Immigration (Legal & Non)

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
I've actually experienced that same hospital with and without insurance, and I can tell you it's a much quicker and friendlier experience if you have insurance. But that doesn't mean you can't get treated if you're an illegal. That's bullshit. Illegals don't go because they're afraid of getting deported, not because they will get deported. Doctor-patient privilege and the hypocratic oath are such that doctors MUST treat anyone who walks into a state-run hospital.

afraid with, yunno, valid reason. & not afraid of the doctors & nurses either, which you well know. the point isn't that it's impossible to get treatment, just that it's more difficult & often risky. like everything. it's also true that their are many programs - clinics, food banks & lessons, legal aid, English classes - geared towards, or at least sympathetic to, illegal immigrants (at least Spanish-speaking, I've no idea about Asians, Africans & others but presumably each community has its own) but nearly every one I've ever seen has been self-run, naught to do w/"welfare".

for Scott:
Safe European Home
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
The UK is an *incredibly* crowded country; something that is far less of an issue for Americans when considering immigration. And England, considered as a country in its own right, is one of the most crowded countries in the world (over 80% of the UK's population in about half the land area).

This may not be a popular opinion on here, but I think we should wait until we've figured out where to house and how to employ the people who are living here already before we let anyone else in.

OTOH, as a wealthy developed country I think we have a duty to accept refugees fleeing war or oppression but AFAIK these make up a minority of overall immigration figures.
 
Last edited:

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
This may not be a popular opinion on here, but I think we should wait until we've figured out where to house and how to employ the people who are living here already before we let anyone else in.

unpopular or not, I don't really think that's the point. I don't mean to frame it in morality, anyway, tho inevitably it's an issue, like Isr/Pal, that will kick up heated feelings. immigration is in a way like abortion - you can outlaw it, put restrictions on it, but you can't stop it. people will just find illicit & more dangerous ways to do it.

I'm far more interested in pragmatic grounds - not least cos I think they offer up the best avenue to real improvement. whatever your feelings are it is in one's best interest, as a general rule & esp. for the U.S. (the UK's situation of course being different) to have a more transparent, conciliatory approach to immigration.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
unpopular or not, I don't really think that's the point. I don't mean to frame it in morality, anyway, tho inevitably it's an issue, like Isr/Pal, that will kick up heated feelings. immigration is in a way like abortion - you can outlaw it, put restrictions on it, but you can't stop it. people will just find illicit & more dangerous ways to do it.

Well yeees, but a country that has tight immigration control is probably going to have fewer people arriving (legally or not) than an equally attractive country that says "hey, come on in!".

I'm not trying to frame it moralistically either, it's just that there are are a lot of countries - meaning wealthy countries that immigrants might want to move to - that are in a better position to accept them than the UK is, from an economic/demographic POV.
 

scottdisco

rip this joint please
The number of people living in England has overtaken the population density of Holland, which has traditionally been the most densely-populated major nation on the continent.
The count, which has been attributed to higher levels of immigration, shows England now has 395 people per square kilometre.
The figures were obtained in a parliamentary answer from the Office of National Statistics.
In 2008 the average number of people per square kilometre in Britain was 253, rising to 395 in England.
Latest figures from Holland show that its population density was 395 a square kilometre in 2002 and 393 in 2005. It is estimated that English population density will rise to 464 people for every square kilometre by 2031.
The population density in England is already almost double the level in Germany and quadruple that in France.
...
Beyond Europe, England's population density is among the highest in the world for major countries. England ranks third in density after Bangladesh (1,045 per sq km) and South Korea (498 per sq km).

here

i must say Tea is OTM regarding the differences in population density between England and the other parts of the UK.

i.e. a quick glance at a recent Wiki for a list of the most densely populated sovereign nations on earth puts the UK (i know the article is discussing Britain, but, heck, Northern Ireland is not very densely populated) relatively low: around 50. but the figures would definitely change drastically when you break this down to the four main constituent British and Northern Irish parts.
purely on a demographic level, i find this fascinating.

after all, Scotland is nearly the same size as England yet has ten times less people or so.
Scotland is only {sic} about twice as densely populated as the States and Wales about five times; England more like ten times or so.

in fact, Bill Bryson once referenced England in something he wrote for American consumption about immigration to the USA, to make the same sort of point Tea makes above re density. (whether he should have is another matter, as - although i must stress his words were directed to Americans, hypothetical Americans Bryson wanted to reach, Americans who did not share Bryson's more humane approach on illegals - that cedes ground early to any passing virulently anti-immigration types who may not be American but living in a more densely populated country such as the Netherlands or the UK.
on the other hand, you have to have a hook, right.)

@P: the density debate feels like a massive thing in the UK - i'm sure the media bubble makes us feel it more than it truly is, as w' everything - so i can see why Tea feels the need to establish his bona-fides. after all, some people in the UK opposed to much immigration are genuine bigots, or - at the very least - populist shitheads who would stir up trouble or wilfully misrepresent things etc for the sake of it.

clearly Tea is not one of those.

