

Some people are Mad evil Priests who want to set up tyranny here.

What part of the words 'Mad evil Priests' do you NOT understand

I have diagrams.

This is implying that Islam makes countries tyrannical

There are about 3 dozen Islamic states in the World.
If less than a dozen are tyrannies, then my thesis is proven false.
If 2 dozen are tyrannies, then my thesis is probable.
if 95% are tyrannies, then my thesis is proven within standard margin of error.

[Kvatchdom]

With good control and work for the immigrants, it won't hurt anyone.

[Mkuki]

Positive. People being exposed to new cultures, foods, and ideas is good, and helps us all out.

However, they shouldn't come to the EU expecting a handout. They need to work hard.

What do you define as a "handout"? Is some government assistance (to what extent I cannot say) okay?

[Mkuki]

This is implying that Islam makes countries tyrannical

There are about 3 dozen Islamic states in the World.
If less than a dozen are tyrannies, then my thesis is proven false.
If 2 dozen are tyrannies, then my thesis is probable.
if 95% are tyrannies, then my thesis is proven within standard margin of error.

I don't think that's the best way to prove your argument.

[Costa Fierro]

What's so negative about the free movement of labour?

Primarily the lack of controls over how many get let into the country and in some cases, the lack of skills they have. Plus, there's the whole integration into the wider community and the issues faced by many immigrant communities in countries with a lack of available jobs and disproportionate crime rates.

[Mushet]

And seeing as America is a settler colonial state that is built and maintains itself on not just immigrating into lands of other nations without permission but also bona fide disregarding their cultures and forcing American way of life upon them it's a pretty hypocritical thing for White America to bitch about.

What? Why would America need to seek permission from these "other nations"? America doesn't need anyone's permission to set up immigration laws, or to invite immigration from other countries. I'm sorry to say this, but these nations you talk about are not nearly as special, important, or significant as you think. They do not own America.

I'm saying they immigrate into the territories of these nations without permission and mostly disregard their cultures, like these "anti-immigration" types are always bitching about happening to them.

[Libertarian California]

It's positive only if immigrants are cultural compatible and fit nicely within the current cultural and ethnic framework.

In other words, hardly any of them.

[Libertarian California]

What? Why would America need to seek permission from these "other nations"? America doesn't need anyone's permission to set up immigration laws, or to invite immigration from other countries. I'm sorry to say this, but these nations you talk about are not nearly as special, important, or significant as you think. They do not own America.

I'm saying they immigrate into the territories of these nations without permission and mostly disregard their cultures, like these "anti-immigration" types are always bitching about happening to them.

We came. We conquered. It's been done. Was it bad? Was it good? Debatable.

But why is it hypocritical for us to want to preserve our identity and culture? Is the only way for us to be accepted is if we go the way of your people and cave into the immigrants?

[Nazaret]

The right kind of immigration is beneficial anywhere. It's the definition of the "right kind" people are actually disputing. So, for instance, some countries need skilled workers, some need workers of any kind. Some want those with cultural affiliations and likenesses, others want diversity and difference to strengthen multiculturalism.

Personally, I'm very open-minded to immigration: it built my country. I don't understand the oxymoron of right-wingers (who usually support liberalisation of the economy) can oppose immigration! Likewise, how can left-wingers (who usually support regulation of markets) support immigration using the economic argument. Anyway, yes, the "right kind" or immigration (whatever that is for a country or area) is almost always good. Almost.

[Asigna]

Look at America, through Diversity, they had advanced. But i am not saying all immigrants are good as a general. We do not need anymore war refugees who are not as productive as the immigrants to America during the 19th century.

[Greater-London]

It has both positive and negative elements. The truth is that immigration more often than not helps to sure up national economies, and in the case of Europe save us from our aging populations. Alongside this people should really be allowed to live and work anywhere they want. However its not all good news as new immigrant communities often do unskilled jobs that were originally done by "native" populations which causes unemployment problems and a bitter underclass who have to live of the state. It also leads to cultural clashes if immigrant groups are not encouraged to become integrated into the host culture. Regardless immigration can never be something that can be sensibly discussed as you tend to get two extremes of people, one who thinks immigration is the cause of all our problems, the other who thinks it is the cure.

[Othelos]

It's positive only if immigrants are cultural compatible and fit nicely within the current cultural and ethnic framework.

In other words, hardly any of them.

So for some reason, people expect immigrants to 100% fit in with people of an entirely different country.

[Parti Ouvrier]

It has both positive and negative elements. The truth is that immigration more often than not helps to sure up national economies, and in the case of Europe save us from our aging populations. Alongside this people should really be allowed to live and work anywhere they want. However its not all good news as new immigrant communities often do unskilled jobs that were originally done by "native" populations which causes unemployment problems and a bitter underclass who have to live of the state. It also leads to cultural clashes if immigrant groups are not encouraged to become integrated into the host culture. Regardless immigration can never be something that can be sensibly discussed as you tend to get two extremes of people, one who thinks immigration is the cause of all our problems, the other who thinks it is the cure.

For me its not a question of a 'cure', its a matter of principle, in other words I oppose bureaucratic immigration controls. Of course, there is a truth to the fact that immigrants put a downward pressure on wages, all the more reason to close loopholes in the law that allow employers to exploit and underpay immigrants.

By the way, overall there is no difference in EU unemployment if somebody comes from Poland to work in Britain, anymore than there being no difference in unemployment levels in Britain if somebody from Cornwall seeks and finds employment in London.

[Arkinesia]

Any immigrant who works in the EU is positive to the EU.

Simple as that.

So trafficked sex workers are good for the EU?

I thought the implication that the work had to come from the white market was obvious…apparently not all of us can make such inferences.

[Geilinor]

In other words, hardly any of them.

What evidence do you have for that?