NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't wish to sound like a doomsayer, but has anyone ever read Camp of the Saints?

I haven't either, because it would depress me too much.

Yes, I can see extreme restrictions appearing in the near future, but unfortunately, I think it will be necessary. I don't think our ailing infrastructure or economy can cope with 9 million more people, I'm afraid.

It seems many countries are experiencing many problems regarding to integrating immigrants. Even in Canada, there are some issues, tho not as serious as in many other countries. How do you think the future will turn out? Better or worse? I think some countries, especially in Europe, may eventually close their borders (tho not as extreme as like UK in the Children of Men movie) or limit immigration severely because of public hostility.


UN predicts huge migration to rich countries
By David Blair
Last Updated: 2:08am GMT 17/03/2007

# Can the UK cope with nine million more people?

At least 2.2 million migrants will arrive in the rich world every year from now until 2050, the United Nations said yesterday.
Britain's population will rise from 60 million to approaching 69 million by 2050 - almost entirely because of immigration.

The latest figures from the UN's population division predict a global upheaval without parallel in human history over the next four decades.

There will be billions more people in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Of these, tens of millions will migrate to Europe and America, while the indigenous populations of most countries in the rich world will either stagnate or decline.

In total, the world's population will grow by 2.5 billion and reach about 9.2 billion by 2050.
advertisement

This increase - almost all of which will occur in Africa, Asia and the Middle East - is the equivalent of the global population in 1950.

While some countries will grow exponentially, others will shrink dramatically.

The UN predicts the steady depopulation of vast areas of eastern Europe and the former Communist world, as a result of high levels of emigration and birth rates running persistently below replacement levels.

Bulgaria's population will fall by 35 per cent by 2050. Ukraine's will plummet by 33 per cent, Russia's by one quarter and Poland's by one fifth. There will be 10 per cent fewer Germans and seven per cent fewer Italians.

But the flow of migrants across borders will dramatically increase the populations of other developed countries.

"The population of the more developed regions is expected to remain largely unchanged at 1.2 billion, and would have declined, were it not for the projected net migration from developing to developed countries," said the UN.

The level of sustained, mass migration across borders that the world will experience over the next four decades is unprecedented.

Between 1970 and 1980, the rich world took about one million migrants a year from poor countries. During the next 43 years, immigration will run at more than twice that level and approach 2.3 million every year from now until 2050.

Of these migrants, some 400,000 will leave Africa every year and about 1.2 million will emigrate from Asia. The gap in wealth and opportunity between the rich and poor worlds will be the most significant "pull factor" behind this change. But the pressure exerted by rapidly rising populations in developing countries will also be an important underlying cause.

By 2050, India will have the highest population in the world, totalling almost 1.7 billion people. There will be 292 million Pakistanis, giving their country the fifth biggest population. Nigeria will have 289 million people - making it the world's sixth most populous country - and Uganda's population will rise to 93 million, comfortably exceeding the totals in both its larger neighbours, Kenya and Tanzania.

This massive population growth will lead to land degradation on a huge scale and place an immense strain on the limited water resources of poor countries. Malawi cannot feed its present population of 13 million - and every year its soils become more degraded and yields steadily fewer crops.

By 2050, the UN forecasts that it will have almost 32 million people - more than twice as many as today. Population growth on this scale will almost certainly leave Malawi permanently dependent on international food aid to keep millions of its people alive.

The UN's population predictions have proved largely accurate in the past. While the margin of error for these figures runs into the millions, the broad trends they disclose are undisputed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/15/wimm15.xml

I don't wish to sound like a doomsayer, but has anyone ever read Camp of the Saints?

I haven't either, because it would depress me too much.

THREAD STEALER!!!!! :mp5: :mp5:

Actually it's skewed. UK's population without immigrants will fall. That means less kids and less money needed for education.
We will need to maintain our population. I said restrictions, not building an electric fence around the country.

Actually it's skewed. UK's population without immigrants will fall. That means less kids and less money needed for education. Indeed, I hadn't thought about that; could it counterbalance the pensions crisis? The pensions crisis, of course, may be a necessary evil; populations can't keep on expanding indefinitely, especially on crowded islands with housing issues.

About this report - why does it not seem to go into detail over immigration to the upcoming Asian Tigers? Why always the Occident?

Edit: wow, Jolt time-warp is seriously bad in this thread.

Yes, I can see extreme restrictions appearing in the near future, but unfortunately, I think it will be necessary. I don't think our ailing infrastructure or economy can cope with 9 million more people, I'm afraid.

