Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

GTA_stu

The Migration Crisis

Recommended Posts

sivispacem

Out of everything you've said this is all I take issue with. repeating what I said above, we just don't know that.

No, we don't know it, you're right. But this crisis has been going on for a couple of years now; there's no evidence that this kind of infiltration going on from what we've seen so far, and we can reasonably conclude that a large proportion of the individuals fleeing Africa are unlikely to be linked to Islamic State because of their places or origin and reasons for displacement. The population flows and demographics of asylum seekers don't support the notion of this being a particularly viable threat, especially given there are far easier ways of violent Islamist groups infiltrating the West.

 

we are currently in an unprecedented situation with regard to asylum openings from problem area+ a rise of Islamism.

I'm not sure this is actually true. There's historically been a great deal of willingness on the part if Western governments to allow residence for firebrand religious/political exiles from Africa and the Middle East. Going back as far as the 60s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

 

No, we don't know it, you're right. But this crisis has been going on for a couple of years now; there's no evidence that this kind of infiltration going on from what we've seen so far, and we can reasonably conclude that a large proportion of the individuals fleeing Africa are unlikely to be linked to Islamic State because of their places or origin and reasons for displacement. The population flows and demographics of asylum seekers don't support the notion of this being a particularly viable threat, especially given there are far easier ways of violent Islamist groups infiltrating the West.

Quite literally a couple, about 2 years. I don't think that it's fair to render such an assessment given that time frame.

 

Are there, though? We're talking about essentially allowing tens of thousands of people to hop in a boat and say they're a refugee when they get to a European country. What's easier than that? All it takes is some intelligence gathering amongst radical Islamists, whether that's through ISIS, AQIM, Boko Haram, or other affiliates to find when certain boats are leaving and when people are gathering and where, and boom, that's all you need. It becomes a question then of how effective they can be when arriving. Going back to your argument that they may not be too dangerous, this is true since they'd essentially be arriving totally empty-handed, though that doesn't mean they couldn't find a way to become a threat later on.

 

As for the reasons of displacement, I would disagree with you that it is unlikely they're linked to radicalism. All the states of the Maghreb are cracking down on Islamists, most brutally in Egypt... we know historically that these brutal crackdowns tend to make peaceful Islamists turn violent... the notion that these people fleeing African repression, whether it be Egypt, the Maghreb, or Libya specifically are all secular friendly people that aren't going to pose any potential risk and should be let in without any kind of questioning or anything is very silly... looking at Libya specifically you have half the country being ruled by radical Islamists and the other half by secular... you think those secular ones aren't brutally crushing the Islamists within their jurisdiction, leading them to seek refugee as well? To reiterate I support allowing the amnesty for these refugees but not without systematic investigations on them, I don't care how long it takes.

 

 


I'm not sure this is actually true. There's historically been a great deal of willingness on the part if Western governments to allow residence for firebrand religious/political exiles from Africa and the Middle East. Going back as far as the 60s.

There has, but not coupled that with the decisively-largest and most successful radical Islamist movement we've ever seen having swept through the Levant and gathering the majority of its foreign fighters directly from the Maghreb which is where the refugees are supposed to be coming from.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

...from the Maghreb which is where the refugees are supposed to be coming from.

 

They're transiting from the Maghreb, but they're predominantly sub-Saharan. Many were until recently working and residing illegally in Libya; with the recent instability causing mass unemployment and the increasing involvement of criminal groups and militias in things like slavery, they've effectively been displaced from there too.

 

I'll respond to the rest later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Well, a minister in a nation with a serious problem with IS expansion claims as much. There's still little in the way of actual evidence to support it as an idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Rikowski

A privately owned foundation that saves immigrants at sea.

Rich people spending their own money to save lives.

I wish there were more like them. We'd have way less innocent deaths.

http://www.moas.eu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melech

A privately owned foundation that saves immigrants at sea.

Rich people spending their own money to save lives.

I wish there were more like them. We'd have way less innocent deaths.

http://www.moas.eu

Good.

 

I wish progressives put their money where they put their mouth, just like these rich people.

 

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

 

In other news, Spain's foreign minister Margallo opposes new EU's EunavForMed immigration plan because Spain would take "too many immigrants".

 

http://www.elmundo.es/internacional/2015/05/18/5559b1c322601d33528b4575.html

 

Good. At least someone with balls and common sense in a European government cabinet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

I like how 'progressives' (ie, people who aren't communists or reactionaries) is a snarl world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Rikowski

Are you suggesting people with no means and no money should hire a boat and try their luck in the Mediterranean and save people just cause they are pro-immigration?

