General Politics Three: But what is left/right?

[Kaitzilla]

I must be stupid because I don't get why being an economic migrant is bad.

But it must be really obvious because its such a widespread assumption and noone ever questions it.

It is a question of resources.

New York City just for 100,000 asylum seekers spent $15,000 for each one last year.

..
The wait time for their court hearing is 10 years, so $150,000 in support for each one over 10 years roughly I think?

Mayor Adams Lays out Updated Costs if State and Federal Governments do not Take Swift Action

AUG 9 - Mayor Adams Lays out Updated Costs if State and Federal Governments do not Take Swift Action

www.nyc.gov

They are not legally allowed a work permit for the first 6 months.

...
Economic migrants hmm.

If USA had open borders and no limits, how many people would come?

 

[Akka]

Right now I understand your point.

My understanding is that an asylum seeker can claim asylum where they like.

But if they have passed from their own country to a safe country, and then proceed
to a third country of their choice for reasons unrelated to fear of persecution (e.g. for
economic betterment), the third country may decide that while they may have been
an aslum seeker when they arrived at the safe country, their departure from that safe
country to the third country was as an (economic) migrant and asylum need not be granted.

That's pretty much exactly how it works in the EU.

 

[Kyriakos]

That's not a reason to impose all those people to border countries, let alone if they weren't the target of the asylum seekers and have more seekers per capita. The problem is that many Eu countries are openly racist and wish to leave anyone entering the Eu in the first country they entered, instead of having a pan-Eu ratio which would be the fair plan.

 

[AdrienIer]

I must be stupid because I don't get why being an economic migrant is bad.

But it must be really obvious because its such a widespread assumption and noone ever questions it.

When you're openly plundering a developping country's resources, and its people try to flee the misery you're enforcing, some people think the problem lies with the people trying to find a better life somewhere. The main reason is probably racism.

 

[Senethro]

It is a question of resources.

New York City just for 100,000 asylum seekers spent $15,000 for each one last year.

..
The wait time for their court hearing is 10 years, so $150,000 in support for each one over 10 years roughly I think?

Mayor Adams Lays out Updated Costs if State and Federal Governments do not Take Swift Action

AUG 9 - Mayor Adams Lays out Updated Costs if State and Federal Governments do not Take Swift Action

www.nyc.gov

They are not legally allowed a work permit for the first 6 months.

...
Economic migrants hmm.

If USA had open borders and no limits, how many people would come?

It does look like a disadvantage of current policy that it is very expensive, yes.

 

[Samson]

Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso announce withdrawal from ECOWAS

Three military-led West African nations have announced their immediate withdrawal from regional bloc ECOWAS, accusing the body of becoming a threat to its members.

Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso “decide in complete sovereignty on the immediate withdrawal” from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), read a joint statement published on Sunday.

ECOWAS “under the influence of foreign powers, betraying its founding principles, has become a threat to its member states and its population”, read the statement.

The three countries accused the regional body of failing to support their fight against “terrorism and insecurity”, while imposing “illegal, illegitimate, inhumane and irresponsible sanctions”.

ECOWAS said in a statement that it had not been notified of the countries’ decision to quit the bloc. Its protocol provides that withdrawal takes up to one year to be completed.

“Burkina Faso, Niger and Mali remain important members of the Community and the Authority remains committed to finding a negotiated solution to the political impasse,” it said.

 

[EnglishEdward]

When you're openly plundering a developping country's resources, and its people try to flee the misery you're enforcing, some people think the problem lies with the people trying to find a better life somewhere. The main reason is probably racism.

Which country is Greece openly plundering ?

And how many asylum seekers does China take ?

 

[Gorbles]

Which country is Greece openly plundering ?

And how many asylum seekers does China take ?

These questions seem like a waste of time if you're not going to state your argument upfront.

 

[EnglishEdward]

These questions seem like a waste of time if you're not going to state your argument upfront.

The two questions were for Adrienier.

No one requires you to waste your time trying to derail them.

 

[Akka]

That's not a reason to impose all those people to border countries

Well, I was told that immigration was a made-up problem and only racists want to control who can enter their country, so why would you consider getting such immigration a burden ? Words betray bias, using "imposing" reveals you're very racist here.

Sarcasm aside, for this part :

, let alone if they weren't the target of the asylum seekers and have more seekers per capita. The problem is that many Eu countries are openly racist and wish to leave anyone entering the Eu in the first country they entered, instead of having a pan-Eu ratio which would be the fair plan.

The pan-EU relocation ratio is actually already how the EU works, with countries either accepting their share of migrants or paying 20 000 € per person they should have accepted.

 

[Gorbles]

The two questions were for Adrienier.

No one requires you to waste your time trying to derail them.

Don't worry, my observation was also for Adrienler, and not for you.

Of course though, this is a public forum. Anyone can reply to anyone.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, I was told that immigration was a made-up problem and only racists want to control who can enter their country, so why would you consider getting such immigration a burden ? Words betray bias, using "imposing" reveals you're very racist here.

Sarcasm aside, for this part :

The pan-EU relocation ratio is actually already how the EU works, with countries either accepting their share of migrants or paying 20 000 € per person they should have accepted.

Then why don't you want France to be paid 20Keuros/immigrant or what else you believe (no further comment), instead of moaning about the immigrants?
Countries don't exist to take immigrants for you, as if this is a nuclear waste deal. France should take the allotted by population, ie roughly 6.5 times as many as Greece.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Don't worry, my observation was also for Adrienler, and not for you.

Then why don't you follow the norm of quoting Adrienier's post rather than mine ?