Actually it's skewed. UK's population without immigrants will fall. That means less kids and less money needed for education.

So just move to Liectenstein, no one's headed that way.

Indeed, I hadn't thought about that; could it counterbalance the pensions crisis? The pensions crisis, of course, may be a necessary evil; populations can't keep on expanding indefinitely, especially on crowded islands with housing issues.

About this report - why does it not seem to go into detail over immigration to the upcoming Asian Tigers? Why always the Occident?

Edit: wow, Jolt time-warp is seriously bad in this thread.

I dont know. Japan is very wealthy but barely receives any immigrants. My Japaneese friend had told me it's because it's very hard tho I dont know much.

But I dont think UK will go on with current immigration levels for 50 years.

To the UN

Ya Think?!?

THREAD STEALER!!!!! :mp5: :mp5:

blame jolt, not him.

Also, never use gun smileys. ever.

Come here.

*builds signs pointing immigrants to BC*

BUILD WALLS ALL AROUND THE COUNTRIES.

Well, that is an option.

But between the huge number of imigrants and all the enviromental refugees running away from flooded areas, I can predict the future doesnt look that amazing.

We will need to maintain our population. I said restrictions, not building an electric fence around the country.

Oh please!? The latter really would be preferable.

BUILD WALLS ALL AROUND THE COUNTRIES.

Well, that is an option.

But between the huge number of imigrants and all the enviromental refugees running away from flooded areas, I can predict the future doesnt look that amazing.

not this global warming scaremongering/doomsaying again.

Well we have no moral obligation to allow them into our countries. I would just say lock the borders to immigrants. We already see in France with their riots how much trouble immigrants from countries with very different cultures can cause.

Yes, I can see extreme restrictions appearing in the near future, but unfortunately, I think it will be necessary. I don't think our ailing infrastructure or economy can cope with 9 million more people, I'm afraid.

Thats why we need extreme restrictions now. Send the message that we can't deal with anymore. Then more will stay at home. And tell them to stop having so many kids.

To the UN

Ya Think?!?

Yeah...that's about my reaction.

See, the thing is, that people leave a place to escape from their problems. What they don't realize is that 90% of the problems are going to be carried with them.

If you don't believe me, just look what the east coast of the US did to the west coast in the past forty years.

People fled the North East to 'get away' from it's problems: race riots, pollution, taxes, corrupt government &c., and within less than half a century they have obviously created utopia in So. Cal, because none of those things ever happen there.

They're arbitrary lines on a map, guys. None of us have actually done anything to make our countries richer than, say, Sierra Leone.

There are plenty of people in Britain who are, for all intents and purposes, worthless, lazy slobs. And there are plenty of people in Sierra Leone who are intelligent, hardworking people.

We should learn to judge people by their individual merits (and ,if necessary, treat them accordingly) rather than their country of origin, when it comes to population policies.

A lot of places, like Canada need the migration. Even places like Germany where the natural growth rate is very low, if not declining need it.

They're arbitrary lines on a map, guys. None of us have actually done anything to make our countries richer than, say, Sierra Leone.

There are plenty of people in Britain who are, for all intents and purposes, worthless, lazy slobs. And there are plenty of people in Sierra Leone who are intelligent, hardworking people.

We should learn to judge people by their individual merits (and ,if necessary, treat them accordingly) rather than their country of origin, when it comes to population policies.

Except birthrates among immigrants are often many times greater than in the countries they come from. Mexico's birthrate is 2.25 kids per woman or so. Mexican immigrants' birthrate in the U.S. is around 6. That's almost triple. The best way to solve the problem of overpopulation is to set reasonable limits and accomodate seasonal guest workers without importing their families.

The best way to solve the problem of overpopulation is to set reasonable limits and accomodate seasonal guest workers without importing their families.
You wouldn't be solving the problem though, would you.

Fact is that with more wealth and education birthrates go down. So we need more education and economic development in the 3rd world. Which is easier said than done, I admit, but that's the deal.

By excluding people, you'd just be trying to keep the problem out of sight and out of mind, actually reducing not only the incentive for us to help with 3rd world development but also 3rd world government incentives to improve performance. I mean, look at Moldova...the fact that people there have gotten their heads around the idea that they could move to Romania and have a much better life can seriously threaten the existence of the Moldovan government. Imagine an African dictatorship without its people.

EDIT: And it's the most hard-working, most adventurous and entrepreneurial types anyways who make the trip away from their home to a completely foreign land. It's not like some lazy guy is gonna leave Sierra Leone to walk across the Sahara and eventually try to cross the sea into Spain.

