Three weeks until the election

[Aberlour10]

Germany alone expects more than 400.00 this year and the problems to handle it increase rapidly.

 

This mass exodus from the Middle East and Africa is one of the long term results of the Washintgtons and Brussels policy in these regions. Our genial strategists wanted to bring democracy to Iraq. Syria and Libya,..at the and we have there completely failed states.

The western interventions and support brought not the freedom and human rights but helped to turn this states into the killing fields with millions of refugees.

Did they thought about it in Brussels and Washington before? Ok the bloody despots are dead or fight like Assad the last stand. Are the things better? Not really, they remain the hell on earth. Did Cameron and Sarkozy know what will come after their "hurra bombing" in Lybia? Not really.

 

etc etc

 

All I want to say ...the current refugee desaster is partially self made, but any western politicans would concede its true

[Trinidad]

All I want to say ...the current refugee desaster is partially self made, but any western politicans would concede its true

I agree.

 

In stores the rule is: "You break it, you buy it."

 

In international politics the rule should be: "You bomb it, you take the refugees."

 

Rik

[helene_t]

So I don't have an answer. Neither do the people who say to just take them all in. Well, it's an answer, but you know what I mean.

400,000 is a manageable number, I think. 400,000 per year over a long period less so. A rapidly growing rate (for example encouraged by a more liberal immigration policy) even less.

 

A few cases will be easy to deal with: those that have a right to asylum will get it. Many are citizens of some West African country which is safe enough and should in principle be deported but it is not so easy to deport people who don't have passports and whose nationality is difficult to establish.

[mike777]

Why?

 

We are a country that used to be industrialised, but have been persuaded by the neo-liberal economic consensus that we can exist by providing services. We have a huge trading deficit with the rest of the world. Basically, we consume more than we create. Adding even more people imto the mix, who expect a similar standard of living, while working predominantly in the service sector, in my view, make the country poorer than richer, although this won't be seen in the short term. Yes, they make the very rich richer, but that's because they drag down labour costs and make the poor poorer.

 

Add in the fact that our infrastructure isn't coping with the increases in population, and the necessity to be able to control our population levels seems obvious.

 

We are not the USA which is a modern country founded by immigration - we are an old country that is overpopulated and struggling to continue to provide a standard of life to our present population that they expect. Maybe if we could find ways of reinvigorating industy, it would help. Maybe if we could find ways of regenerating the poorer parts of the country, rather than have almost everything in London and the south-east, it would help. But I don't see it happening, especially while neo-liberalism remains dominant. (Just how does selling each other insurance provide the right to be able to buy in tangible essentials like food and energy from abroad?)

Good grief!

 

You seem to know the basic problem but frozen in place to do something about it.

 

The UK is not overpopulated...there is plenty of room, plenty of resources. The greatest most important resource, human capital of the immigrants themselves. They add to human capital, not subtract.

 

Again you and other posters talk of costs and yes there are costs. But you seem to have no idea of the benefits, the benefits of young, hard working immigrants. For some reason you seem to think this will only benefit the tiny tiny few at the top and not you!.

 

the kind of thinking you and others show why much of western Europe is viewed as a museum, an old museum resistant to young people with new ideas.

[StevenG]

The UK is not overpopulated...there is plenty of room, plenty of resources. The greatest most important resource, human capital of the immigrants themselves. They add to human capital, not subtract.

Nonsense.

[Trinidad]

Nonsense.

Perhsps so, but it would be nice if you would provide some arguments. a line of reasoning, or a reference to some authority why it is nonsense.

 

In a discussion forum, we discuss, we do not simply throw around qualifications.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

In a discussion forum, we discuss, we do not simply throw around qualifications.

Bull sh-t!

 

(Before someone else takes the opportunity. ;) )

 

Rik

[kenberg]

As to whether immigration is beneficial. It can be, often is. But before we sign on to the idea that immigration is always beneficial we might explore whether the European immigration to North America four hundred or so years ago was beneficial to, say, the Comanches. All those nice Pilgrims, fleeing oppression, coming to join them. Increasing the human capital. OK, the Commanches are in the West. But you get the idea. Make it the Iroquois.

