Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[ipecac]

but at the end of the day, I, unemployed and with no savings, will take my free Canadian healthcare and be glad to pay my taxes when the time comes!

Naturally.

But take a macro view about many of the Western nations: unemployment is not low, so allowing mass migration, which increases labour supply, is it actually a good thing?

From a long-term perspective, what does it say about those 'First-World' nations who permanently can't provide a good job for a significant percentage of their population?

[ipecac]

Chancellor Angela Merkel, who staked her legacy on welcoming hundreds of thousands of migrants into Germany, agreed on Monday to build border camps for asylum seekers

No doubt the loonies are about to enlighten us all about 'German concentration camps'.

[Huinesoron]

From a long-term perspective, what does it say about those 'First-World' nations who permanently can't provide a good job for a significant percentage of their population?

Well, in the case of the UK, it says that our entire modern economy was built on the back of mining (coal, iron) and manufacturing, and that we never really found anything to transition to. Various governments have tried to shift us into an information technology powerhouse, but ultimately a) it's cheaper to buy technology from other countries with exploitative employment laws than pay/treat people well in the UK, and b) nothing comes close to the number of people we needed to shove into the mines and factories to keep them running.

I work at a chemical plant with a large number of migrant workers (mostly Polish these days); we're constantly looking for more! It's not a job that requires experience, but it's dirty, strenuous, and requires long hours; the British natives simply don't bother to apply for it. It's migrant workers, or shutting down a plant that supplies most of the water treatment plants in the country.

Chancellor Angela Merkel, who staked her legacy on welcoming hundreds of thousands of migrants into Germany, agreed on Monday to build border camps for asylum seekers

No doubt the loonies are about to enlighten us all about 'German concentration camps'.

I saw that; I was horrified. I've also been horrified by the existence of the various Calais migrant camps, though they're a somewhat different issue: that's not people being detained at the border, it's people reaching the border, not being allowed through, and settling on the spot.

The BBC has a (slightly outdated) article comparing the US and German approaches, and while I am, as I say, moderately horrified by the idea of 'live in this camp while we sort out your asylum application' (Germany), I'm still far more horrified by 'you filthy illegals don't deserve asylum, you're under arrest; ps, children don't go to prison so we're taking them away' (USA).

Politifact addresses the question of whether most illegal migrants allowed to live like actual human beings show up to their court dates; the figures fall in the 65-75% range. They also highlight that 1) asylum seekers appear to have a higher attendance rate (I guess because they expect to be allowed to stay, whereas people who are just trying to enter illegally expect to be deported), 2) the use of monitoring devices and providing legal counsel increases attendance rate, and 3) some programs (eg the Family Case Management Program, cancelled by Trump) give a near-100% attendance rate.

But of course, housing and monitoring and helping all those migrants would require a much larger workforce, and as you say, the First World economies are struggling to find people to fill the jobs already available, let alone engage in any massive programs of job creation...

... oh, no, wait, that's not what you said. 

hS

[Nicolae Carpathia]

Yoooo why are we wasting time with the person posting neo nazi memes on RB? All their arguments are garbage, they removing children from their parents putting them in filthy camps is good, and think white nationalism is a useful platform to appeal to the working class.

[Huinesoron]

Yoooo why are we wasting time with the person posting neo nazi memes on RB? All their arguments are garbage, they removing children from their parents putting them in filthy camps is good, and think white nationalism is a useful platform to appeal to the working class.

Because it's more interesting than writing COSHH assessments, and there's always the hope that someone, somewhere, will learn something.

hS

[ipecac]

Well, in the case of the UK, it says that our entire modern economy was built on the back of mining (coal, iron) and manufacturing...
I work at a chemical plant with a large number of migrant workers (mostly Polish these days); we're constantly looking for more! It's not a job that requires experience, but it's dirty, strenuous, and requires long hours; the British natives simply don't bother to apply for it. It's migrant workers, or shutting down a plant that supplies most of the water treatment plants in the country.

