I also believe that immigration is generally good for the country that receives the immigrants, but not always. There will be growing pains, but Germany (and Spain and Italy and Japan, etc.) without immigrants means a shrinking, aging population, which causes vastly more problems, generally speaking, than immigration.

I've seen this argument used a few times, but I don't really buy it. What's happening is that there's a demographic bulge caused by the retirement of the baby boomers. It's a problem, but it'll pass in decade or two. We don't need to constantly replenish the workforce with unskilled migrants to cover this problem, what we need is to invest and improve our productivity. Besides, Spain currently has 20% unemployment. The last thing they need is even more people. Germany does have an ageing population but surely it makes far more sense to get their immigrants from other EU countries. Highly educated Spaniards or Greeks are going to be far more productive and cause far fewer social problems.

I'd also point out that one of the things everybody seems to be talking about these days is the 'rise of the robots' and how a load of jobs are imminently going to be destroyed by automation. Nobody knows what effect this will have on the labour force, but you'd have to assume that any jobs we create to replace those we lose will be skilled jobs requiring highly educated people. I really don't see that taking millions of unskilled migrants is going to cater for our needs.

geojanes wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:What's your view on this topic?

My own opinion is that it’s complicated with no easy answers. I agree with the humanitarian goals. I agree with the absolute outrage over the crimes, especially against women: the crimes are horrible, but when they are your guest, that’s even worse, if that’s possible. It’s crazy to me that Syria is imploding and the refugees are young men? Where are the women and children? Are they staying at home? Why aren’t the young men picking a side and fighting for their beliefs? I know that’s not for everyone, but come on.

Well said.

A couple of comments on things that have been said: My experience from back in Detroit, which has a very large middle-eastern population for the past 100 years, is that Arabs and Assyrians assimilate similarly to other immigrant groups, so I disagree with Sass, but I also acknowledge that the immigrant experience in the USA is very different than in Europe. Note, I write Arabs and Assyrians, and not Muslim, since a large minority in Detroit are Christians (interestingly, Christian Middle-easterners and Muslim Middle-easterners don’t live in the same neighborhood.)

Is it possible that the sheer number of immigrants at one time is part of the problem?

For example, the USA settled hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese Boat people (about 400,000 according to Wikipedia), and did so largely without controversy. In fact, when I was a boy of about 14 our church sponsored a boat person and he lived with me and my family for many months. He was a nice guy, but didn’t speak a word of English, had no skills, and was difficult to make self-sufficient. But it had to be done: the USA was a big part of creating the crisis and it had to step up.

Many/most/nearly all of the Vietnamese were not only thankful to be here, but they genuinely wanted to be Americans. I wonder how many Syrian refugees want to be Germans?

bbauska

According to the Pentagon, numbers went down, but according to the Rand Corp, who uses a different methodology, the numbers went up.

Sure. And why would the Pentagon methodology work that way, as compared to the independent contractor? The problem is inherent in the organization. From your report:

The new initiatives on curbing retaliation are aimed at addressing a long-standing problem in the Defense Department — that victims often are blamed for reporting crimes, shunned by colleagues, challenged professionally or depicted as having a mental health disorder and discharged.
The Rand survey found that 62 percent of women who experienced a sexual assault and reported it endured some type of retribution or retaliation — roughly the same number as was reported in 2013

.

bbauska

All of this sound similar to the way it is reported in Sweden. Figures don't lie... BUT.

The reason the Swedish report such high incidences is that they've decided to treat the problem with greater importance than countries where men still dominate the political process.
There's a clue to why sexual harressment in the US military is still high in the repor you linked.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and a bipartisan group of senators on Monday renewed their call to overhaul the military justice system by removing the authority given to a small number of commanding officers to decide whether cases should proceed to courts-martial.

The command structure, dominated by men, don't want to deal with the problem. And that's why its interesting to compare the US military with Cologne. The US military is an organization in an advanced western nation, with modern morals and strict codes of behavior and yet the "culture" of command has tolerated young men behaving badly ...