 

OK, probably no one wants to go back 400 years.

 

I would start with the following;

 

When discussing immigration, Mike sees opportunity for the EU. To the best of my (meager) knowledge, even the strongest proponents of the EU plan explain it as an obligation to relieve dire human suffering. It is vital to sort out which way this is seen. If it is opportunity, then there can be no objection to letting this opportunity pass us by. End of discussion. If it is an effort to relieve suffering, then we get down to the brass tacks of what reasonably can be done.

[blackshoe]

I looked up a couple of numbers (not immigration numbers). Europe is very slightly larger than the US (3.9 million square miles vs. 3.8 million, roughly) and has about twice the population (740 million vs. 320 million). So twice the population density (188/sq. mile vs. 90) (figures from wikipedia). So it seems likely Europe is less able to absorb large numbers of immigrants than is the US. Nonetheless we both have problems in this area. Europe has the additional problem that however much Brussels might want to be the European equivalent to Washington D.C., it's not (yet). In the US we pay lip service to the concept of "sovereign states" but in the end Washington is the boss. In Europe the individual states are still truly sovereign.

 

There are two questions here: what to do about the large number of refugees from war-torn African and Middle-Eastern countries (many of whom, btw, follow a "minority" faith from the viewpoint of the countries to which they're trying to emigrate), and whether Brussels has the authority to force member states of the EU to accept numbers of refugees as specified by Brussels. I don't know the answer to the first question, but I'm pretty sure the answer to the second is "hell no!" B-)

 

I wonder what would happen in the US if say northeastern states — or Alaska or Hawai'i — were told by Washington they had to take a number of Mexican or other Hispanic (or other) "illegals". Might lead to some very "interesting times".

[StevenG]

Perhsps so, but it would be nice if you would provide some arguments. a line of reasoning, or a reference to some authority why it is nonsense.

In a discussion forum, we discuss, we do not simply throw around qualifications.

I outlined my basic argument in my original post. Mike made analysis-free statements as an article of faith.

 

Perhaps someone could tell me where all these people live. We have a massive housing crisis already building up. Doubtless, there are large areas of the UK that are underpopulated, but there are no jobs there. We are becoming less and less self-sufficient in food; the situation is becoming irreversible as we build on good quality agricultural land to house people. We have an energy crisis looming; it is acknowledged that the lights might start to go out regularly over the next decade. The more people we have, the more energy we need, and we cannot satisfy those needs, at least in the short to medium term. Our transport system is at breaking point, especially for those who commute into London.

 

The problems are substantial and population growth exacerbates them. I see no solutions.

[Vampyr]

A few cases will be easy to deal with: those that have a right to asylum will get it. Many are citizens of some West African country which is safe enough and should in principle be deported but it is not so easy to deport people who don't have passports and whose nationality is difficult to establish.

 

Plus how do you even find them?

[Vampyr]

Our transport system is at breaking point, especially for those who commute into London.

 

Just transport?

[mike777]

I outlined my basic argument in my original post. Mike made analysis-free statements as an article of faith.

 

Perhaps someone could tell me where all these people live. We have a massive housing crisis already building up. Doubtless, there are large areas of the UK that are underpopulated, but there are no jobs there. We are becoming less and less self-sufficient in food; the situation is becoming irreversible as we build on good quality agricultural land to house people. We have an energy crisis looming; it is acknowledged that the lights might start to go out regularly over the next decade. The more people we have, the more energy we need, and we cannot satisfy those needs, at least in the short to medium term. Our transport system is at breaking point, especially for those who commute into London.

 

The problems are substantial and population growth exacerbates them. I see no solutions.

 

YOu keep stating and then missing your own point.

 

the problem is not too much population, it is too little growth, economic growth.

You state you see no solutions, I offer a partial solution, a first step, an imperfect first step with costs and headaches.

 

Immigration is one variable in the solution. They bring human capital. Human capital is the solution, not the problem.

 

Again you seem to see no benefits to immigration.