The UK has a history of coal mining but people are not applying for that job because "it's dirty, strenuous, and requires long hours"? Sounds unlikely. The best general assumption to make is that the management sets wages too low, i.e. "we have no choice but to hire foreign workers because only they apply (because we price the wages too low for local workers).

Chancellor Angela Merkel, who staked her legacy on welcoming hundreds of thousands of migrants into Germany, agreed on Monday to build border camps for asylum seekers

No doubt the loonies are about to enlighten us all about 'German concentration camps'.

I saw that; I was horrified. I've also been horrified by the existence of the various Calais migrant camps, though they're a somewhat different issue: that's not people being detained at the border, it's people reaching the border, not being allowed through, and settling on the spot.

The BBC has a (slightly outdated) article comparing the US and German approaches, and while I am, as I say, moderately horrified by the idea of 'live in this camp while we sort out your asylum application' (Germany)

It's great news. If they're going to stick to it, it shows that the Germans have grown a spine and are just too fed up to care about 'bad optics'.

I've also been horrified by the existence of the various Calais migrant camps, though they're a somewhat different issue: that's not people being detained at the border, it's people reaching the border, not being allowed through, and settling on the spot.

Yes, it's quite shocking that since they can't cross the Channel for more benefits, they refuse to assimilate into France, instead living like vagrants, meanwhile ever seeking to break the law by crossing illegally.

I'm still far more horrified by 'you filthy illegals don't deserve asylum, you're under arrest; ps, children don't go to prison so we're taking them away' (USA).

Politifact addresses the question of whether most illegal migrants allowed to live like actual human beings show up to their court dates; the figures fall in the 65-75% range.

That article don't seem to make any distinction between the illegally-entering asylum applicants and those who apply legally.

But of course, housing and monitoring and helping all those migrants would require a much larger workforce, and as you say, the First World economies are struggling to find people to fill the jobs already available, let alone engage in any massive programs of job creation...

... oh, no, wait, that's not what you said. 

Getting illegals to manage the detainment of other illegals is not workable. But as you seem to be of the position that 'we should just let anyone who wants to come in do so', I'm not expecting much sensible stuff from you on this issue.

[Huinesoron]

The UK has a history of coal mining but people are not applying for that job because "it's dirty, strenuous, and requires long hours"? Sounds unlikely. The best general assumption to make is that the management sets wages too low, i.e. "we have no choice but to hire foreign workers because only they apply (because we price the wages too low for local workers).

I'm pretty sure your first two sentences are not given in good faith, but just in case: the fact that the North and West used to be devoted to dirty, dangerous coal mining (because there were no other employment opportunities and no Welfare State, so it was 'go down the mines as soon as you're old enough or starve to death') has literally no connection to the fact that people in the South-East don't want to train in manual labour. The North-South divide in England has a huge impact; you can no more assume they will act the same than you can, say, the populations of Kansas and California.

As far as wages go, I think they're pretty good actually. I was able to support a family (just about) solely on my pay as a lab chemist, and due to the aforementioned dirty, strenuous, long work, the plant operators are on a higher pay rate than the chemists. So it's definitely a living wage; but I accept that people who are accustomed to thinking of themselves as entitled to a high-paid office job with loads of free time won't see it that way.

It's great news. If they're going to stick to it, it shows that the Germans have grown a spine and are just too fed up to care about 'bad optics'.

All it shows is that Merkel is losing influence and needs to appeal to politicians for support who she could previously ignore.

Yes, it's quite shocking that since they can't cross the Channel for more benefits, they refuse to assimilate into France, instead living like vagrants, meanwhile ever seeking to break the law by crossing illegally.

My memory is that the reason they're transiting through France to try and reach the UK is (or was) simply that the UK was more likely to let them settle there. I don't have a source for this, though.

That article don't seem to make any distinction between the illegally-entering asylum applicants and those who apply legally.

