Migration always means poverty migration, not wealth migration

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Oberon

The title you used makes a definition that migration always means poverty migration, not wealth migration, and yet this is not the case.

Precisely! I give le cause celébrée: M. Gérard Depardieu, lately of France. http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013...ssian-citizens

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Oberon

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

LOL I think they tried that in Germany once before. Didn't turn out too well because someone thought there wasn't enough raum in Germany for the Germans to leben.

[MH]

Originally Posted by TarJak

LOL I think they tried that in Germany once before. Didn't turn out too well because someone thought there wasn't enough raum in Germany for the Germans to leben.

Thats the reason why germans also should not grow mustache and wear funny hats.
Give them that and they all want to rule the world.

[Dan D]

@MH

You said that every country should have a right to be choosy on this issue (immigration policy).

Then you said that it seems to you that the concept of "EU migration, where there are no limits" is the reason why the EU got "flooded "and has problems.

Does that mean that you think that it is the EU that is violating the sovereingty of it members in this context?

I have done a quick research and I have found as result that with regard to legal immigration, each EU-member state has a veto-right on EU level (principle of unanimity), while concerning illegal immigration and asylum a qualified majority is sufficient on EU level. It is a declared goal of all EU member states to jointly fight illegal migration to make it more efficient.

The fact that the German law about EU free movement is called „EU/Freizügigkeitsgesetz“ tells me that EU law was passed into national law.

So Germany could have vetoed the freedom of movement legislation on EU level which it did not do and the EU law passed the German parliament.

The EU does not get flooded by the freedom of movement for citizens who live in EU member states. The EU concept of EU free movement is this:

EU is first of all about a „common market“. A founding principle of the common market is the principle of freedom of movement of workers. It is an economic concept.

So the right of freedom of movement based on work goes along with the right to reside where you work and with the right to remain there once you get retired. Then your pensions can be transferred there, if you wish so. Even your social benefits can be transferred from your home to your host country. So e.g. an Irishman can receive Irish social benefits in Germany.

But if that money runs out and the Irishman applies for German social benefits, he no longer holds the right of free movement on the basis of work, as it is based on work, and has to leave the country if he can't find new work.

In practise: a e.g. Dutch construction company will offers jobs to German construction workers in East German Employment Offices, if they can't find enough construction workers on the Dutch labour market.

In the past you needed a working permit and a residence permit, now you get a single permit. Makes things easier for workers, less administration effort, which is the purprose behind the EU coordination of the labour markets.

The EU right to free movement is limited as it is based on work. If the EU gets flooded by workers, that must be a good sign.

[MH]

The is a lot of debate on thisit seems.
Some might be purely political to gets votes but associating every politician who touches this issue as some sort of nationalist or right wing votes beggar who crossed to the dark side is getting boring.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...crackdown.html

[Oberon]

Of course there is a lot of debate on this, it's one of the easiest subjects to stir up because it preys on the most basic human fear of change and uncertainty. Stranger danger, and what is more strange than someone from a different country? A different language, a different colour?

Xenophobia is a dangerous thing, and can lead to dark places. Be it based on nationality, race, or religion.

My primary problem with the lead article in this thread is the sweeping generalisations it makes, in fact the title of this thread itself is a sweeping generalisation in its assumption that the only form of migration is 'poverty migration', when it has been acknowledged by virtually everyone in this thread, including Skybird, that this is in fact untrue.

There are many types of migration, and many reasons, at this time I would wager that by size, the biggest cause of migration is conflict. Particularly in the Middle East and East Africa. Right now, some two million Syrians are displaced in the surrounding nations, I doubt very much that Syrians go to Lebanon for the Lebanese social security payment plans, and the two hundred thousand in Iraq are definitely not there to claim on the Iraqi healthcare system.

Skybird himself hits the nail on the head when he says:

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?

That is exactly the problem, the Push and Pull factors of migration, well documented in any geography class (or at least, certainly well documented back when I was doing GCSE and A Level Geography) are tilted at the moment so that certain nations within Europe have a great Pull factor, and other nations have a great Push factor. Germany has a good Pull factor in its economy, and Greece has a push factor in exactly the same reason. If Greece was as economically sound as Germany, the level of migration would be drastically reduced, it is for that reason, as well as good political propaganda, that Germany keeps bailing out Greece, because if the Greek economy were to completely collapse, no amount of border control would keep out the migrants that would flood into Germany seeking a better life.
It is exactly the same reason why China props up North Korea, because if North Korea collapsed, the flood of Koreans across the Chinese border would completely screw the Chinese economy.

Let's face it, you can build walls, you can man these walls with machine guns, you can patrol it with drones and attack helicopters...people will still get through, look at East and West Germany, how many people died trying to cross the German border, because they wanted to escape to a better life, and how many people succeeded. You can slow the flow down, but you can't stop it, unless you tackle the problem at the source.

[MH]

You can slow the flow down, but you can't stop it, unless you tackle the problem at the source.