 

You ask me to list a benefit, I do, then you ignore it.

 

the immigrants pay taxes, they become nurses and doctors, they join the military and defend the country. They bring youth and vitality and energy, yes energy. And yes they bring costs, and headaches. They as part of capitalism bring destruction of jobs and companies but they also create.

 

The UK and much of western Europe seem to prefer to protect the pie, the economic pie, with less population and more protection for existing jobs rather than permit destruction and creativity. To be fair, very fair this attitude is here in the USA as well.

 

Churchill

 

Churchill was a child of an immigrant.

 

BBO was founded by an immigrant.

----------------

--------------

 

In any event if the UK does not want them I hope the USA will take them with open arms. They remind of the Cuban boat people and the Vietnam boat people.

[hrothgar]

I looked up a couple of numbers (not immigration numbers). Europe is very slightly larger than the US (3.9 million square miles vs. 3.8 million, roughly) and has about twice the population (740 million vs. 320 million). So twice the population density (188/sq. mile vs. 90) (figures from wikipedia). So it seems likely Europe is less able to absorb large numbers of immigrants than is the US.

 

The area of the European Union (1,707,642 sq mi) is less than half that of Europe.

[blackshoe]

The area of the European Union (1,707,642 sq mi) is less than half that of Europe.

Which only exacerbates the problem.

[Vampyr]

Which only exacerbates the problem.

 

According to this table the population density of the United States is 32.67/km², that of the EU 116 and the UK 262 (third in Europe, and with much more uninhabitable area [mountains] than the Netherlands or Belgium).

[helene_t]

I fancy moving to Scotland

 

 

Excellent idea!

[Trinidad]

According to this table the population density of the United States is 32.67/km², that of the EU 116 and the UK 262 (third in Europe, and with much more uninhabitable area [mountains] than the Netherlands or Belgium).

Though I really think this shouldn't be about juggling numbers, this is an example that could come straight out of "How to lie with Statistics".

 

The UK has a population density of 262/km². And, yes, some of those km² are uninhabitable since they are mountains. The uninhabitable area is also certainly larger than that of the Netherlands (since the UK is larger than the Netherlands). And when you put these facts together, you are nicely suggesting that the UK would be at least as overcrowded as the Netherlands. Darrell Huff would be proud of you. Suggesting something, with numbers that seem to back it up, without actually saying it!

 

However, the suggestion would be entirely different if you would have added that:

• 
   
  
• the population density of the Netherlands is 407/km²
  
• this figure (and that for the UK) is based on land and water
  
• water alone makes up almost 20% of the area of the Netherlands (UK: a little over 1%)
  
• this makes the land based population density of the Netherlands almost twice as high as that of the UK (499/km² vs 266/km²)
  
• a large fraction of the Netherlands is uninhabitable since it is either in the winter bed of rivers (i.e. dry in summer, flooded in winter) or so swampy that it is impossible or extremely costly to build anything*.
  
• a large part of the Netherlands used to be lake or sea and would return to be lake or sea within weeks if the Dutch didn't work hard to stop that from happening (i.e. this area is uninhabitable, but the Dutch make it inhabitable, day in day out).
  

But as I said, this discussion shouldn't be about for whom it is the bigger burden to receive refugees. It should be about taking responsibility and giving other people the same right to seek security and happiness as we have.

 

Rik

 

* Small buildings (like single family houses and lower apartment buildings) can be (and are) constructed by building them on poles going through the swamp layer into the Pleiocene sand layer (mind you: sand, not rock). This layer is at a depth of 50 m (160 ft), meaning that the buildings (and roads, etc.) are standing on 50 m long poles. This would certainly fit Vampyr's definition of uninhabitable.

[Cyberyeti]

Separate the figures for England and the other countries, England has 80%+ of the population of the UK, but only just over half the land area, it's density was about 415 per square km (if the 2013 figures I got off the net are right) and is where almost all the population growth is.

 

Scotland has 1/10 the population and 60% of the area of England.

[cherdano]

The level of debate in this thread is amazing, even by BBF standards. E.g.