I guess not. What regular people can do though is voting for politicians that will support pro-immigration policies, fight ignorance and racism against immigrants and support with little sums organisations that help them.

Or do more, like this 90y old lady in Italy did by leaving her home to 6 immigrants in need.

I said it before, if the government organised citizens in order to receive immigrants in their private homes I would adhere to such program if I had the economic possibility to do so.

In the meantime I do my best in other ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melech

Are you suggesting people with no means and no money should hire a boat and try their luck in the Mediterranean and save people just cause they are pro-immigration?

 

No.

 

I'm just saying they should put their money where they put their mouth. Instead of spending hundreds of euros or dollars on a smartphone they don't need or in fashion clothes, made by enslaved children in third world countries, while asking the state to pay for the immigrants with money from all taxpayers, they could use their own money to help these people. It's very easy to be supportive with other people's money while you stand at home doing nothing. This is hypocrisy at its best.

 

I am not telling where they should invest their own money (that's what leftists and progressives do), I'm just asking them to act according to their own principles. I think I am not asking too much, am I?

 

 

if the government organised citizens in order to receive immigrants in their private homes I would adhere to such program if I had the economic possibility to do so.

 

My G-d... This is nonsense. So you want to turn whole countries into welfare organizations?

 

You don't care about economy, employment, security... Also, do you think this would solve African's problems or bring something good to Europe/North America?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Rikowski

lolwut

 

I do not own a smartphone and I buy my clothes at the cheapest shops, and I'm really not a big fan of consumerism, but how the hell buying a smartphone has anything to do with this?

Seriously. How about the right wing anti-immigration people, can they buy smartphones cause they are against immigration?

And if the government is using also my tax money to help immigrants am I not being supportive with my own money?

And when the government uses my tax money for other purposes I disagree with am I entitled to get a refund?

 

What you don't get it's a simple concept: democracy.

Or, as the Stones sang, you can't always get what you want.

 

---

 

I'm in favor of receiving immigrants rescued at sea and I'm in favor of integrating them in society.

There's absolutely no evidence that immigrants are a burden for economy, that they steal jobs or are a security problem.

In fact it is quite the opposite.

 

I'll just use Italy as an example.

In Italy many immigrants are working in sectors, like agriculture, that are ignored by unemployed Italians for being too hard of a job.

So they are a resource for our economy and for our welfare system cause they do pay taxes in a society that has more retired people than working young ones.

The biggest security problem in Italy are local (actually global) criminal organizations. We have 4 major ones that operate on a planetary level.

It's not a question of wanting immigrants, it is a question of needing them.

 

And it's the same in most Europe.

 

Immigration is the future for Europe just has it was the future of the US in the 20th century.

The rest is just obscurantism, ignorance and panic based on no facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melech

I do not own a smartphone and I buy my clothes at the cheapest shops, and I'm really not a big fan of consumerism, but how the hell buying a smartphone has anything to do with this?

Doc, I explained it on my previous comment. Please read it again and again until you get it right.

 

And if the government is using also my tax money to help immigrants am I not being supportive with my own money?

You're being supportive mostly with other people's money.

 

And when the government uses my tax money for other purposes I disagree with am I entitled to get a refund?

Sadly we are not entitled to.

 

What you don't get it's a simple concept: democracy.

I'm in favor of receiving immigrants rescued at sea and I'm in favor of integrating them in society.

You're in favor of destroying European civilization letting all Africans in. We already know that.

 

Immigration? Yeah, sure. But it should be CONTROLLED.

 

There's absolutely no evidence that immigrants are a burden for economy, that they steal jobs or are a security problem.

Yeah, sure!

 

Are you telling me that an illegal who has no job and pays no taxes but gets welfare and social benefits is not a burden?

 

In many European countries, half of the people in prison are immigrants. Given the small percentage of immigrants over the total population, we can rightly state that immigration brings insecurity. Of course we should not generalize about immigrants as most of them are not criminals, but this is a fact that can't be denied.

 

You should ask French and Swedish Jews what they think. Immigration from Islamic countries is forcing them to leave their countries for Israel or North America, as they can't stand this anymore. But, as always, no one cares about Jews.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cFYmhQMks8

 

It's not a question of wanting immigrants, it is a question of needing them.