 

[EnglishEdward]

Then why don't you want France to be paid 20Keuros/immigrant or what else you believe (no further comment), instead of moaning about the immigrants?
Countries don't exist to take immigrants for you, as if this is a nuclear waste deal. France should take the allotted by population, ie roughly 6.5 times as many as Greece.

The logic of the EU's free movement of labour and the refugee convention's bit about non discrimination
against refugees is that once admitted to the EU those of working age should be free to go anywhere in the EU.

 

[Kyriakos]

The logic of the EU's free movement of labour and the refugee convention's bit about non discrimination
against refugees is that once admitted to the EU those of working age should be free to go anywhere in the EU.

The system as it is has been set up exactly to prevent giving immigrants citizenship and then allow them to go to the Eu countries they actually wanted to go to. Because those tend to be too racist to accept them.
Of course quite a few don't even want to accept a few thousand immigrants in total, claiming it will alter the fabric of their society. Must be red/black fabric ^^

 

[EnglishEdward]

There is nothing to stop Greece giving all its immigrants, refugees or economic migrants, Greek
citizenship; and then those of working age have a right to migrate around the EU to find work.

The Greek government could even lay on special coaches to Berlin, Brussels, Paris, Warsaw etc.

And if they can get a job there, they can have their family join them, on ECHR family principles.

 

[Gorbles]

Then why don't you follow the norm of quoting Adrienier's post rather than mine ?

Because context is important.

 

[Akka]

Then why don't you want France to be paid 20Keuros/immigrant or what else you believe (no further comment), instead of moaning about the immigrants?

Well, first of all because (as I've said repeatedly), my point was about a case of disconnect and denial of democracy, not my own preferences.
The fact that there is so much talk and accusations about said preferences rather than any significant discussion about said point, is pretty telling if unsurprising (for the records : not that said takes on my preferences are wrong, I am strongly anti-immigration, but it was simply not the subject, nor does it prove anything about said subject, it's just the usual deflection of throwing "racist" around).

Countries don't exist to take immigrants for you, as if this is a nuclear waste deal. France should take the allotted by population, ie roughly 6.5 times as many as Greece.

Not that I disagree with your take (I'm firmly of the opinion that one should uphold their obligations once a consensus has been agreed on, that's precisely what the democratic process is about, and my point is precisely about lack of respect for the democratic process), but again, if immigrants aren't a problem, why taking more of them would be ? It seems you just are reluctant to admit that you also think there is a limit to how many a country can/should accept.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, first of all because (as I've said repeatedly), my point was about a case of disconnect and denial of democracy, not my own preferences.
The fact that there is so much talk and accusations about said preferences rather than any significant discussion about said point, is pretty telling if unsurprising (for the records : not that said takes on my preferences are wrong, I am strongly anti-immigration, but it was simply not the subject, nor does it prove anything about said subject, it's just the usual deflection of throwing "racist" around).

Not that I disagree with your take (I'm firmly of the opinion that one should uphold their obligations once a consensus has been agreed on, that's precisely what the democratic process is about, and my point is precisely about lack of respect for the democratic process), but again, if immigrants aren't a problem, why taking more of them would be ? It seems you just are reluctant to admit that you also think there is a limit to how many a country can/should accept.

I want to believe that you get the difference between population disparity making it possible for one country to be flooded by immigrants, when another would had been able to incorporate them. Simply put, if you don't see why Greece and France can't be taking the same number, it's not even worth being termed a bad faith discussion.

 

[Samson]

The fact that there is so much talk and accusations about said preferences rather than any significant discussion about said point, is pretty telling if unsurprising (for the records : not that said takes on my preferences are wrong, I am strongly anti-immigration, but it was simply not the subject, nor does it prove anything about said subject, it's just the usual deflection of throwing "racist" around).

Your opinions do have something to do with how one may expect you to interpret the data about immigration opinions. You have come up with numbers, which is pretty good, but is still plenty open to interpretation. This for example indicates that the divisions may be particularly deep in France and so polling inaccuracy may be particularly prevalent.



This is a description of the situation in the UK, It sounds nothing liek what you are describing, but this does not mean you are wrong.

Spoiler How do British people actually feel about immigration nowadays? :

The European Social Survey (ESS) survey includes several questions about how much immigration should be allowed. Turning first to immigrants of the 'same race or ethnic group as the majority', between 2002 and 2014, the proportion who thought we should 'allow many to come and live here' varied between just 10% and 14%. However, in 2016, the year of the Brexit referendum, the proportion began to increase to 19%, and by 2022 had increased to its highest level at 35%. On the flip side, the proportion who think we should allow 'a few' or 'no' immigrants has been decreasing, from 27% in 2002 to 11% in 2022 for 'a few', and 8% to 2% for 'none'.

This trend towards allowing more immigration was also observed for different types of immigrants. In 2002, 8% of people thought we should allow many immigrants 'of a different race or ethnic group to the majority' and this increased to 34% in 2022. This pattern was also seen across age groups, although younger age groups consistently had higher proportions wanting to allow more immigration. For data tables, see 'Table 1' in the attached file (xlsx) at the bottom of this page.

While the research shows that Labour supporters hold much more favourable views about immigration, the move towards becoming more positive is observed for both Labour and Conservative supporters. For example, between 2002 and 2022 the proportion that thought we should allow 'some' or 'many' immigrants from poorer countries outside of Europe increased from 71% to 91% for Labour supporters, and from 63% to 83% for Conservative supporters. In 2022, Conservative supporters were more likely to want to allow 'some' immigrants and Labour supporters to allow 'many' immigrants. For example, 13% of Conservative supporters thought we should allow 'many' immigrants of the same race, whereas 70% thought we should allow 'some'. For Labour supporters, 60% thought we should allow 'many' and 31% thought we should allow 'some'.