EU immigration row / time to get out

[AndySir]

The unsourced quote above comes from Frank Salter - who believes that the selfish gene theory means that preserving the genetic identity of your ethnicity is a moral duty akin to protecting your family. His prescription is 'universal nationalism', where your nationality and rights are entirely based on your genetic code.

http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/04 ... interests/

Mmm... racial hygiene. That's never gone badly wrong.

[jonny2mad]

I think the qoute sums up whats wrong with multi ethnic multi cultural states, I actually found it on wikipedia under criticism of multiculturalism



http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/20 ... 140604.php interesting talk by the man himself

[jonny2mad]

The more educated you are the less you will understand race and nationalism yup sums it up .

People ought to listen to this guy

[RenewableCandy]

Point of information: Eurosceptics can console themselves that the Green Party is currently offering a referendum on EU membership in its manifesto.

Meanwhile, I think open borders present us with a classic "positive feedback" situation (once an engineer...), in that the better-off an area is already, the more that people will be attracted to it. This, in turn, will enrich it (up to the point of absolute physical overcrowding), because ("it has been shown") well-off areas benefit from immigration, whereas poor ones become poorer (sorry can't remember ref). Poor areas will also, probably, be impoverished of skilled and healthy people as their own ones are attracted elsewhere. More positive feedback.

Within our own country, the enrichment of the South-East is a case in point.

We've had one classic piece of negative feedback (floating currencies within it) removed from (most of) the EU, we need another to replace this, can't think what, or the EU, Schengen or no, will simply blow apart.

I'd be happy to ditch Schengen if the only alternative were the risk of losing the whole idea of the EU.

[AndySir]

...whereas poor ones become poorer (sorry can't remember ref). Poor areas will also, probably, be impoverished of skilled and healthy people as their own ones are attracted elsewhere. More positive feedback.

It's not necessarily true. Remittances can be worth more to the origin nation than foreign aid (just shy of $15 billion was sent to Pakistan last year). The brain drain creates a market for higher education in the origin country with all the attendant benefits that brings.

[RenewableCandy]

True, but contingent upon the overseas workers doing the remitting (and not spending the loot in situ) and their home government being willing-and-able to boost education. It looks as if China (for example) has done this, but parts of Africa aren't being so quick off the starting-blocks.

[Little John]

...whereas poor ones become poorer (sorry can't remember ref). Poor areas will also, probably, be impoverished of skilled and healthy people as their own ones are attracted elsewhere. More positive feedback.

It's not necessarily true. Remittances can be worth more to the origin nation than foreign aid (just shy of $15 billion was sent to Pakistan last year). The brain drain creates a market for higher education in the origin country with all the attendant benefits that brings.

Oh right, I see. When the massive social infrastructural costs of rapid and low skilled immigration is pointed out, this is airily dismissed as being outweighed by the wealth such immigrants mysteriously bring to the country. But, when it is pointed out how much this costs their country of origin, this is equally vacuously dismissed on the grounds that they are sending most of their earnings home.

You don't get it both ways.

[AndySir]

I have already cited the studies on wealth creation by immigration, Steve, and can easily cite some statistics on remittances - here

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNA ... 71,00.html

Immigration == growth. In the most basic sense a worker is going from a very low valued job to a very high valued job so there's no reason why there shouldn't be enough gain for both target and origin country.

[Little John]

I have already cited the studies on wealth creation by immigration, Steve, and can easily cite some statistics on remittances - here

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNA ... 71,00.html

Immigration == growth. In the most basic sense a worker is going from a very low valued job to a very high valued job so there's no reason why there shouldn't be enough gain for both target and origin country.

So, now we get to it.

Immigration only equals "growth" if there is an underlying capacity for growth and, even then, we are talking growth in potentially empty economic terms. That is to say, such "growth" may or may not be in the service of the actual citizens of country, but instead, serve only the interest of a few industrialist. Furthermore, in the absence of the capacity for growth, even defined in the above terms, increased immigration serves only one purpose; namely to maintain profits for those same industrialists, by driving down wages and conditions for the majority of workers.

In short, in an environment of economic growth, workers as a whole may or may not benefit. In the absence of such an environment, workers as a whole have their pay and conditions driven downwards and most certainly do not benefit.

[AndySir]

Furthermore, in the absence of the capacity for growth, even defined in the above terms, increased immigration serves only one purpose; namely to maintain profits for those same industrialists, by driving down wages and conditions for the majority of workers.

In short, in an environment of economic growth, workers as a whole may or may not benefit. In the absence of such an environment, workers as a whole have their pay and conditions driven downwards and most certainly do not benefit.

There's never been an absence of capacity for growth, so I'm not sure how you know what the economic effects of migration in such an environment would be.

But I'm glad to see you admit that the citizens can benefit from immigration under normal circumstances.

[Little John]

Furthermore, in the absence of the capacity for growth, even defined in the above terms, increased immigration serves only one purpose; namely to maintain profits for those same industrialists, by driving down wages and conditions for the majority of workers.

In short, in an environment of economic growth, workers as a whole may or may not benefit. In the absence of such an environment, workers as a whole have their pay and conditions driven downwards and most certainly do not benefit.

There's never been an absence of capacity for growth, so I'm not sure how you know what the economic effects of migration in such an environment would be.

But I'm glad to see you admit that the citizens can benefit from immigration under normal circumstances.

Putting aside the massively ecologically unsustainable nature of economic growth, which makes it undesirable even when possible, do you seriously believe there is a continued BAU capacity for real economic growth and not just the economically unsustainable mirage of it based on the accumulation of yet more FRB debt?

Are you f***ing serious?

[vtsnowedin]

As growth becomes impossible it will become a race to do more with less resources and a competition for what resources are left. The winners of this competition will prosper while the losers will die. Are you and yours going to live or die?

[AndySir]

Putting aside the massively ecologically unsustainable nature of economic growth, which makes it undesirable even when possible, do you seriously believe there is a continued BAU capacity for real economic growth and not just the economically unsustainable mirage of it based on the accumulation of yet more FRB debt?

Are you ******* serious?

Uh, yes. I don't even think that's a controversial position: there's enough BAU capacity for economic growth to fry the planet. You would find me considerably less hostile to a zero-growth position, but the first thing you would have to acknowledge is that you were going to be asking the workers of the UK and elsewhere to take a considerable hit.

There's a nice irony in the justification for the populist, reactionary anti-immigration stance being the politically untouchable end of growth.

[biffvernon]

Talk about red herrings!

So we now are against immigration because it produces 'growth' and, as all deep ecologists know, growth is bad!

But this misses my point entirely - or we'd be saying that people should not move from parish to parish, Lincolnshire to London, Birmingham to Brussels, Madrid to Berlin, Bournemouth to Benidorm, Delhi to San Francisco, lest it promotes economic growth.

Borders are arbitrary constructs of historical power battles, that today curtail individual freedom. Free movement across these lines should be a fundamental human right.

Infinite growth on a finite planet needs to be addressed by other means.

[vtsnowedin]

The pressure to immigrate comes from overpopulation and declining resources. The arrival of new immigrates may or may not create growth in the local economy but they will speed up the consumption of what resources are left locally and that will cause friction. Eventually the have nothings will be shot at the border by the still have somethings. The growth question is an interesting debate today but it will become a moot point in the future.