As long as there is unemployment, a country doesn't need immigrants. That will only boost unemployment. Europe doesn't need immigrants.

 

Immigration is the future for Europe just has it was the future of the US in the 20th century.

This comparison is absolutely pointless; it makes no sense at all.

 

The rest is just obscurantism, ignorance and panic based on no facts.

This claim is utterly insulting and ridiculous.

 

So those who don't share your views are "obscure" and "ignorant" people whose aim is panicmongering?

Edited by Palikari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I can scarcely begin to start addressing all the straw men, chicken little fallacies and appeals to emotion in that response.

 

Some utter howlers there that just demonstrate the absurdity of pretty much everything you just posted:

 

1) the notion that Doc isn't entitled to express his views regarding how public money should be best spent.

 

2) the idea that immigration is "destroying European society" coming from a citizen of a country the overwhelming majority of whose population country consists of relatively recent (last 150 or so years) immigrants.

 

3) your straw man falsely equating general discussion on the economic impact of immigration in general, which is almost universally positive, with s very specific subset of immigration which represents a quantity so small as to constitute a rounding error.

 

4) the false notion that illegal residents get welfare entitlements (indeed, the giving of welfare entitlements is a direct indicator that these individuals have leave of residency).

 

5) the ridiculous idea that as long as domestic citizens are unemployed immigration is unnecessary, which demonstrates nothing other than complete ignorance of even the most basic tenets of economics or labour.

 

6) the statistically false claim that immigration boosts unemployment when the reality is that it does the exact opposite.

 

And why is drawing a comparison between the largely successful melting pot approach taken by the US to immigration in the recent past "pointless"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

Well, a minister in a nation with a serious problem with IS expansion claims as much. There's still little in the way of actual evidence to support it as an idea.

I disagree. If you review the article it links to a few other pages that detail the smuggling rings that are offering transport for militants with these refugees. You can argue the Libyan minister has an interest in playing up the issue but that doesn't change the fact that the issue does exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melech

Stuff

 

1) I never said Doc isn't entitled to express his views. Of course he is! I'm just pointing out what in my opinion is hypocrisy and a contradiction between his words and the actions he proposes. Could you please not manipulate my words?

 

2) I never said that immigration is "destroying European society". I just said that if Europe let all Africans in without any control, then it would be destroyed. This is a fact that can't be denied. I never said that the current immigration rates are destroying European society. Could you please not manipulate my words?

 

3) It depends the country.

 

4) In some European countries such as Spain, illegal immigrants get welfare, social benefits and free healthcare, paid for by all taxpayers' money. I think you should inform yourself better.

 

5) This is just my opinion. You may not share it, but you should respect it as I respect yours. Respect is a two-way street.

 

6) Let's take Spain as an example.

 

In the 90s it had the same number of employed as today, but today unemployment is much higher than back then. So what has changed? The population boosted by millions due to immigration.

 

Without this immigration wave, Spain's unemployment today would be less than 11.6%. Also, 60% of unemployed in Spain are not Spanish but immigrants.

 

This has been stated by Spain's biggest businessmen association: http://www.eldiario.es/economia/lobby-grandes-empresas-culpa-inmigracion_0_184432032.html

 

So the claim that immigration boosts employment is simply false.

 

"And why is drawing a comparison between the largely successful melting pot approach taken by the US to immigration in the recent past "pointless"?"

 

First of all because US and EU approach to immigrants was and is different. It was successful in the US, and it's a disaster in Europe. Also, the immigrants are different. While they integrated in the US and they became proud Americans (and they were willing to), in Europe immigrants are creating ghettos and most of them are not willing to become proud Europeans. I remember a documentary on TV in which a German kid (third generation of immigrants) said he was Turkish (and not German) when asked. Sadly this is very common in Europe. Would you even imagine a third-generation American saying he's not American?

 

In Europe integration and multiculturalism failed. This was even said by Merkel and Cameron. Only a blind would not spot this. In my opinion, both the immigrants and European countries made mistakes. In the US it was a success (congrats!). This is one of the main reasons why drawing this comparison is pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ari Gold

Yeah, Spain's sh*t unemployment rate has nothing to do with bloated public finances, obtuse and inefficient labour markets and regulations along with other market and regulatory shortcomings, not to mention severe collateral damage from the ongoing Euro sovereign-debt crisis (where Spain was probably the third-most negatively effected country, after Ireland and Greece), and has everything to do with a slightly higher number of Africans and Romanians entering the country. lol

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Edited by Ari Gold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melech

Yeah, Spain's sh*t unemployment rate has nothing to do with bloated public finances, obtuse and inefficient labour markets and regulations along with other market and regulatory shortcomings, not to mention severe collateral damage from the ongoing Euro sovereign-debt crisis (where Spain was probably the third-most negatively effected country, after Ireland and Greece), and has everything to do with a slightly higher number of Africans and Romanians entering the country. lol

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

 

I never said that massive immigration was the only cause of Spain's unemployment. It's an important cause.