Fact is that with more wealth and education birthrates go down. So we need more education and economic development in the 3rd world. Which is easier said than done, I admit, but that's the deal.

Yes, I recall reading that the birthrate in China has fallen over 50% in the past two decades and India's has fallen by about a third over the same period. That's pretty significant in such a short time, and if it could be applied to other places like Africa or Southeast Asia the effect on population growth would be significant.

They're arbitrary lines on a map, guys. None of us have actually done anything to make our countries richer than, say, Sierra Leone.

There are plenty of people in Britain who are, for all intents and purposes, worthless, lazy slobs. And there are plenty of people in Sierra Leone who are intelligent, hardworking people.

We should learn to judge people by their individual merits (and ,if necessary, treat them accordingly) rather than their country of origin, when it comes to population policies.

Not to put too fine a point on it, someone must have done something to make the society richer, no?

Yes, people should be judged by their individual merits, but isn't merit an arbitrary thing defined by society in the first place? I mean, I doubt anyone in germany consults the pythia before making important decisions.

The problem, as far as I can see it, is that people carry with them exactly the same problems that they are trying to run away from in the first place. And certain societies are richer because that is the way they operate, if you move there and want to change them, you can't automatically expect them to stay as wealthy.

They're arbitrary lines on a map, guys. None of us have actually done anything to make our countries richer than, say, Sierra Leone.

There are plenty of people in Britain who are, for all intents and purposes, worthless, lazy slobs. And there are plenty of people in Sierra Leone who are intelligent, hardworking people.

We should learn to judge people by their individual merits (and ,if necessary, treat them accordingly) rather than their country of origin, when it comes to population policies.
I second the above. :)

Also, many immigration programs - like the US's, -basically do little more than strip mine the third world for intellectual talent which they have to pay for.

That hardly seems fair.

Not to put too fine a point on it, someone must have done something to make the society richer, no?
Obviously. But no one (bar a few very influential people) can actually claim that they without them the country would be significantly poorer or less livable.

Yes, people should be judged by their individual merits, but isn't merit an arbitrary thing defined by society in the first place? I mean, I doubt anyone in germany consults the pythia before making important decisions.
I guess there are merits like being a devout believer, and merits like being a hard worker.

One is only worth something in the eye of the beholder, the other is a real-life sort of thing that has real and tangible positive effects on the environment.

The problem, as far as I can see it, is that people carry with them exactly the same problems that they are trying to run away from in the first place. And certain societies are richer because that is the way they operate, if you move there and want to change them, you can't automatically expect them to stay as wealthy.
I like the idea of a "Leitkultur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leitkultur)" as initially proposed by Bassam Tibi.

Obviously if you had those guys from Sierra Leone come to Britain and start the same corruption- and black market-type economies they have done there, it'd be trouble. There is a degree of fitting in to be done economically at the very least, of course.

You wouldn't be solving the problem though, would you.

As someone mentioned, native populations of formerly third-world countries are dropping as they industrialize. If we continue to drain their working-aged population, we retard that growth and increase the birthrate among those people when they migrate, adding to the overall problem of poverty in both countries. We should be promoting commerce and development, not draining human capital from countries that need it.

Also, many immigration programs - like the US's, -basically do little more than strip mine the third world for intellectual talent which they have to pay for.

That hardly seems fair.
Well, "fair" is a sketchy thing. As it is, the governments and businesses in these countries do too little in terms of incentives to keep vital people at home.

Plus, if someone is shunned by the village community because they confuse you being good at maths with witchcraft, can you really blame them for wanting to be somewhere where they are appreciated?

As someone mentioned, native populations of formerly third-world countries are dropping as they industrialize. If we continue to drain their working-aged population, we retard that growth and increase the birthrate among those people when they migrate, adding to the overall problem of poverty in both countries. We should be promoting commerce and development, not draining human capital from countries that need it.
Firstly: Populations aren't dropping anywhere bar very few, very special cases. Birthrates are dropping, which is probably what you meant.

Secondly: Commerce and development presumably involves the flow of goods and services across borders. Labour is a service too, to be bought and sold on the global market, if you think about it. Without labour (and especially the expertise brought by skilled individuals) being able to flow freely across borders, a country can't expect to be able to put its resources to work effectively.

To get to your point though: if migration reaches levels at which it starts to put a strain on the local economy, would that not mean that good workers become relatively more scarce? Wouldn't that raise the price of those workers? Not to mention that many of the migrants actually send some of the money they earn back home, which for some small countries is actually their main source of income and makes up a large part of GDP.