It does note that the numbers for asylum seekers are fairly hard to come by, but they still manage to make some distinction:

As a technical matter, M.G.U. and her family’s case is considered an "affirmative" application for asylum because the applicants went to U.S. authorities to make the request. In contrast, undocumented migrants requesting asylum during a deportation proceeding make a "defensive" application.
[...]
One source of data comes from an Obama-era program that released asylees from detention and matched them with case managers who encouraged compliance with court-ordered obligations. As of April, the Family Case Management Program, or FCMP, had 630 enrolled families.

The 'released from detention' indicates that the FCMP was specific to "defensive" applications; its near-100% attendance rate therefore applies to illegally-entering asylum applicants only.

Getting illegals to manage the detainment of other illegals is not workable.

??? Is there some reason US citizens are incapable of building houses, monitoring trackers, and training as legal advisors?

But as you seem to be of the position that 'we should just let anyone who wants to come in do so', I'm not expecting much sensible stuff from you on this issue.

Yes, I distinctly remember saying those exact words. Or perhaps, if you read my post again, you'll see that my discussion of Germany and the Politifact article rests on the assumption that people who enter the country illegally should be housed like the human beings they are, and then processed in a reasonable fashion, to be either deported, granted asylum, or (potentially) granted residency, in exactly the same manner as any other migrant. The fact that they failed to fill out some paperwork in advance does not, in fact, render them subhuman.

hS

[ipecac]

I'm pretty sure your first two sentences are not given in good faith, but just in case: the fact that the North and West used to be devoted to dirty, dangerous coal mining (because there were no other employment opportunities and no Welfare State, so it was 'go down the mines as soon as you're old enough or starve to death') has literally no connection to the fact that people in the South-East don't want to train in manual labour.

Is it factual that people in the North are willing to do such dirty and long work and that the North still has high unemployment?

As far as wages go, I think they're pretty good actually. I was able to support a family (just about) solely on my pay as a lab chemist, and due to the aforementioned dirty, strenuous, long work, the plant operators are on a higher pay rate than the chemists. So it's definitely a living wage; but I accept that people who are accustomed to thinking of themselves as entitled to a high-paid office job with loads of free time won't see it that way.

My point includes the following: there are locals in the North willing to do such a job, and if the pay is good as you make it sound, locals can do it.

All it shows is that Merkel is losing influence and needs to appeal to politicians for support who she could previously ignore.

She is being finally reined in by her coalition partners, because large numbers of the population aren't happy about the situation. In short, she is finally being made to listen to the people.

My memory is that the reason they're transiting through France to try and reach the UK is (or was) simply that the UK was more likely to let them settle there. I don't have a source for this, though.

They're not allowed in legally, so they're just being vagrants and camping there (illegally, I understand) while trying to get into the UK illegally.

That article don't seem to make any distinction between the illegally-entering asylum applicants and those who apply legally.

It does note that the numbers for asylum seekers are fairly hard to come by, but they still manage to make some distinction:

As a technical matter, M.G.U. and her family’s case is considered an "affirmative" application for asylum because the applicants went to U.S. authorities to make the request. In contrast, undocumented migrants requesting asylum during a deportation proceeding make a "defensive" application.
[...]
One source of data comes from an Obama-era program that released asylees from detention and matched them with case managers who encouraged compliance with court-ordered obligations. As of April, the Family Case Management Program, or FCMP, had 630 enrolled families.

The 'released from detention' indicates that the FCMP was specific to "defensive" applications; its near-100% attendance rate therefore applies to illegally-entering asylum applicants only.

Take a look at the article Politifact links to:

"To qualify for the program, participants had proven in initial interviews a legitimate credible fear of returning to their home countries.

It is geared to "special populations, such as pregnant women, nursing mothers, families with very young children," Rodriguez, the ICE spokeswoman, said earlier."

So this program had already screened for 'special populations', screening for legitimate claimants and quite likely lower risk of not turning up for court hearings, and then backed that up with carrots for attending court hearings. Unsurprisingly, this resulted in high attendance rates.