In Germany, women hold a great deal of political power. The issue of sexual violence is, and will be treated seriously. Which is why I don't think the Cologne event will repeat itself. Germany will not accomodate or tolerate behaviors like Cologne. For the general society to actual be inundated with sexual crime in the way that Sass postulates, German politicians and police will have to tolerate the crime. And fail to both act upon incidents or fail to react.
Refugees will quickly comply with the moral standards of their new society. (Maybe a few have to get deported to communicate the seriousness of the new standards.) They won't somehow quickly change their new nations standards to their old countries standards. That's the way it almost always happens. Moral standards take decades to evolve. And as women have more power in the West, their influence will continue to grow on issues like this.

By the way, i was stunned to learn that Canada leads the world in kidnappings per capita. Not Mexico or Columbia. Canada. Turns out its because, in dual custody cases if a parent keeps a child past the appointed time for custody they can be reported. And this is classified as kidnapping in Canada .
If the National Post had a meme they wanted to advance about lawlessness in Canada I'm sure they would have used that strange data the way they wrote their story on Sweden.

fate

I wonder how many Syrian refugees want to be Germans?

Why do most of the refugees from Syria want to live in Germany? Why not some of the other European countries? Asked and answered.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-most-of-th ... -countries

rickyp wrote:fate

I wonder how many Syrian refugees want to be Germans?

Why do most of the refugees from Syria want to live in Germany? Why not some of the other European countries? Asked and answered.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-most-of-th ... -countries

Not even close to "asked and answered."

Source? "Erika Ed, I volunteer with Syrian refugees in Germany."

So, we have one person's opinion--and she's not Syrian.

Oh, and she did NOT answer my question: ". . . how many Syrian refugees want to [url]BE[/url] (emphasis added) Germans?

I don't care where they want to live. I care about the nationality they are willing to take upon themselves. If they merely want Germany's wealth, but don't want to assimilate, then send them back.

Doctor Fate wrote:Many/most/nearly all of the Vietnamese were not only thankful to be here, but they genuinely wanted to be Americans. I wonder how many Syrian refugees want to be Germans?

Just as important: how many Germans want the Syrians to be Germans? That's the cultural difference I mentioned. America and Americans (like Canadians and Australians) are much more welcoming to immigrants than Europe (at least when it comes to non-European immigrants.)

But again, this all just makes the question of what to do even more difficult, not easier. At least in my mind.

Not so sure about Australians there. The current government came to power largely on a pledge to 'stop the boats', which they subsequently did. Australia has one of the strictest immigration policies in the western world and their people like it that way.

You also need to comprehend the difference in scale that we're talking about here. Canada, Australia and even the US have never faced anything like the scale of migration from third world societies that we've seen in Europe. I know that America is a nation of immigrants but these have primarily been European.

Sass - "seal" the border of Europe ? With the length of coastline alone that sounds unachievable as an absolute.

Ultimately there needs to be something done about the "push" from Africa and Asia due to failing states there, as much as the "pull" of Europe.

Why young men? From Syria they are fleeing a draft. The government are nasty. Most of the rebels are nasty. The fighting is bitter. It is easy for people to assert that they would fight, but this not a situation we in the West have been in lately. I think if you look at who is in the refugee camps it will be more balanced (but generally the old may not have the wherewithal to flee a civil war.

Also because generally this is the way of migrations - the first wave is mainly young men who can work and then send back for their family (or just remit earnings back).

And because the trip to Europe is long and arduous and dangerous, women and children are left behind (but not all, as we have seen) for their protection.

Sass - "seal" the border of Europe ? With the length of coastline alone that sounds unachievable as an absolute.

Well yes, of course it can't be absolute. We could be at least trying though. Instead we've set up a ferry service in effect, rescuing everybody who sets out on a rickety boat and bringing them safely to Europe.

Fact is that Europe is a soft touch. We make it as easy as we can for people to get here and then we provide them with accommodation and benefits and set up our immigration systems in such a way that removing them again is all but impossible. These things need to change.