Well, "fair" is a sketchy thing. As it is, the governments and businesses in these countries do too little in terms of incentives to keep vital people at home.


I believe in china and india, a university education is free to the student. What more do they want?

Maybe they should be pressured to become a fee paying system. Of course if that happened the arbitrage would happen in the other direction, and first world students from fee paying economies would quickly wipe out the places for indigenous students, no?

But as it stands at the moment, the first world is getting technical specialists without having to pay for their education. Some might say it is imperialism through the back door.

I dont know. Japan is very wealthy but barely receives any immigrants. My Japaneese friend had told me it's because it's very hard tho I dont know much.
Japan's immigration system is a mess right now with two massive problems. Problem A. is that Japan's birthrate is in free fall, the country is actually shrinking and the government doesn't seem to be too willing to do something to fix the issue (Namely because it would mean facing the gender equality issue and given the Diet and the current government is made up of mostly very conservative old men who can't even think that women are human...). This means that there will be a lack of workers to support the elderly later on (and soon, we're talking 2030's here) and generally run the world's second largest economy. So Japan is thinking of having to start actually allowing immigration.

Problem B. however, is that Japan's conservatives go into xenophobic reactions at the notion of letting foreigners into Japan in any numbers. So you get gems like the central government declaring that it will double the number of immigrants coming in and then say it will fingerprint every immigrant coming in. Or that it wants to start bringing in highly trained people, but only if they speak Japanese and can show willingness to live like the Japanese do.

Most Japanese figure that immigration is going to have to happen and Japan is just going to have to learn to deal with it.

To get to your point though: if migration reaches levels at which it starts to put a strain on the local economy, would that not mean that good workers become relatively more scarce? Wouldn't that raise the price of those workers? Not to mention that many of the migrants actually send some of the money they earn back home, which for some small countries is actually their main source of income and makes up a large part of GDP.

If the money being sent back was an adequate replacement for the human capital lost, Mexico and the Philippines would be wealthy nations today. The way it works is, we decapitate foreign labor forces by outbidding foreign companies for the few most skilled and educated, and bleed the industrial base by taking the unskilled working poor, who constitute the great majority of immigrants. Our native population is moving away from low-tech and light industrial, so we have two options - either compensate for that shift by importing masses of immigrants who will then multiply at accelerated rates and stifle the economies of their native lands, or compensate for it by outsourcing and investment. Our businesses flourish either way, but outsourcing keeps the aggregate birthrate a bit lower and pays off in the long run for those countries whose economies are kept intact.

well now if the handful of dominant few (nations) would quite shafting the rest of em, they (emmigrants) wouldn't be having to; now would they?

=^^=
.../\...

J
Problem B. however, is that Japan's conservatives go into xenophobic reactions at the notion of letting foreigners into Japan in any numbers. So you get gems like the central government declaring that it will double the number of immigrants coming in and then say it will fingerprint every immigrant coming in. Or that it wants to start bringing in highly trained people, but only if they speak Japanese and can show willingness to live like the Japanese do.

What's wrong with requiring immigrants to speak Japanese?
If people are unable to speak the language, they'll have difficulties finding jobs other than "teaching". Japan needs foreign language teachers, but it doesn't need 10 million of them.

The old USSR countries also have a falling population not just through migraion but naturally.

I still think there should be a huge international effort to reduce populations. At least the birth rate, we simply will not be able to cope in the future other wise.

Well we have no moral obligation to allow them into our countries. I would just say lock the borders to immigrants. We already see in France with their riots how much trouble immigrants from countries with very different cultures can cause.

Puh-lease! There's nothing more french than rioting...

Um, shouldn't the emigrants go to the U.S.A.? It is the land of immigrants, look at the population. The majority of immigrants there have slowly gotten more money, and it passes down to the next generation, who will probably be in middle class. Sounds an ideal place to live for poor people seeking moolah. Besides, I can only imagine European countries having people of the same race there. Soon the U.K. might be dominated by a random minority instead of the British majority. :eek:

I believe in china and india, a university education is free to the student. What more do they want?

I can't speak for China, but in India it is not free. The govt colleges are subsidized though and the tuition fees are affordable for even a lower middle class family (like mine was at that time). My undergrad engineering education cost me about Rs 20,000 ( <$ 500) a year. If you get good marks in the 12th grade and the entrance tests, you will get admission to a good govt. college and you can get affordable education. Of course the competition to get into one is tough as hell.

