Migration always means poverty migration, not wealth migration

[TarJak]

America wants a word also.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Oberon

But we're not talking about comparisons here. The title you used makes a definition that migration always means poverty migration, not wealth migration, and yet this is not the case. Similarly the quote in which you ended your reply to Tarjak with states that migration is always poverty migration, but as you have admitted just now, that there is wealth migration, although because of the ratio of rich to poor in just about every nation on this planet, the ratio between wealth and poverty migration is helplessly one-sided.
Furthermore, the simplification of the term 'migration' discounts internal country migration, not everyone in Germany and the UK moves from richer parts of the country to poorer parts, generally movements congregate where there is a greater chance of employment, and so it is internationally, as equally as it is intranationally.

EDIT: Didn't know about the old-age home exportation...that is pretty grim, but equally in a manner of speaking it is a form of wealth migration, since it is people from one country exploiting the inequality in relative economic strength to benefit their own financial existence, for good or for ill. People come from Eastern Europe to earn more money than they can back home, and we go to Eastern Europe to make the money we've earnt go further.

The great migration movements in the history of the past 2000 years, and before, all were moving-outs by tribes and people due to poverty and grim living conditions in the places where these tribes originally came from. 'Sometimes climate changes played a role, an erosion of once fertile farming grounds, or wars, or oppression.

Also, migration as a term is used today almost exclusively for mass movements caused by the need for people to move elsewhere. People moving somewhere because they< are millionaires and like to go there usually are not tagged as "migrants". Migrants go where they hope for a better life or/and hope to find better work.

If we would follow a less popular understanding of the term, then think of summer vacancies in the Western world - and understand tourists to be part-time-migrants. They move by the millions across the European continents and beyond indeed. Numerically, that is what in German would be called a "Völkerwanderung", and bigger in size than the "Völkerwanderungen" of the past 2 thousand years.

Most people have a sense for feeling home in their homeland, homeplace, home culture. Most people only move when they have very pressing, urgent material needs to move away from their homes. People who are so rich that they just read in a tourist magazine and then chose between the lovely resort they saw on the Bahamas, the Florida Keys or a godforsaken lonely island in the Chinese Sea, not really match the modern understanding of the term "migrant".

Aren't we needlessly splitting hairs here? How many rich Poles have moved to Spain and Britain in the past years? How many Turkish millionaires came to Germany? Hoiw many social upper class Mexicvans move illegally into the US? How many rich Chinese enter the South Eastern areas of Russia without permission? The greek and Spanish young people moving from their homelands to Germany currently - are they really that happy to leave their homes and seek a chance in a foreign place - or aren't they do it because they see no chance for a life in their home countries?

Migrants are migrants, you cannot just change the definition of the word because your opening piece makes no sense and is easily proved contrary to fact.

Originally Posted by TarJak

America wants a word also.

I vote for 'grangapomping'.
Totally made up but has that tinge of actually meaning something.


If I hit the lottery? I'm grangapomping to a warmer place!

[Dan D]

"Migration alsways means poverty migration, not wealth migration".

Nonsense.

One does not simple migrate to Germany or any other country, same as one does not simply walk into Modor. Where do you get that idea from?

Example:
Client is a female doctor from Iran that came to Germany for education and training to become a specialist in nuclear medicine. Such specialists are very rare. When she decided to never go back to Iran, it was very easy to get her a residence permit after her limited study stay, because she has an income that you and I can only dream of , pays more taxes than you and I, and Germany has an urgent need for specialists in nuclear medicine.

Next example: Your "beggars" are not immigrants. If you want to stay in Germany for longer than a tourist visit, you need to be in a position that you pay taxes. Of course you can stay in Germany for longer as long as you pay taxes and don't cost money. Do beggars pay taxes? I guess not really , so there is no chance to immigrate to Germany if you are a beggar.
What you describe , "there are seemingly more beggars on the street", happens each winter. The poorest of the poor from the Balkans, Roma, Sinti and Ashkali who are excluded from social security, school, jobs etc. at home try to spend the winter here because the winters are tough on the Balkans. In some years there is a temporary expulsion ban for Romans, Sinti and Ashklai for the winter for humanitarian reasons as decided by the Conference of Interior Ministers, in some years, this year e.g. so far, not.

Example:
client, a Roma, applied for asylum in 2011, 2012 and now on 18.11.2013. His claim was rejected already on 22.11.2013 after a hearing and if he does not leave the county by 10.02.2014, which is next Monday, he will get deported.
That is pretty fast.

That problem has to be solved at home by putting political pressure on the Governments of those states, "EU membership only if your do something about that problem" and development assistance, not by legal means. It is a factual thing.

As for EU free movement, Germany is the country that benefits the most from it. Because of its economical strength it is a magnet for higly trained EU citizens who get paid better wages here. Now with the free movement for Bulgarians and Romanians it is expected that those countries suffer a brain drain of medical doctors who will come to Germany because they find work as doctors here and they get way better payments as at home which will cause problems for those countries if this causes a shortage of doctors there.