- Making arguments based on the population density of the US - that doesn't even deserve a LOL.

- Yes, there is a housing crisis in London. The reason is that people aren't allowed to build enough houses. I know a solution to that!

- Then there is this stupid idea that the economy has a fixed size, and if there are more people coming in, then everyone gets a smaller size of the pie. By the same logic, everyone in England would have become 10% richer if Scotland had voted "Yes" in the referendum.

- If your infrastructure is broken, fix your infrastructure. You won't fix it by keeping immigrants broke.

 

I know that 14% in England voted for a jerk making a political career off xenophobic fears - for some reason it's still disappointing to see that same B.S. here. Yeah I should know better than reading watercooler's political threads.

[NickRW]

I also don't have a problem with a government stopping potential criminals or people who would otherwise be actively harming the country from entering. However, when your definition of "undesirable" becomes "anyone who isn't white who might compete with locals for a job" that is plain wrong.

 

1. I didn't introduce the concept of discrimination on the basis of race. You put your statement in quotes as if I said that, which I did not.

 

2. With regard to competition for jobs, tell that to, for example, my son's partner who has a degree but stacks supermarket shelves for a living or one of my other sons who has multiple college qualifications in the building industry and who can't get a job in said industry even on the basis of free work to get experience while foreigners are doing the work he could be doing.

[kenberg]

It took us a while but we have now arrived at the point where people who disagree with the writer are obviously stupid xenophobic jerks. I have never found it to be a good use of my time to discuss whether or not I am a stupid xenophobic jerk. I also seldom change my mind as a result of being described as a stupid xenophobic jerk.

 

Maybe other people react differently.

[NickRW]

The level of debate in this thread is amazing, even by BBF standards. E.g.

- Making arguments based on the population density of the US - that doesn't even deserve a LOL.

 

Well, when the US has the same density as England, its population will be pushing 4 billion. Good luck with getting as much traction with your ideas under those circumstances.

 

As for xenophobia, my sentiments are as per Ken's above.

[Cyberyeti]

The level of debate in this thread is amazing, even by BBF standards. E.g.

- Making arguments based on the population density of the US - that doesn't even deserve a LOL.

- Yes, there is a housing crisis in London. The reason is that people aren't allowed to build enough houses. I know a solution to that!

- Then there is this stupid idea that the economy has a fixed size, and if there are more people coming in, then everyone gets a smaller size of the pie. By the same logic, everyone in England would have become 10% richer if Scotland had voted "Yes" in the referendum.

- If your infrastructure is broken, fix your infrastructure. You won't fix it by keeping immigrants broke.

 

I know that 14% in England voted for a jerk making a political career off xenophobic fears - for some reason it's still disappointing to see that same B.S. here. Yeah I should know better than reading watercooler's political threads.

 

I understand what you're saying, but your arguments are too simplistic.

 

Actually there is a legitimate argument that England would have got richer without the Scots although not by quite as much as 10%, given that government spending per Scot from London is higher than per Englishman due to an arcane instrument called the Barnett formula.

 

People are allowed to build houses in/near London, the problem is that there is no profit in building affordable houses, and most housebuilding is private, so this doesn't really help the problem. Councils already stretched can't afford to build houses themselves.

 

The overall problem is that the space for extra people is not where the jobs are or can sensibly be.

 

Having pupils with 130 (I seem to remember that figure as one example from an interview, but can't find a source) different first languages and very poor English in a school is a nightmare for some of the London councils.

[kenberg]

I would like to get back for a moment to the election and the polls. What happened? I understand that Labour might have done better with a different leader, but the leader was known when the polls were taken. Voters elect an MP rather than cast a vote directly for the PM, but the pollsters knew this also (of course). The election was predicted to be very close. I see that the Conservatives have 330 seats out of 650, Labour has 232. No one calls that close.

 

No politician in the US can sneeze without having fifty analysts discussing the meaning of this momentous event. Maybe the UK has not reached that point yet, but surely there has been some analysis of how the predictions were so far off. Is there a consensus? Or at least a prevalent view?