If you don't make the cut, you will have to pay through your nose to get an admission at the private colleges.


But as it stands at the moment, the first world is getting technical specialists without having to pay for their education. Some might say it is imperialism through the back door.

It is just brain drain.

It is partly the fault of local govts who don't create an environment to use their talents. For ex, it is not America's fault that Indian govt opted for a licence raj which stifled entrepreneurship making all those IIT engineers leave for the US.

Um, shouldn't the emigrants go to the U.S.A.? It is the land of immigrants, look at the population. The majority of immigrants there have slowly gotten more money, and it passes down to the next generation, who will probably be in middle class. Sounds an ideal place to live for poor people seeking moolah. No, the island of Hispaniola is a land of immigrants. Arawaks arrive and are destroyed by Caribs. Spaniards destroy Caribs. French arrive and actually live in peace with Spanish. Blacks kill French. Everyone kills everyone for the next 200 years.

That's a lot cooler than the pansy "we wiped out a few thousand Indians, we're so hard" Americans. Immigrants should go to Hispaniola.

Besides, I can only imagine European countries having people of the same race there. We're not allowed to say that, those kinds of parties are evil nazi fascists who want to make people drink from different water fountains. 'S right. *nod*
Soon the U.K. might be dominated by a random minority instead of the British majority. :eek: Another 9 million isn't enough to "dominate", but if the native (ie British isles mongrel mixture, like me) population falls and continues to emigrate, things could get… interesting.

Last time I went to London it was… interesting… too.

Puh-lease! There's nothing more french than rioting... Lol, seems like the French assimilationist rhetoric actually worked in an unexpected way! :D

There are plenty of people in Britain who are, for all intents and purposes, worthless, lazy slobs. And there are plenty of people in Sierra Leone who are intelligent, hardworking people. Therein, though you haven't spelt it out, lies the problem in immigration: people from successful countries tend not to want to move. It's people from places like Liberia who do. I've nothing against Liberians personally, but they're a kind of crazy lot. General Butt Naked, anyone?

They're arbitrary lines on a map, guys. None of us have actually done anything to make our countries richer than, say, Sierra Leone.

There are plenty of people in Britain who are, for all intents and purposes, worthless, lazy slobs. And there are plenty of people in Sierra Leone who are intelligent, hardworking people.

We should learn to judge people by their individual merits (and ,if necessary, treat them accordingly) rather than their country of origin, when it comes to population policies.

I think most of us are PERSONALLY doing something that makes our countries better. By not having too many kids. The population of Africa, Mid East and Asia will grow by 2.5 billion by 2050. 2.5 billion! Just the growth is 2.5 times the population of the developed world! These people should take some responsibility. I dont know why this is so, but even if I was poor and with no education I'm GUESSING I'd still wouldnt want to have too many kids or any at all, since I'd know that they'd suffer/starve....But maybe I'm talking shit. It's sometimes very hard to put yourself in someone else's shoes. But I dont get it.

Well, "fair" is a sketchy thing. As it is, the governments and businesses in these countries do too little in terms of incentives to keep vital people at home.

Plus, if someone is shunned by the village community because they confuse you being good at maths with witchcraft, can you really blame them for wanting to be somewhere where they are appreciated?


Firstly: Populations aren't dropping anywhere bar very few, very special cases. Birthrates are dropping, which is probably what you meant.

Secondly: Commerce and development presumably involves the flow of goods and services across borders. Labour is a service too, to be bought and sold on the global market, if you think about it. Without labour (and especially the expertise brought by skilled individuals) being able to flow freely across borders, a country can't expect to be able to put its resources to work effectively.

To get to your point though: if migration reaches levels at which it starts to put a strain on the local economy, would that not mean that good workers become relatively more scarce? Wouldn't that raise the price of those workers? Not to mention that many of the migrants actually send some of the money they earn back home, which for some small countries is actually their main source of income and makes up a large part of GDP.

Well, poor countries usually have bad education systems which means too few qualified people. If those people leave, that would have a negative impact on that countries development, hence brain drain. Besides, when immigrants take local jobs, they take it for much lower prices. This may also decelerate outsourcing, which may reduce investments to third world countries. In the end, 25 people who left a 3rd world country for the developed world may live better but that may cause 75 people left behind to live worse.

Of course people will be heading to the Developed World, people always follow the money.

