The Off Topic Topic

[Josquius]

It's tricky a bit. If Sweden let in tens of thousands of rural Hungarians who congregated in the same population centres and turned them into the 40s-style regressive place they are used to inhabit I don't think people would have trouble calling them out for their cultural backwardness. But if Eritreans do the same you can't do it anymore because if you do you find yourself on the same platform with some very nasty people.

This is indeed a problem.
Say something racist about black people or Asians and in most circles you'll be called out as a racist.
Say something racist about Travellers.... and way too often even in fairly progressive circles its accepted.

[Threviel]

It's like criticising Israel. You might have very valid points, but it puts you in the same camp as some very unsavoury people and you have to very carefully choose your words to not validate them whilst your audience is scrutinising everything to find any evidence of anti-semitism.

There are valid concerns, but a discussion is borderline impossible due to all this crap.

[crazy canuck]

In Canada, there has been a very quick and dramatic shift of public opinion against immigration.

it is one of the reasons, and maybe the main reason, the conservative party will win the next federal election.

Millions of Canadians did not suddenly become racists.  There is simply a widely held belief that the present government broke our immigration system.

[Threviel]

I also think that recent research into the economics of immigration proves that almost all pro-immigration economic arguments were wrong.

Refugees were supposed to solve our pensions and then it's showed that they will only ever be a strain and their children, once integrated, will only increase the demographic collapse problem. Those not integrating will only strain the system even more.

There are very few good arguments as to why rich western democracies should let refugees, especially badly educated ones, in.

[DGuller]

All this racism talk is even beyond the point, IMO.  I think citizens of democratic countries deserve the right to have a say in who can join their country.  That right is not conditional on having the justification you approve of for their opinion.  Bad things happen when you disenfranchise people, even if those people are racist.

[crazy canuck]

I also think that recent research into the economics of immigration proves that almost all pro-immigration economic arguments were wrong.

Refugees were supposed to solve our pensions and then it's showed that they will only ever be a strain and their children, once integrated, will only increase the demographic collapse problem. Those not integrating will only strain the system even more.

There are very few good arguments as to why rich western democracies should let refugees, especially badly educated ones, in.

Canada's system may have been one of the outliers. It was designed to bring in young skilled workers who would be able to fulfil exactly exactly that role.  The problem became that the system changed overtime and particularly through family reunification rules.  What ended up happening is that Immigration actually made us older and less productive as people brought in their older family members after immigrating to Canada.

[Tamas]

Then again if you shut down the legal route in while climate change forces hundreds of millions to move, you are still going to get them at your door just maybe less willing to play by your rules.

[Josquius]

I also think that recent research into the economics of immigration proves that almost all pro-immigration economic arguments were wrong.

Refugees were supposed to solve our pensions and then it's showed that they will only ever be a strain and their children, once integrated, will only increase the demographic collapse problem. Those not integrating will only strain the system even more.

There are very few good arguments as to why rich western democracies should let refugees, especially badly educated ones, in.

Eh?
The economic arguments for immigration are pretty unimpeachable in the short term.
Long term....there's debate. A big case to be had it just continuing the ponzi and avoiding tackling underlying problems.

As to refugees solving our economic problems though... I've never heard that one.
Refugees are accepted because of international law and basic human morality. If you're a gay Iranian then its your right to claim asylum anywhere in the world and that country would be committing quite the dick move to ship you back to your death.

[crazy canuck]

Then again if you shut down the legal route in while climate change forces hundreds of millions to move, you are still going to get them at your door just maybe less willing to play by your rules.

I think that illustrates the difference between a refugee and an immigrant.  I think there are good arguments for allowing refugee claimants.

But what happened in Canada is the immigration system was designed to achieve an objective of offsetting the impact of an aging population and through policy changes over time, it ended up with the opposite result.

[Tamas]

I think it hurts the humane case to ignore that refugee systems are used by immigrants to gain legal right to enter and stay. I don't blame them, I'd do the same. But for example nobody seeking shelter to survive prosecution has to leave France and enter the UK to achieve that. They are coming here because they expect to have a better life here for whatever reason. Again, perfectly fine, I'd do the same, but it would probably help policy to accept that there are no separate refugee and immigration systems, except under very specific circumstances like being on the border of / close to a conflict zone/dictatorship.