I don't think that Germany is a position to complain here.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by privateer

I vote for 'grangapomping'.
Totally made up but has that tinge of actually meaning something.


If I hit the lottery? I'm grangapomping to a warmer place!

Nice word America! Well played, You win an Extrawursttagsgefühl! Congratulations!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Dan D

"Migration alsways means poverty migration, not wealth migration".

Nonsense.

One does not simple migrate to Germany or any other country, same as one does not simply walk into Modor. Where do you get that idea from?

Example:
Client is a female doctor from Iran that came to Germany for education and training to become a specialist in nuclear medicine. Such specialists are very rare. When she decided to never go back to Iran, it was very easy to get her a residence permit after her limited study stay, because she has an income that you and I can only dream of , pays more taxes than you and I, and Germany has an urgent need for specialists in nuclear medicine.

Next example: Your "beggars" are not immigrants. If you want to stay in Germany for longer than a tourist visit, you need to be in a position that you pay taxes. Of course you can stay in Germany for longer as long as you pay taxes and don't cost money. Do beggars pay taxes? I guess not really , so there is no chance to immigrate to Germany if you are a beggar.
What you describe , "there are seemingly more beggars on the street", happens each winter. The poorest of the poor from the Balkans, Roma, Sinti and Ashkali who are excluded from social security, school, jobs etc. at home try to spend the winter here because the winters are tough on the Balkans. In some years there is a temporary expulsion ban for Romans, Sinti and Ashklai for the winter for humanitarian reasons as decided by the Conference of Interior Ministers, in some years, this year e.g. so far, not.

Example:
client, a Roma, applied for asylum in 2011, 2012 and now on 18.11.2013. His claim was rejected already on 22.11.2013 after a hearing and if he does not leave the county by 10.02.2014, which is next Monday, he will get deported.
That is pretty fast.

That problem has to be solved at home by putting political pressure on the Governments of those states, "EU membership only if your do something about that problem" and development assistance, not by legal means. It is a factual thing.

As for EU free movement, Germany is the country that benefits the most from it. Because of its economical strength it is a magnet for higly trained EU citizens who get paid better wages here. Now with the free movement for Bulgarians and Romanians it is expected that those countries suffer a brain drain of medical doctors who will come to Germany because they find work as doctors here and they get way better payments as at home which will cause problems for those countries if this causes a shortage of doctors there.

I don't think that Germany is a position to complain here.

Nicely deceiving. List some single cases, and declare a rule on their basis. Ignore the huge numbers.

The beggars problem is a full-year problem, since many years now. I live since at least half of that time I noticed a change there. While many join that trail during winter, it is not a winter-exlcusively smytpom now. I would even say except the weeks before christmas, it is even worse here in summer. To say that in town you meet them literally at every corner, is true at least on some days.

When I came here 14 years ago, there were just three or four known faces within the whole town centre perimeter. Today, it is foreigners, by the looks from the Balkan region, almost exclusively. And they run their business in organised gangs. Police confirms also that the old established, known beggars in poarts have been mobbed out of the town, for the most have been forced to retreat into outer districts that are less lucrative.

Migrants are peopole moving from one country to another. Whether the state accepts them or not , doe snot chnage their migrant-being. Else you would need to deny that there are floods of Africna migrants swapping over the Mediterranean, on the basis of the argument that most of them never get a visa or need to stay illegally or fight for years until they get a permission in any EU country. Don'T read law books on this issue of what migration and migrants are - read a history book instead.

That you completely ignore even the recent statistical numbers I referred to some posts earlier, I attribute to the intention that you want to paint a certain picture of alöl migrant being highly specilaised and needed. If thgat were true, however, then I wonder why the Green Card initiatives are said to be failures, why German companies complain they do not find many specialists from other countries, and why everybody is wringing his hands over the question how attract more highly trained specilaists. The only thing where you are right is where you said that many nurses and doctors from Eastern Europe (and to lesser degree our Northern and Western neighbours) tend to try Germany, where I would rate nurses not as highly trained personnel, but personnel desperately wanted in Germany. Specilaists would be IT experts, engineers with comparing academical diploma/degrees, and such.

Some people declare almost any low-wage profession a "specialised" job in order to raise acceptance for foreigners coming in to run that job. What that part of the story really is about, that low wage migrants are wanted in germany the same way that low-payed illegal Mexicans are tolerated (while not loved) in America. In Germany, even such lkow wage migrantion is a migration into the social security systems, becasue the difefrences in loans and the money needed for a living, are compensated by the state - the German tax payers. Not all low wage workers get these compensations. But more than enough. In can argue all day whether the state should do that or not, but one thing I do not argue aboiut: that at least we should be clever enough top prevent additioonal migration into these systems, by foreigners from other countries. I remind of the recent debate in Germany and between Germany and the EU over Brussel'S original demand that any foerigner coming to Germany should be subject to Germn wellfare payments. Which is a lunacy of crippling costs for the already massively looted German tax payers, with most of German employees already being stolen more than half of their income so that politicians can redistribute it in the way they see best fit to support their career chances and to strengthen the basis of the system's power and control.