Slowing down the flow might be important part of solution.
Setting up migration policy based on needs of given country might be part of solution as well.
Certain skills education.

Of course there is a lot of debate on this, it's one of the easiest subjects to stir up because it preys on the most basic human fear of change and uncertainty. Stranger danger, and what is more strange than someone from a different country? A different language, a different colour?

Is just about this?
Is it just about this and not crime and poverty it brings to some towns.
There is this issue of social benefits which seem ridiculous.
Dont forget that some people have to live with this ...its not some political or ethical issue for them.

It funny to watch how those liberal? policies strengthen the radical right.
Not really funny but you know what i mean.

[Skybird]

And still, Oberon: the major, dominant, almost o,mnipresent drive behind migration is not marrying a partner from a different nation, wealth you want to spent in travelling, and curiosity alone: but poverty. The bad living conditions at home. The inability to get a job at home. The hope to have a less miserable life somewhere else. And historically, it never has been any different. The need is what drives people, not the boredom from luxury one already has.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by MH

Slowing down the flow might be important part of solution.

Is just about this?
Is it just about this and not crime and poverty it brings to some towns.
Dont forget that some people have to live with this ...its not some political or ethical issue for them.

It funny to watch how those liberal? policies strengthen the radical right.
Not really funny but you know what i mean.

I can't disagree, cutting down the 'pull' factor would help as part of a concentrated campaign focusing on 'Push' and 'Pull' factors, however it's got to be carefully managed so that you don't cut off your own nose to spite your face, to use a proverb. A lot of the British governments responses to immigration have been primarily related to internal politics and the unexpected popularity of UKIP, and as such the responses have been mainly knee-jerk in nature. Fortunately UKIP are doing a pretty good job of sinking their own ship (or, if one were to take a more conspiratorial tone, there has conveniently for the Conservatives been a sudden outpouring and promotion of radicalist nonsensical UKIP statements, gay rain for example) but they've done enough to spook the Conservatives who are looking towards the next election.

There are also social issues to consider in large areas of migration, yes, but it would be unfair and untrue to label every migrational area as a hotbed of crime. I recall in the London Riots, a group of West-Indian men banding together to protect their street from the troubles.
Basically, it's more down to human nature and behaviour than it is down to migration itself.

Originally Posted by Skybird

And still, Oberon: the major, dominant, almost o,mnipresent drive behind migration is not marrying a partner from a different nation, wealth you want to spent in travelling, and curiosity alone: but poverty. The bad living conditions at home. The inability to get a job at home. The hope to have a less miserable life somewhere else. And historically, it never has been any different. The need is what drives people, not the boredom from luxury one already has.

I see where you're coming from here, a rather broad definition of poverty, but not an inaccurate one, however in the context of the opening post of this thread, the poverty you refer to was much more specific, focusing on financial rather than living conditions (although it could be argued that the two go hand in hand).
That being said, I do admit, you have a good point, certainly in that definition the most common form of migration is through poverty. However, that is still not an absolute, so one has to always be wary of making them.

[MH]

Human nature is something to be reckoned with when making decisions on this scale on social/economic engineering.
The EU is pulling too hard.

[TarJak]

This thread should have been titled Poverty causes migration. Duh! Of course it does. Why live in a sewer when there's some stairs to the street? Why live in the street when there's some doors to houses to walk through? Being an opportunistic ape, mankind will always try to migrate from worse conditions to better conditions if they see advantage in it and see a way of taking that advantage.

Originally Posted by TarJak

This thread should have been titled Poverty causes migration .

Or more accurately titled. "Poverty can cause some migration"

[Tchocky]

I earn about 4x what I was making in Ireland back in 2009. But I didn't migrate because of poverty. Because I wasn't in poverty.

[Dan D]

I used an Irishman as an example because I was thinking of my Irish mate Gerald from (London) Derry. I called him „Jerry“. We played football for some years, each Thursday from 20:00 to 22:00 and we always enjoyed a couple of beers afterwards, he was a midfielder. He made his way to Germany because he fell in love with a German woman. He opened up an Irish pub, which is not a bad idea, because every German town has at least one Irish pub. He went bankrupt with the pub and then he became a public service bus driver wearing a bus driver uniform.
He lost this job because he was barred from driving of any kind of vehicles for one year for illegaly leaving the scene of an accident. Must have been a language problem. Anyway, he had learned carpenter and because the payments in Germany were 6 €/hour at that time working with a firm on a temporary basis, he said „screw you“, I am going back to Ireland where they pay 16€/hour for carpenters.
So he left us (the football team), but showed up again half a year later to play football with us again , sniff, sniff. He told us that he has been working as a bus driver for a company in Ireland which went bankrupt and that had not seen any payments for two months because his boss took all the cash and went mia.

I have lost contact to Jerry and I don't know what he is doing, but I still miss him.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Dan D

Gerald from (London) Derry.

Heh. The only English word with six silent letters