[crazy canuck]

I think it hurts the humane case to ignore that refugee systems are used by immigrants to gain legal right to enter and stay. I don't blame them, I'd do the same. But for example nobody seeking shelter to survive prosecution has to leave France and enter the UK to achieve that. They are coming here because they expect to have a better life here for whatever reason. Again, perfectly fine, I'd do the same, but it would probably help policy to accept that there are no separate refugee and immigration systems, except under very specific circumstances like being on the border of / close to a conflict zone/dictatorship.

I agree.  Distinguishing between the two is important.

[Josquius]

A colleague's American wife is gaining her British citizenship next week.
He's asked for advice on what he can get her for a gift.
The top options so far are:
* A sports direct mug
* A Colin the Caterpillar Cake
* A condolence card

My suggestion is this passport cover, to hide the shame https://c.media-amazon.com/images/I/81Hlz2CbgBL.__AC_SX300_SY300_QL70_ML2_.jpg or an Irish passport cover

Any ideas I can pass on?

[Barrister]

Yes, many European balls of light are more racist than one would naively expect.

So on the one hand - yes.  There is much more racism then you'd expect in Europe - or at least then you'd have expected 20 years ago.

But immigration is such a touchy issue since it goes to the very basis for the existence of many nations.

I mean it's one thing in North America - absent First Nations we're all immigrants.  It's hard to say that Canada / US needs to be a majority white country in that context.

It's also hard for European colonial powers to complain about immigration from the very nations they used to rule over.  On what basis does the UK really have to deny Indians, or people from the Caribbean, from coming to the UK?  Same for France and west Africa, or Spain and Latin America.

But a nation like Sweden, or Poland, or Germany - all were quite explicitly set up as ethno-states.  One people, one country.  So certainly on some level people should have the ability to say that they like it that way.  But then again - you get the feeling that they're much more opposed to Eritreans coming in as opposed to, say, Ukrainians.

[Barrister]

I think it hurts the humane case to ignore that refugee systems are used by immigrants to gain legal right to enter and stay. I don't blame them, I'd do the same. But for example nobody seeking shelter to survive prosecution has to leave France and enter the UK to achieve that. They are coming here because they expect to have a better life here for whatever reason. Again, perfectly fine, I'd do the same, but it would probably help policy to accept that there are no separate refugee and immigration systems, except under very specific circumstances like being on the border of / close to a conflict zone/dictatorship.

So I struggle with this one.

On the one hand, I agree - being a refugee isn't meant as a form of economic migration, and it's troubling to see migrants try to go through multiple countries just to get to their preferred destination.

On the other hand though, a country like Canada (or the UK) who do not border any poor or war-torn countries - that reasoning means we don't have to deal with refugees, which doesn't seem right either.

[Josquius]

There absolutely are people who exploit the system to try and con their way into other countries. But the existence of these people is no excuse to ignore international law.

As for going through France to get to the UK- international law gives you the right to claim in any country and we have set things up thus that the only way they can claim in the UK is to be here, and they'll be denied boarding onto a direct plane, so.... There's definitely solutions needed there but they lie more in making it easier to apply from other countries rather than in stopping people from coming to the UK.

There are plenty of valid reasons why people have the right to claim anywhere and some might prefer one country over another. Sure, there's economic reasons of thinking their job prospects are better in English speaking Britain, but there's lots of legit reasons too:
* If they have friends and family already in Britain thats a big bonus to their feeling of security.
* Conversely there might be a large community of those they're seeking to avoid in France.
* If you're seeking to get as far away as you can from the bad people (tm) then you might have very good reason to want to cross the channel.
* They might have worked with Britain in the past, this could be key to why they are refugees, they trust Britain to give them a better hearing and perhaps think we owe them one so are more likely to be decent.
* They might just believe Britain's system for this sort of thing is better.

Overall the system definitely does need to change. But this isn't something any one country should try to do unilaterally. It needs to be done properly and according to international law. The thing the EU tried about the first safe country and all that is just unfair and not particularly logical.