(though i am watching you Tea, given you work for the Shin Bet :p )

again from the UK pov it is true that the UK gets a fair few immigrants (as distinct from, say, asylum seekers fleeing war; fleeing relative economic hardship in Moldova might not be quite as much of a bitch* as fleeing total failure of central govt writ-related carnage in the CAR, say, granted, but it's still a bitch) compared w' quite a few of her neighbours: for reasons to do with things like English being the global language, the perception of London as a world capital, the fact that London - along with places like Toronto, Paris, Sydney and New York - is an extremely ethnically diverse city, with many different Londoners of different heritages and different diasporic communities settled there, thus providing a cohesive support network for new arrivals that would be more lacking in, say, a - frankly - more whitebread European country like, oh idk, Austria. (although of course many European countries these days have cities that are ethnically enriched to the levels of say, the very multi-ethnic big cities of north America or Oceania, thanks to immigration.)

it's certainly not to do with our generous benefits, although we all know some of the press say otherwise ;)


*
the white Anglo-Saxon straight male born into one of the largest and wealthiest economies on earth airily writes
 

scottdisco

rip this joint please
of course (and again from the UK pov), many of our millions of recent Polish arrivals are returning home now aren't they? (credit crunch and all that.)

Poles went to Britain and Ireland to work there, and Ukrainians went to Poland to fill their gaps.

the beauty of migration.
 

scottdisco

rip this joint please
my last post for the night is to observe i recently linked to this .pdf on my main blog

Mafiwasta is an organisation dedicated to the improvement of migrant workers’ rights in the UAE. It was founded in 2005 by contractors working in the oil industry in Abu Dhabi as a means of drawing international attention to the plight of the country’s migrant workers. Mafiwasta has previously submitted complaints to the International Labour Organisation and Mafiwasta founder and co-director Nick McGeehan is, along with Dr David Keane of Brunel University, the co-author of the only authoritative legal paper to address the issue.

the .pdf in question is a short briefing on bad shit going down there on the above topic, the sort of bad shit you'll know about at least a little if you're posting on Dissensus Politics, but is obviously a worthy read in full.

.pdf here
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
of course (and again from the UK pov), many of our millions of recent Polish arrivals are returning home now aren't they? (credit crunch and all that.)

This is absolutely true - I head about half of our recent Polish immigrants have gone home. Must be a right bugger for anyone who wants to find a plumber or electrician. Perhaps the British economy will, er, solve our immigration issues for us? :confused:

(Is the zloty closely pegged to the euro, or what? By all accounts it's doing quite well against the pound.)
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
Well yeees, but a country that has tight immigration control is probably going to have fewer people arriving (legally or not) than an equally attractive country that says "hey, come on in!".

this sounds like the common sense that is just as likely to, in practice, be wrong as to be right. I think what makes a country attractive has far more to do w/opportunities (or at least perceived opportunities) than its actual immigration policy. witness, for example, Australia. I'm talking generally, not the UK, but it is a general principle I think to be true. note that what I said - transparent, conciliatory - is not equivalent to welcoming or encouraging. more like acknowledging the reality & working w/in it rather than futilely trying to control it.

I'm not trying to backhandedly accuse you, or anyone else, of being xenophobic. we live in a world where people are encouraged to look out for their own best interests. hence it's more productive to appeal to their self-interest than to their morality. that's all I'm saying. it holds true for lots of things, not just immigration.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
also wanted to say - I'm more generally interested in the whys & hows, the "ecology" of immigration as Sassen calls it, than arguing what is/isn't true, what is/isn't a good idea, etc.
 
D

droid

Guest
Nice thread. @ P and S - great posts.

It's all going to get much much worse of course. Climate change will see to that, though if the gulf stream cools down we might find ourselves on the wrong side of the fence.

England., particularly London is way too crowded. You're packed in there like ants. We've got a population density of 59 per sqk, the UK is 246, which means England is even higher... I really noticed it the last time I was over.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
England., particularly London is way too crowded. You're packed in there like ants. We've got a population density of 59 per sqk, the UK is 246, which means England is even higher... I really noticed it the last time I was over.

Yeah, it's nuts. A while ago we got some leaflet or newsletter or something from the local branch of the SWP, complaining about how crowded it is in Tower Hamlets and decrying the lack of social housing. Well sure, there is a lack of social housing, and I think it's been (various) governments' faults for allowing this to happen over the course of several decades - but the population density also has a hell of a lot to do with the enormous levels of immigration into the area, plus the fact that the birth rate is a good deal higher amongst the immigrant population once they're settled here.

But I have a sneaky feeling even mentioning this to someone from SWP would probably make you a massive terrible RACIST!!! in their eyes.
 
Last edited:

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
your point being what, exactly?

No, my point being that, despite the fact that militarization of the border is obviously a stupid waste of time and money, there are no easy answers to the problems associated with immigration to the U.S., which mostly run parallel to a bunch of economic and political problems that are much bigger than "immigration" itself is.

that things have always sucked so they always will suck & oh well no use complaining?