 

This has been said by Spanish businessmen leaders, not me or politicians in Spain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

You can make any outlandish claim and find a 'business leader' who supports it. Try again, Pali.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

You can make any outlandish claim and find a 'business leader' who supports it. Try again, Pali.

Plus I'm sure it's very easy for Spanish politicians and their business leaders who have ties to the government to say "oh it's those damn immigrants" rather than the plethora of reasons Ari put above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ari Gold

 

Yeah, Spain's sh*t unemployment rate has nothing to do with bloated public finances, obtuse and inefficient labour markets and regulations along with other market and regulatory shortcomings, not to mention severe collateral damage from the ongoing Euro sovereign-debt crisis (where Spain was probably the third-most negatively effected country, after Ireland and Greece), and has everything to do with a slightly higher number of Africans and Romanians entering the country. lol

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

 

I never said that massive immigration was the only cause of Spain's unemployment. It's an important cause.

 

This has been said by Spanish businessmen leaders, not me or politicians in Spain.

 

 

Why is it that most economists argue that immigration and open migration is ultimately healthy for all economies? If people/labour are to be treated as economic commodities, then, like any other commodity, good or service, it is most efficiently distributed by the whims of the free market (ie through open immigration) rather than centralised regulation. I don't want to accuse you of being anti-immigration when you're not, but I personally think your views are being led more by irrational rhetoric rather than empirical fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Melech

You can make any outlandish claim and find a 'business leader' who supports it. Try again, Pali.

 

Ahem... It's the biggest businessmen association that has stated this, an association that brings together the biggest companies and MNCs, such as Repsol, Telefónica, Santander, BBVA, etc.

 

Plus I'm sure it's very easy for Spanish politicians and their business leaders who have ties to the government to say "oh it's those damn immigrants" rather than the plethora of reasons Ari put above.

 

Spanish politicians never said high unemployment was due to immigration. They have no balls to be politically incorrect.

 

You have no idea about Spanish politics.

 

Why is it that most economists argue that immigration and open migration is ultimately healthy for all economies? If people/labour are to be treated as economic commodities, then, like any other commodity, good or service, it is most efficiently distributed by the whims of the free market (ie through open immigration) rather than centralised regulation. I don't want to accuse you of being anti-immigration when you're not, but I personally think your views are being led more by irrational rhetoric rather than empirical fact.

 

Sorry, but people are not commodities and nations are not businesses. So I think this comparison is pointless.

 

I'm just saying that immigration should be controlled. I think I am not defending anything illogical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

You're defending an illogical fear of the foreign bogeyman.

 

Please. Share your specific 'business leaders' opinion, and I'll share some good old american homophobic business leader opinions. We can paddycake for a while.

 

Point being - business leaders don't get to have an opinion on social issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ari Gold

 

Why is it that most economists argue that immigration and open migration is ultimately healthy for all economies? If people/labour are to be treated as economic commodities, then, like any other commodity, good or service, it is most efficiently distributed by the whims of the free market (ie through open immigration) rather than centralised regulation. I don't want to accuse you of being anti-immigration when you're not, but I personally think your views are being led more by irrational rhetoric rather than empirical fact.

 

I'm just saying that immigration should be controlled. I think I am not defending anything illogical.

 

 

I don't disagree; I understand why a state would need to control its entry for the sake of maintaining social cohesion, regulating logistics and for national security. But, it already is controlled. When you look at the number of people who actually migrate to the EU every year, whether legally or illegally, it proportionally is not that big of a number.

 

Also, if you don't believe a state should be managed like a business, why do you profess to be pro-free market? If you recognise that the market mechanism is ultimately efficient in allocating resources, surely treating a government with an efficiency-focussed mindset towards finances, for example, would be prudent and reasonable.

 

And, whether you like it or not, labour and people are economic commodities. People wouldn't be paid for work/services provided if they weren't.

Edited by Ari Gold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Could you please not manipulate my words?