Sassenach wrote:

I also believe that immigration is generally good for the country that receives the immigrants, but not always. There will be growing pains, but Germany (and Spain and Italy and Japan, etc.) without immigrants means a shrinking, aging population, which causes vastly more problems, generally speaking, than immigration.

I've seen this argument used a few times, but I don't really buy it. What's happening is that there's a demographic bulge caused by the retirement of the baby boomers. It's a problem, but it'll pass in decade or two. We don't need to constantly replenish the workforce with unskilled migrants to cover this problem, what we need is to invest and improve our productivity. Besides, Spain currently has 20% unemployment. The last thing they need is even more people. Germany does have an ageing population but surely it makes far more sense to get their immigrants from other EU countries. Highly educated Spaniards or Greeks are going to be far more productive and cause far fewer social problems.

Reasonable arguments all. But people are consumers as well as workers, and a shrinking nation can have significant impacts on growth/decline of the nation's GDP, which can have profound knock-on effects on national debt ratios, to say nothing of impacts on real estate and what that does to domestic wealth. I would be a little more cautious about welcoming national decline.

But we agree that there are "good" immigrants and "bad" immigrants when it comes to increasing the wealth and sustainability of a nation. Clearly, the Spaniards moving to Germany for employment is good for both the Spaniard and Germany. Less good for Spain, though.

sass

You also need to comprehend the difference in scale that we're talking about here. Canada, Australia and even the US have never faced anything like the scale of migration from third world societies that we've seen in Europe. I know that America is a nation of immigrants but these have primarily been European.

The three countries you name are the only countries that have had positive migration until just recently. And all were built on waves of immigration .
Discounting the 11 million Africans who came unwillingly? The Chinese and the East Indians?
The term third world is fairly new. In the periods of highest immigration, immigrants were seldom anything but working poor, since the middle class was a new feature of most societies. And every part of the world had its wave of immigration. When the Irish came over they were the foils for nativists. When labor was required for the railroads Chinese were invited. Then they were shut out by discriminatory laws.
The Indian diaspora to North America has been recent and huge. But most of them were middle class, leaving a third world country with less talent.
Whats true today is that the refugees to Europe are moving under duress, with few resources.
The most similar event was the refugee problems of WWII. Nations coped then , with fewer resources, and only a vague plan. Today's problem is no where near as severe as difficult as it is..
And it is true that the three nations you name are protected by oceans. And apparently, soon, a huge wall built by Mexico if President Trump has his way.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6895374/Finland-to-deport-20000-migrants.html

More European "enlightenment".

Why does Finland want to limit refugees?
Why is Merkel in political danger because of the refugee crisis?

Why is Europe wanting to limit refugees, if it is such a good idea and the feelings in Europe match yours, RickyP?

Well, strictly speaking what they're talking about is deporting failed asylum seekers (ie, those whose claims have already been considered and refused). Frankly I'll believe it when I see it. It's easy to announce a policy like this but far harder to implement. All of them will be undocumented and as such it's going to be very difficult to get their home countries to take them back, and that assumes we can identify their home countries in the first place. I'm guessing most will pretend to be Syrian.

bbauska wrote:http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6895374/Finland-to-deport-20000-migrants.html

More European "enlightenment".

Why does Finland want to limit refugees?
Why is Merkel in political danger because of the refugee crisis?

Why is Europe wanting to limit refugees, if it is such a good idea and the feelings in Europe match yours, RickyP?

Sass is right. This is not "limiting refugees". It is saying they will deport those who do not have a legitimate refugee claim, which is pretty much what most countries would do. As Sass says it is not always that easy as there are legal appeals that can be made, some vulnerable people can't just be sent back, and you have to know where to send them (and have an agreement with that destination to put them there). Then there is the logistics of getting the people deported and ensuring they don't abscond.

Of course, the very difficulty in repatriating bogus asylum seekers is an argument against taking so many of them in the first place. 1 million entered Germany last year. I'm willing to bet no more than 50000 will have been sent home in 5 years time, and who knows how many more will have arrived by then.