Edit: just in - more highly trained specialists trying to reach Europe:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...-a-951859.html

[Skybird]

Addendum: Just in. Social court in German y rules that Spanish family must be payed German wellfare although Germn laws rule that out. Judge says German law "probably" is not in line with EU law, that's why.

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/s...v/9441424.html

What he implies and what the EU demands is that any stranger can come to Germany and can start to sack German tax money for nothing from all beginning on.

Thank God there is no such thing like this maliciously so-called poverty migration. And no incentives to increases it.

And even if it were like that - we have all that money, don't we? What meaning has an implicit debt rate of 500-800% of the yearly BSP (=GDP), after all? Answer: none! If we need money to pay all these follies, we just print some more!

Ludwig Erhard would turn in his grave. Well, socialists would have loved to have burnt him alive anyway.

Nicely deceiving. List some single cases, and declare a rule on their basis. Ignore the huge numbers.

Yet it skewers you completely, one single case would be enough to rubbish your argument.
Its safe to say there will be dozens of individuals on just this forum who are living proof that your claim is false.
That's the problem with trying to make your claim seem stronger than it is.
Avoid absolutes.
If you start with a claim that is very obviously and undeniably false then any argument you want to build on that foundation is suspect.

[MH]

Migration always means poverty migration, not wealth migration

It mostly does yet very often the poor people can be skilled or educated and looking for better life.
This kind usually don't end up begging or committing crimes.
Every country should have right to be choosy on this issue.

[the_tyrant]

You know what, I would say that in the context of EU migration, where there are no limits, Skybird's argument makes a bit more sense, the vast majority of migrants are not rich, educated, etc.

Maybe Skybird would be happier with the Canadian system, where immigrants are evaluated by a points system. Potential immigrants are evaluated with a points system, and would only be admitted if they "pass"

My parents moved to Canada after my dad had a successful business in China (+ points for net worth and wealth), both knew how to speak English (+ points for language), both have post graduate degrees (+ points for education).

In effect, the system is designed to admit the top few percentile of people who would like to move to Canada.

Nowadays, if you want to immigrate to Canada, these are the requirements:

The Federal Investor program is passive in nature and requires an investment of $800,000 CAD which is deposited with the Receiver General of Canada and a personal net worth of $1.6 Million CAD with two years of suitable management or business experience. The investment bears no interest and must be maintained for five years. Applicants may state a desire to live anywhere in Canada except Quebec. The investment is government guaranteed and the proceeds are allocated to the Provinces excluding Quebec.

Or you need to get 67 points in the skilled worker evaluation system:

http://www.immigration.ca/index.php/...lledworkergrid

Hey Skybird, why don't you come over here!

[MH]

You know what, I would say that in the context of EU migration, where there are no limits, Skybird's argument makes a bit more sense, the vast majority of migrants are not rich, educated, etc.

Yep
This seems to be issue there , the reason why EU got flooded and is in trouble.

[Skybird]

Point is, while people have the right to ask in other places - where there already are established communities - whether these communities would accept them to move in and live there, NOBODY has the right to move somewhere and simply demand to be accepted there (if that place already is occupied by another community). You cannot slam in the door somewhere, storm the house and demand the housekeeper: "Here I am, you have to live with it, now get me fed." So, said community has any right to weigh the question of the foreigner, to set conditions, and to ask what the newcomer can and will attribute to said community something that the community values sufficiently to accept a foreigner in. And said community also has any right there is to accept foreigners - OR NOT.

A community therefore has any right to be choosy and let people in that it needs or wants, and reject those it cannot need by their professions and different or lacking skills and talents. There is no claim to make that you go somewhere and then demand the locals to pay for your presence and care for your needs. You are allowed to ask - and them are allowed to say Yes or No. The place already is theirs, not yours, they make the rules, not you.

That any foreigner from any part of Europe has any claim to make for social welfare payments in any other EU country, is idiocy. It rejects reason and sanity, and illustrates the EU megalomaniac craving for recognition as the ultimate centralised reign over 500 million people who as subjects to the state's ultimate authority and power should have as much control over this tyranny as Soviet citizens had over decision making and power in the central committee - none.

Funny that right now I just read it again in a science fiction novel, Frank Herbert's third Dune novel, Children of Dune (edited: this is the original English version):

Chapter 28
Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristocratic forms.
No government in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the
aristocracy develops, government tends more and more to act exclusively in the
interests of the ruling class - whether that class be hereditary royalty,
oligarchs of financial empires, or entrenched bureaucracy.

Written 1975. Sounds like 100% Hoppe in 2001. In a debate, a long lasting debate with UnderseaLanceCorporal several years ago, I said the same.

It all sounds a bit Tubbs and Edward.

[Oberon]

This is a local country for local people....