Don't enjoy it when the boot is on the other foot?

 

 

I never said that immigration is "destroying European society".

No, you just said that Doc's liberal and accepting attitude to immigration would destroy European society. And apparently that's not exactly the same thing. I can't help but think if you cut out the hyperbole you might say less outlandish things and open yourself up to less critique.

 

 

It depends the country.

One, no it doesn't- these are general trends as stated in my initial response, which are by and large the only things we have any statistics for anyway. Two, even if it were relevant it doesn't mitigate the straw man.

 

 

In some European countries such as Spain, illegal immigrants get welfare, social benefits and free healthcare, paid for by all taxpayers' money.

Wrong. Provision of free healthcare to non-EU individuals without residency papers was suspended in 2012 and as far as I'm aware has never resumed. They'd also only get social security if they were registered with a conventional employer which would be difficult without residency papers, and are also ineligible for unemployment benefit as far as I can tell. Spanish migration law only applies to individuals regularly staying in the country, therefore from what I can see every single tenet of this statement is factually wrong.

 

Which is funny, when you say things like,

 

 

I think you should inform yourself better

Irony.

 

 

This is just my opinion.

And it's my "opinion" that any person holding this view must have a fundamental understanding of economic so woefully inept that their own opinions on the subject are entirely valueless.

 

The rest of your post has already been pretty thoroughly addressed.

 

 

So what has changed? The population boosted by millions due to immigration.

It's pretty disingenuous you pretend here this is the only thing that's changed when we experienced a Europe-wide fiscal crisis and accompanying huge cuts in public sector expenditure as an attempt to reduce public sector borrowing and return nations to solvency, and then later claim you didn't.

 

 

Spain's unemployment today would be less than 11.6%

Also, 60% of unemployed in Spain are not Spanish but immigrants.

Source? Your 11.6% claim is referenced in that article (not that it's actually got any real credibility) but the only referenced to 60% in it are in reference to labour force inflation, not unemployment, and in the comments section.

 

 

So the claim that immigration boosts employment is simply false.

...No they're not

 

No academic study on the subject; no piece of actual analytical work performed without the bias associated with a vested personal interest has reached this conclusion. Denying the fact immigration is a general net job creator is like arguing white is black.

 

 

 

in Europe immigrants are creating ghettos and most of them are not willing to become proud Europeans.

Bullsh*t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Rikowski

1) I never said Doc isn't entitled to express his views. Of course he is! I'm just pointing out what in my opinion is hypocrisy and a contradiction between his words and the actions he proposes. Could you please not manipulate my words?

 

 

1) I'm sorry but in which distorted way of you seeing things am I being an hypocrite?

I clearly said that if governments use my money to support immigration (something I agree with) or use it to bomb Libya (something I disagree with) I will have to accept it cause that's how democracy works.

Unlike you, who, on the other hand, believes that when tax money is used to support immigration I'm being "supportive mostly with other people's money."

 

I'm not replying to the rest cause others already did and pretty much destroyed with facts every single one of your delusional claims but since you like to talk about Spain and unemployment rates you should check reality before blabbering about things you ignore. Between 1983 and 1993, when immigration certainly wasn't at its peak, the unemployment rate has been oscillating between 12% and 21%. Since 1993 it has been decreasing to a minimum of about 9% between 2007 and 2008 when the economic Spanish boom was at its peak and immigration flows were constant. After the global crisis exploded and the real estate bubble bursted unemployment started to rise to what it is now. The unemployment rates in Spain the past 30 years or so had nothing to do with immigration and are all about economics. So, you are the one who has on idea about what really happens in Spain. I wonder where you get these bizarre ideas...

 

Personally I lived in Spain when economy was booming between 2001 and 2004, and I was working in a sector that traditionally has no immigrants from 3rd world countries: advertising. The only "immigrants" in this sector are college educated ones coming form the rest of Europe, North and South America. When the crisis broke out employment in the sector, for "immigrants" and local, has plundered 50% from what it used to be just a couple of years before. The agency I was working, among the top 5 in the market, had to downsize dramatically salaries and work force. Although this is a very specific example, it's an example that should show you how immigrants have little or nothing to do with economics or unemployment in most sectors of economy. They are usually the first victims of an economic crisis. Advertising may seem an unimportant sector to understand these dynamics but it is actually a very good indicator of what happens in an economy cause when the economy is going well and people have money in their pocket to spend, companies invest more money in advertising and the sector navigate in money. When money starts to flow again in the sector it is usually a sign of an economic reprisal. Once again, all of this has nothing to do with immigration. Absolutely nothing.