The thing is, there is no reason at all to view immigration as a problem. In fact, it should be viewed as an oppurtunity. The Developed World faces a problem in upcoming years as it runs out of working bodies and faces an unworkable abundance of retired citizens, injecting young able-bodied immigrants into that mix offsets the age imbalance permenantly (unlike encouraging indigenes to reproduce quicker, which is long term, impermenant and just generally counterproductive).

The problem is that over the 20th Century the traditional economic migration cycles were shattered by isolationist, protectionist nations. These cycles, that bring workers West, and invest capital East, should be reestablished. It'll need some infrastructure changes but its much better than the alternative.

It seems many countries are experiencing many problems regarding to integrating immigrants. Even in Canada, there are some issues, tho not as serious as in many other countries. How do you think the future will turn out? Better or worse? I think some countries, especially in Europe, may eventually close their borders (tho not as extreme as like UK in the Children of Men movie) or limit immigration severely because of public hostility.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/15/wimm15.xml

I wonder which genius at the UN figured this out? It deserves two comments. 1. Well, duh. and 2. This is where sovereign nations need to enforce their borders, and only allow legal immigration. Immigration needs to be controlled to meet the needs of the host country.

I'm not sure if people have talked about this yet but this happens all the time in human history:

The indeginous populations of most Southeast Asia were actually replaced by the Austroneseans (sp?) during the Austroneasean expansion Best wikipedia article I could find in 30 seconds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austronesian_people) if you want to learn more read Guns Germs and Steel. and most people who call themselves British took over the true Britons (the Welsh) and are actually of Saxon ancestry. The people who call themselves Americans are all misplaced Europeans who genocided the native people. Etcetera Etcetera

Point being things change in terms of populations expansions and contractions and we're in the unfortunate situation of probably having to live through the middle period of the expansion where the major wars happen.

The thing is, there is no reason at all to view immigration as a problem. In fact, it should be viewed as an oppurtunity. Right, because Jamaicans have been such a boon to London. How did we manage to survive without them?

Unnecessarily vindictive sarcasm aside, immigration is neither good nor bad. Asking whether immigration is bad is like asking whether having animals in the house is bad - it depends, simple as that. Indian and Chinese takeaways = good, though. There seems to be one springing up every week here, and I have no objection whatsoever!

There's always the obvious answer: migrate to poor countries :p

If the money being sent back was an adequate replacement for the human capital lost, Mexico and the Philippines would be wealthy nations today.
There is more to development than just money. But think about it: the wages a person earns are a fairly accurate representation of the value that worker adds to whatever is being made, correct? There are other variables as well, but they just modify this representation.

If people move away from Mexico and into the US to work, they receive more money. So they actually contribute more to global economic activity there than they would in Mexico, which makes sense, because the other inputs that are combined with the labour are of higher quality and quantity.

Given that, can you really say that the labourer's labour on a construction site would advance Mexico's development more than the money that same labourer would earn across the border and send back? Not only would that money feed a family and be spent into the Mexican economy, but the crossing of borders increases the efficiency of global resource allocation, thus speeding up economic growth for the planet as a whole.

Note that skilled labour is a slightly different thing and the analysis would have to be modified.

The way it works is, we decapitate foreign labor forces by outbidding foreign companies for the few most skilled and educated, and bleed the industrial base by taking the unskilled working poor, who constitute the great majority of immigrants.
So far there is no country that has lost a significant part of its unskilled workers to migration. For every immigrant who makes the trip, there are hundreds who don't.

To get to skilled labour. There are only two reasons I would want to bid for an engineer from Ghana if I'm a 1st world company.

The first is if I actually cannot find an engineer in the developed world (where the qualifications are better, and you can be sure you get what you pay for, whereas I might know less about how good the University of Ghana is).

The second is if I need to have someone who knows Ghana well, ie if I'm planning on doing some FDI in Ghana. And if I employ local skilled labour to help with that, it's hardly going to hurt that country.

There is no credence to the argument brain drain occurs because engineers from Ghana are cheaper than engineers from Germany. Either I hire the guy to work in a developed country, in which case he will be paid the same as other engineers of comparable skill (though the price may be falling with the addition of millions of graduates from China and India), or I hire him to work in Ghana, in which case his skill remains where it is, except that he gets treated properly now.

The brain drain that actually does occur is due to the developing countries themselves. If an engineer has few opportunities in Ghana, he may well decide to move to Europe or the US. But that's not because the US or the EU go out of their way to attract Ghanaian engineers, it's because the government of Ghana isn't valuing skilled citizens as highly as it should.

