NationStates Jolt Archive

I just watched a program on Channel 4 about immigration, which pointed out an interesting idea. The incentive for most foreigners who want to work in Britain is to work here to get money if they need to but not to leave here for the rest of the life unless they have to. There are obviously a few people who decide to move to another country permanently, but not enough to be afraid of.
So the real 'tide' of immigrants is people who want to circulate, but under the immigration laws which some people say are actually too soft, they aren't allowed to go back and forth, so they have to make a decision and many decide to leave here.
So why not scrap the laws and let everyone come and go as they please, and the result of this is that more people will be working in Britain, generating more wealth, while less will be permanently living here and so draining wealth. After all, the program pointed out that the people who are a net drain on welfare are the young and old, and many people will want to live in their own countries during these times if they can.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?

It IS an interesting point, and one that I think doesn't get brought up enough. My husband for example, is a Chilean who moved to Canada. He got citizenship so he wouldn't ever have to face being deported, and he works damn hard, but when we retire he wants to move back to Chile.

Then again, anti-immigration is usually about other things, not just how many people end up living in a country or not.

Anti-immigration is about ignorance. I'm still waiting for the apparent "flood" of Roma… :rolleyes:

The thing is, refugees aren't allowed to work. Therefore they are technically "sponging off", but it's not their fault. Why don't we let them work?

I agree that immigration should be wide open. Any influx of news abilities and ideals into a society is usually a good thing.

Any anti-immigrants want to give their views on this point? I know there's a lot of you out there.

They tend only to post when NOT asked.

I guess you could say unlimited immigration could lead to overpopulation in some areas and create a large amount of unskilled poor people who don't speak the same language and can't find a job, which would leave you a bunch of hobos.

I guess you could say unlimited immigration could lead to overpopulation in some areas and create a large amount of unskilled poor people who don't speak the same language and can't find a job, which would leave you a bunch of hobos.

But as the program pointed out, the people who do come here looking for work come when they've already got work, through whatever agencies may be operating in their nation. Ergo, they won't be here with no money.

Oh, and also, the problem wouldn't exist without a welfare state, or if it for example said "You only get anything other than healthcare once you've been here for more than 5 years!"

Originally posted by Unistate
But as the program pointed out, the people who do come here looking for work come when they've already got work, through whatever agencies may be operating in their nation. Ergo, they won't be here with no money.

Oh, and also, the problem wouldn't exist without a welfare state, or if it for example said "You only get anything other than healthcare once you've been here for more than 5 years!"

Well, that is saying all immigrants have money, which they don't.
If a welfare state had a large amounts of poor immigrants it would shell out billions upon billions in welfare, which would cause enormous debt.

...but when we retire he wants to move back to Chile.

I'll bet the cost of living in Chile is a lot less than it is in Canada. By retiring there when you retire you will probably have a much better standard of living than if you stay in Canada. Nothing at all wrong with that. I thought of retiring overseas, but think I prefer being close to family.

One of the reasons against allowing people to circulate so freely is security.

One of the reasons against allowing people to circulate so freely is security.

:rolleyes: Look, have you checked recently? First, it really isn't hard to get into the UK or US - neither should it be - and unless we close our borders or bring in checks which take about eight hours to get through, it's not GOING to be hard. Second, it is entirely possible that people already living here would decide to turn into suicide bombers - nothing we can do there by stopping movement, is there?


Well, that is saying all immigrants have money, which they don't.
If a welfare state had a large amounts of poor immigrants it would shell out billions upon billions in welfare, which would cause enormous debt.

Except you fai, because apparently you did not read a single word of what I said.

In San Diego county, California, 1995/96, illegal migrant workers contributed approximately $45 million. In the same time period, they removed approximately $2 million. I see a flaw in your argument...

I see another flaw. Your ideas are based on conjecture and tabloid fear. Of the thousands of Polish immigrants to the UK, a full 15 have ended up on benefits... most employers hold that migrant workers are more determined, more reliable, and more industrious than native workers... migrants bring in vibrant and interesting new ideas, not to mention. Please, come back with some statistics and real, logical arguements as opposed to fear and xenophiobia.

If you let open your borders completely terrorists would attck the US, no doubt. If you let people move anywhere they wanted certain places in the world would become completely overpopulated. Certian nations would go to hell because everyone would be leaving. Heck, we might as well make Mexico and America one nation! :rolleyes:

One of the reasons against allowing people to circulate so freely is security.

Not really. Terrorists tend to live for years in countries they plan to attack.

And even if they were really desperate and we had really stringent customs, they can swim the bloddy Channel (enough people do it often enough anyway.)

If you let open your borders completely terrorists would attck the US, no doubt.

Terrorists would probably attack the US even if the borders were sealed.

I think they should come and go as they please. Anything to help start a global economy, I say.

Originally posted by Anarchic Conceptions
Terrorists would probably attack the US even if the borders were sealed.

True, but we at least need some defense.

There are examples of what would happen with open borders. These exist because there are physically large countries with high variations in living conditions from one place to another. It just happens that I live in one such country. Brazil.

Here there are regions, five of them. The South, The South East, The Centre West, The North East and the North. Now these are regions because they are economicaly different, one from the other.
The most successful region is the South East. This is where the majority of industry is located, this is where the big commercial centres are. São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Belo Horizonte being the most significant cities in the region (and Campinas for those who live here OK).
The North East, which borders directly onto the South East has been, in the past, one of the poorest regions. It is an agricultural region, which suffers from having a semi arid climate.
So what happens. A huge migration of people from the North East into the South East. Creating the favelas in Rio, the slums around São Paulo. Thet arrive full of hpe and expectation. It is, after all the big city, the place of riches and dreams. They stay in misery, doing menial jobs, earning just enough to survive, not enough to return home. This is why greater São Paulo has 20 million people. More than half a re misguided economic migrants.

If you remove migration controls, the same thing will happen between third world countries and first world ones. The argument that the migrants contribute to the economy assumes an ability of the economy to absorb large numbers of incomming people. No economy can do that in the scales that would occur.

So what happens. A huge migration of people from the North East into the South East. Creating the favelas in Rio, the slums around São Paulo. Thet arrive full of hpe and expectation. It is, after all the big city, the place of riches and dreams. They stay in misery, doing menial jobs, earning just enough to survive, not enough to return home. This is why greater São Paulo has 20 million people. More than half a re misguided economic migrants.

What if anything is your government doing to resolve this problem?

If you remove migration controls, the same thing will happen between third world countries and first world ones. The argument that the migrants contribute to the economy assumes an ability of the economy to absorb large numbers of incomming people. No economy can do that in the scales that would occur.

I agree. It would decimate the economies of the poor and rich countries. Poor countries because the more educated and wealthy would leave to immigrate to the richer countries. The richer countries would have to provide services to huge numbers of immigrants.

If you remove migration controls, the same thing will happen between third world countries and first world ones. The argument that the migrants contribute to the economy assumes an ability of the economy to absorb large numbers of incomming people. No economy can do that in the scales that would occur.

I disagree. When the EU admitted Poland, where were the hundreds of thousands of Poles who were waiting to come flooding into Britain?

Answer: They remained in Poland, where they're doing hard jobs in less safe conditions for as little as 10% of the pay, because it is their home. Most of the mere thousands who have moved stay here for 3 months to a year, and then go home, where they then make Poland more prosperous through their greater ability to invest. In addition, it would be a very simple matter to reduce welfare/remove it entirely, ergo removing the drain on society.

Potaria, if you need any help with that global economy, give me a shout. I'm willing to fight for that cause, believe me.