 

The article you posted (a 2 years old one) doesn't surprise me. It is quite obvious that big companies that started to fire people or hire them with sh*tty temporary contracts will defend their lousy work policies by accusing immigration of high unemployment rates. I guess you're the only one actually believing their bs.

Edited by Doc Rikowski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

 

 

Yeah, Spain's sh*t unemployment rate has nothing to do with bloated public finances, obtuse and inefficient labour markets and regulations along with other market and regulatory shortcomings, not to mention severe collateral damage from the ongoing Euro sovereign-debt crisis (where Spain was probably the third-most negatively effected country, after Ireland and Greece), and has everything to do with a slightly higher number of Africans and Romanians entering the country. lol

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

 

I never said that massive immigration was the only cause of Spain's unemployment. It's an important cause.

 

This has been said by Spanish businessmen leaders, not me or politicians in Spain.

 

 

Why is it that most economists argue that immigration and open migration is ultimately healthy for all economies? If people/labour are to be treated as economic commodities, then, like any other commodity, good or service, it is most efficiently distributed by the whims of the free market (ie through open immigration) rather than centralised regulation. I don't want to accuse you of being anti-immigration when you're not, but I personally think your views are being led more by irrational rhetoric rather than empirical fact.

 

 

If you pump more people into a country the GDP and economy will obviously improve, unless you have something seriously wrong. You have more people buying and producing goods. It's not automatically good for the actual natives though. Things like living standards, job competition, the housing market, social cohesion don't always improve, in fact it's usually the opposite. Funny how when people try sell immigration, they always talk about the economy, and not about living standards, wage deflation/stagnation increased competition for jobs etc.

 

Limited immigration can be very beneficial, but mass unchecked immigration, particularly from much poorer countries, is not a benefit to most ordinary workers and people. Companies, corporations and governments love it no doubt because it generally benefits them.

Edited by GTA_stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

It's not automatically good for the actual natives though. Things like living standards, job competition...don't always improve, in fact it's usually the opposite.

As I've pointed out numerous times, with a variety of evidentiary sources, this is simply false.

 

Can you provide me one single source which claims either:

 

1) That there's a general displacement of domestic citizens by foreign labour during times of high immigration,

 

or

 

2) That there's any correlation between rising immigration and falling living standards, regardless of whether any causal link exists.

 

 

Don't say "it stands to reason" or "logically they must", because it doesn't stand to reason and it isn't logical. These myths are constantly parroted on by the anti-immigration right but there's absolutely no substantive evidence to support either as far as I can see. And I don't recall during any discussion on the issue ever being presented with a statistical source which has claimed, or even insinuated, either of these claims are true, despite the insistence of the people making them that they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

You don't actually explain your counter points though, you just list some facts and figures which can easily be disputed or given an alternative spin, and leave it a that. It's basically "but this person says it isn't" and you don't elaborate yourself.

 

I don't need a source to tell you that there's, and I don't wanna sound like Miliband, "a cost of living crisis" and that there's pressure on the NHS and school places, and that house prices are going up. You surely don't dispute those things? Now why do you think we have those problems? Is it partly government mismanagement, yes undoubtedly, and it's also down to 250,000-300,000 a year arriving for over a decade, net. Immigration isn't the only cause of the problems, but it defintely does contribute.

 

I'm also not saying that British workers are being displaced, but that there is increased competition for jobs. They're 2 different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Smith

You don't need some "source" when you have first-hand experience.

 

I love how the pro-mass immigration leftists seem to be under the illusion that the huge influx of immigrants somehow turn David Blaine as soon as they cross the borders. I mean, surely common sense trumps a "source" in regards to how flooding a country uncontrolled is going to present a strain on public services? I read somewhere a debate on how school places and GP waiting times are going to be affected due to uncontrolled immigration, and the counter was basically 'yeah well, at least we increase the chances of more teachers and doctors with mass immigration.' I mean, is there seriously such an equatable calculation to justify mass immigration? If so, I'd love to hear it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy

You don't need some "source" when you have first-hand experience.

 

 

If you expect to be taken seriously, you most definitely need to supply more than anecdotal evidence ken

 

Also, the folks in this thread defending immigration--specifically sivi, Otter, Irviding and Ari Gold--are most definitely not leftists m8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.