So unless you want to argue that we should make it easier for the government of Ghana to for all intents and purposes mistreat people who are the most valuable in the country and take those people's ability to improve their lot and earn the reward for their hard work from them, I don't see how you want to limit immigration on the basis of helping poor countries.

Our native population is moving away from low-tech and light industrial...
Our entire economies are, immigrants and all. In a world in which information can be exchanged so easily, unless there are definite laws put in place, you can't have a two tier society in which immigrants work in manufacturing and we don't.

...so we have two options - either compensate for that shift by importing masses of immigrants who will then multiply at accelerated rates and stifle the economies of their native lands...
That would make no sense. If manufacturing gets too expensive in the US when compared to Mexico, then why would I want to affect a trend of that magnitude by trying to import a few thousand workers? I could never reverse the trend - but I could just move my manufacturing operations to Mexico, which is what companies are doing.

These people should take some responsibility. I dont know why this is so, but even if I was poor and with no education I'm GUESSING I'd still wouldnt want to have too many kids or any at all, since I'd know that they'd suffer/starve....But maybe I'm talking shit. It's sometimes very hard to put yourself in someone else's shoes. But I dont get it.
Imagine a world where there is no aged care, no health care and no savings accounts.

The only thing these people have to help them in the future is their children paying for them when they get too old to work and sustain themselves.

To get out of that cycle you need both proper government and financial opportunites to allow people to plan for their old age, and you need education to allow people's minds to get out of the same old loop. Not to mention of course a bit of money to actually save.

Education will also help with people using contraceptives and getting rid of prejudices and religious issues.

But fact of the matter is that there is a very strong negative correlation between income and education and the number of kids. And that's the case not only in the 3rd world, but in the 1st world as well.

Well, poor countries usually have bad education systems which means too few qualified people. If those people leave, that would have a negative impact on that countries development, hence brain drain.
Exactly. Which is why these countries' governments should be making sure qualified people are valued at home and don't have to go overseas.

Besides, when immigrants take local jobs, they take it for much lower prices. This may also decelerate outsourcing, which may reduce investments to third world countries.
I answered that above.

In the end, 25 people who left a 3rd world country for the developed world may live better but that may cause 75 people left behind to live worse.
First of all it causes 25 families left behind to live much better lives.

And the alternative is that everyone lives in crappy conditions, including the 25 and their families. It may be hard for you to understand, but it's not like these immigrants are taking the easy way out. They are taking the only way out.

I've got a bunch of links that may be of interest:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,461120,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,378372,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,462085,00.html

I say any potential immigrant must defeat a minutemen in lethal combat.

I say any potential immigrant must defeat a minutemen in lethal combat.

Two men enter, one man leaves.

People go where there's a lot of money.

I'll be damned!

I say any potential immigrant must defeat a minutemen in lethal combat.

Minutemen? You mean the retards from Texas, or the male porn guild?

I say any potential immigrant must defeat a minutemen in lethal combat.

Only under the condition that we give the immigrant an assault rifle and the minuteman a plastic spork.

What's wrong with requiring immigrants to speak Japanese?
If people are unable to speak the language, they'll have difficulties finding jobs other than "teaching". Japan needs foreign language teachers, but it doesn't need 10 million of them.
The level being proposed is rather high; furthermore, Japan doesn't plan on doing anything to help people interested in coming to Japan actually learn Japanese. There's no real JSL/JFL system as there is with English in the English speaking countries in the world. Add in that Japanese is spoken by so few people (Making it difficult to find in other countries) and it becomes yet another barrier that is being tossed up to immigration.

Or, in other words, an attempt to make sure that any immigrants that come in will not change the status quo of Japan, or force Japan to attempt to make ANY accomodations for them.

That would make no sense. If manufacturing gets too expensive in the US when compared to Mexico, then why would I want to affect a trend of that magnitude by trying to import a few thousand workers? I could never reverse the trend - but I could just move my manufacturing operations to Mexico, which is what companies are doing.


Because US infasture is better. And proximity. If you sell a product in Washington, the costs to sell that product will be lower if you produce the product in Washington than in Mexico due to transportation costs. And in factories, there are also qualified people as well as workers. And qualified people may be more common in US than in Mexico. So yes, importation of 13 million immigrants may bring down the minumum wage or avoid the minimum wage going higher and hence decelarate out sourcing which is bad for 3rd world. And this is exactly what some people want:



Imagine a world where there is no aged care, no health care and no savings accounts.

The only thing these people have to help them in the future is their children paying for them when they get too old to work and sustain themselves.


People are starving in Africa. I think they have more serious concerns than planning for "retirement". The more children, the less food there will be per person.