But these numbers of course just can't be generalised just like that to the whole population of people who are caught illegally trespassing and then give asylum as an excuse. Are there any numbers that support your position? I haven't seen any.

Getting illegals to manage the detainment of other illegals is not workable.

??? Is there some reason US citizens are incapable of building houses, monitoring trackers, and training as legal advisors?

I had the same reaction of '???' when I was trying to decipher that part of your earlier post.

So that's what you're actually suggesting? I'm not sure 'let illegals in to create jobs for detaining them' is entirely fine itself, though it is admittedly novel.

But as you seem to be of the position that 'we should just let anyone who wants to come in do so', I'm not expecting much sensible stuff from you on this issue.

Yes, I distinctly remember saying those exact words.

It was very hard to extract a coherent position from what you posted. You also did seem to be in agreement with the lunatic of the thread.

Or perhaps, if you read my post again, you'll see that my discussion of Germany and the Politifact article rests on the assumption that people who enter the country illegally should be housed like the human beings they are

How do you know that the Germans don't plan reasonable housing? Or are perhaps you objecting to tents which 'camps' might imply?

and then processed in a reasonable fashion, to be either deported, granted asylum, or (potentially) granted residency, in exactly the same manner as any other migrant.

The fact is that illegal entrance is a criminal act, which does warrant that they be treated not "exactly the same manner as any other migrant".

The fact that they failed to fill out some paperwork in advance does not, in fact, render them subhuman.

Have you been listening to the loonies? There aren't any concentration camps in the US, and as far as I can tell, Merkel does not intend to build her camps to be of that sort.

[Gustaran]

The BBC has a (slightly outdated) article comparing the US and German approaches, and while I am, as I say, moderately horrified by the idea of 'live in this camp while we sort out your asylum application' (Germany), I'm still far more horrified by 'you filthy illegals don't deserve asylum, you're under arrest; ps, children don't go to prison so we're taking them away' (USA).

hS

I have no intention of entering a debate about the fundamentals of immigration, but as a German I just wanted to clear something up. When it comes to these planned camps it seems some people's imagination is running wild:

- These camps are supposed to be only for people, who are already registered in other EU countries. However you may feel about it, the current EU law (Dublin III) clearly states that the first European country that an immigrant enters is responsible for his registration and asylum procedure.
Sending these people back once they have entered Germany can take months. There was the case of a family from Nigeria, who was denied asylum based on the fact that they were registered in France. After months of collecting social benefits, they were deported to France. However, they decided they didn't like it there and were back at the German border 24 hours later and couldn't be turned back. So now they are again in Germany, collecting benefits and going through the whole bureaucracy to be send back again.

Moreover, currently there a people entering Germany who

a) already had their application for asylum in Germany denied
b) had been banned from entry to Germany earlier due to support of islamic terrorism

Even Merkel was surprised when she heard about that a few weeks ago. The thought is that legally these new camps are not German territory, so sending people back should in theory become easier.

- These camps are not going to be some sort of tent village in the desert. The idea is to have all relevant agencies in one place in order to speed up the asylum process which takes far too long, especially for people who have no chance of staying (easily over 1 year which is bad for everyone involved).
I daresay housing, food and health care in these camps will be free and probably far better than in the homeland of most people applying for asylum. So I am having trouble understanding what exactly is so bad about these "camps".
Yes, you can't move around freely in Germany and having all your stuff payed for while waiting for your decision, but people in these camps have already infringened European rules. The right to asylum is not equal to the right to pick your favourite country with the highest benefits.

[Mr. Cairo]

She is being finally reined in by her coalition partners, because large numbers of the population aren't happy about the situation. In short, she is finally being made to listen to the people.

You mean her Bavarian coalition partner with lower approval ratings in Bavaria than Merkel herself? Who is only acting tough on immigration to head off the afd in Bavarian elections?