To get out of that cycle you need both proper government and financial opportunites to allow people to plan for their old age, and you need education to allow people's minds to get out of the same old loop. Not to mention of course a bit of money to actually save.

Education will also help with people using contraceptives and getting rid of prejudices and religious issues.

But fact of the matter is that there is a very strong negative correlation between income and education and the number of kids. And that's the case not only in the 3rd world, but in the 1st world as well.


Not really. Richer people tend to have more kids and richer people tend to have better education. And some Eastern European countries, which are poor and composed of not well educated people mostly, have really low birth rates.


Exactly. Which is why these countries' governments should be making sure qualified people are valued at home and don't have to go overseas.


What these countries need to do first is something like a 1 child policy.



First of all it causes 25 families left behind to live much better lives.


You dont know that. Illegal immigrants pay thousands of dollars to criminals to go to Europe. That kinda money may make a difference for the 25 left behind.


And the alternative is that everyone lives in crappy conditions, including the 25 and their families. It may be hard for you to understand, but it's not like these immigrants are taking the easy way out. They are taking the only way out.

I've got a bunch of links that may be of interest:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,461120,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,378372,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,462085,00.html

That kinda defeatist logic, "the only way out is escaping" may well be one of the reasons why Africa is getting worse.

Because US infasture is better. And proximity. If you sell a product in Washington, the costs to sell that product will be lower if you produce the product in Washington than in Mexico due to transportation costs.
US infrastructure as a whole is better. But industrial parks in developing countries are built with good infrastructure connections in mind. And transportation costs are getting less every year, and are just not enough to justify keeping manufacturing in Western Europe or the US for most goods, if you're competing on price.

And in factories, there are also qualified people as well as workers. And qualified people may be more common in US than in Mexico.
Definitely. Which is why multinational corporations generally use mixed teams of their own engineers from home and local talent to get operations running, and try to increase the proportion of local talent as time progresses.

So yes, importation of 13 million immigrants may bring down the minumum wage or avoid the minimum wage going higher and hence decelarate out sourcing which is bad for 3rd world.
The minimum wage is decided by populist politicians, not economists. So supply and demand don't really matter, which political party is in power does.

But just look at the stats. I dare say that most of the really poor (read: illegal) immigrants into the US start work in agriculture or perhaps construction, not manufacturing. Finding new jobs in manufacturing is getting more and more difficult. And competing on wages with China isn't possible in the US (no matter how many immigrants there are) because living costs are higher. If a certain minimum isn't met, people won't work no matter how many open positions there are.

And this is exactly what some people want:
And what interest would MNCs have in keeping potential customers too poor to actually buy anything?

People are starving in Africa. I think they have more serious concerns than planning for "retirement". The more children, the less food there will be per person.
People generally try to plan their food for the future. The reason people starve isn't because the land doesn't produce enough (in most places, anyways), it's because either unexpected droughts or armed conflict compromise harvests.

And besides, you need the extra hands to help with producing food in the first place. And if you then add a bit of ignorance about contraception and a lot of religious concerns, you get the picture.

Not really. Richer people tend to have more kids and richer people tend to have better education. And some Eastern European countries, which are poor and composed of not well educated people mostly, have really low birth rates.
In the Western world, yes. In developing countries, the correlation between increasing incomes and lower numbers of children is more obvious, particularly in East Asia.

But if you're really interested, I guess this one might be worth a look: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.0013-0427.2004.00369.x/abs/

What these countries need to do first is something like a 1 child policy.
Which in the case of China has no lead to a massive number of guys never being able to find a girl. Hardly a good outcome either.

Rather than force people to have abortions they don't want, I think education and increasing the availability of contraceptives is the better (and more humane) option.

You dont know that. Illegal immigrants pay thousands of dollars to criminals to go to Europe. That kinda money may make a difference for the 25 left behind.
That's money that they save up over many years. If they actually find a job in Europe or the US, they can get it back in a few months.

But I suggest that you read the African Odyssey story from the link. The fact that the guy is now working in Europe can get the children to school, which before he wouldn't have been able to provide.

That kinda defeatist logic, "the only way out is escaping" may well be one of the reasons why Africa is getting worse.
Yes, because we should require people to continue living in conditions we can't even imagine, in total hopelessness and with no chance of improving their lot, all because protectionist economic theory from the fifties says that maybe them staying will have a positive effect on development which their children's children might enjoy.

As opposed to them earning money today, being able to help their families at home and offer their children real opportunities.