I don't understand why arrests at the border are the issue. States are going to protect their interests. That's what they do. The only way to approach the issue from within the framework of the State is as a "human rights" issue--which I am more than happy to do, but many, many ideologues on the left are not.

please don't mischaracterize what I said & then attribute some vague nonsense to "people". that is the kind of bullshit you always rip to threads when Zhao (no offense if you read that Z - U kno it's all luv) or whoever does it. I would never go off on some goofy shit about "Empire" w/gratuitous capitalization. you're looking for the K-punk fanboys there. tho, for the record, looking askance at cultural imperialism & being critical of American immigration policy are not exactly contradictory.

You've lost me. I wasn't talking about you there. I have no idea what you mean. Zhao or whoever does what? I was talking about the simultaneous demands made on the U.S. that seem to paint it into a corner--it's not supposed to imperialize (and I don't want it to), and force its lifestyle on the world, but then it's also supposed to gladly let everyone who has an inkling that they'd like to come on board into the country. I'm not saying you were making both of those demands, just that it's a game the U.S. can't win, in terms of foreign policy.

is it so much to ask for an approach to immigration that is 1) mostly consistent & 2) reasonably humane? maybe it is. b/c, again, it's not as if the militarize/crackdown approach is getting anywhere, even at what it's intended to do. tho I guess in a way it doesn't matter- sheer weight of #s will trump the BS, it already does.

No, it's not too much to ask. I was just wondering what in particular you were thinking of when you were pointing to the inhumane practices. The historical examples were good. The militarization is over-the-top and unnecessary. But I was just wondering if maybe there was more violence going on or something...
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
afraid with, yunno, valid reason. & not afraid of the doctors & nurses either, which you well know. the point isn't that it's impossible to get treatment, just that it's more difficult & often risky. like everything. it's also true that their are many programs - clinics, food banks & lessons, legal aid, English classes - geared towards, or at least sympathetic to, illegal immigrants (at least Spanish-speaking, I've no idea about Asians, Africans & others but presumably each community has its own) but nearly every one I've ever seen has been self-run, naught to do w/"welfare".

Yeah...actually there are tons of government run clinics, or clinics subsidized with government funds....but still, it's not an ideal situation, not by a long shot. But then, it's not an ideal situation for a lot of people who live here "legally", there's plenty of labor violation and exploitation going on when it comes to recent legal immigrants as well...like all of those factories in southern Queens that bus in people to work really long hours off the books, basically in sweat shops.

Culturally, illegal immigrants make up a gigantic portion of the population of lots of U.S. cities and increasingly more exurban or rural areas. But haven't they always? I'm just trying to get a handle on whether you're talking about hispanic immigration being particularly problematic because of the border militarization, or if you're saying the U.S. has a bad track record on immigration. I suppose my main reaction to this is that it's never been easy for immigrants, legal or illegal. But yours is that policy has changed in recent years to make a big bureacratic nightmare and increased tensions at the border.

In Germany I was shocked at the casual but belligerently callous/racist attitudes towards Turkish immigrants that many people displayed. Seemed to match the ones we have now in cities where blacks and others who relied on low-skill, low-income jobs are now competing with Latino immigrants who will work for less, and the ones we have had in the past (Irish-black relations were once really shabby here, Italian-black, Italian-Irish, etc.)
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
as to your frankly, absurd, contention that "most of the illegals" are getting welfare benefits or "running really lucrative contracting" I don't really know what to say. other than it's simply not true.

Actually, it is true in that neighborhood (Bushwick was the only neighborhood I was discussing at the moment, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough about that).

NYC's problems are different than Cali's, of course, or Texas'. I'm sure that living closer to the border, you'd see another side of the issue.

Edit: I remember a couple of years ago there was a big to-do about how more hispanics voted than white people in some counties in NY...anybody remember the stats?
 
Last edited:

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
...there are no easy answers to the problems associated with immigration to the U.S., which mostly run parallel to a bunch of economic and political problems that are much bigger than "immigration" itself is...I don't understand why arrests at the border are the issue. States are going to protect their interests. That's what they do. The only way to approach the issue from within the framework of the State is as a "human rights" issue--which I am more than happy to do, but many, many ideologues on the left are not.

no one said the arrests at the border are the sole issue. but enforcement - at the border & elsewhere - is a de facto issue, insomuch as it determines the reality of immigration much moreso than any policy. I'm unconvinced that any of this is in the State's interest. that's the point. I reckon the militarization has largely to do w/political concerns over pragmatic ones. esp. as it's gone on long after it's clear it's wildly unsuccessful.

I'd like to stay well away from "human rights" cause frankly it doesn't have the juice to get anything done. it's nice PR but it also gives people an out - to sympathize & thus assuage their guilt w/o doing anything. guilt is a terrible motivator. OTOH self-interest, including that of the State, is still the best motivator going.

clearly immigration is one in a web of complex issues. I am in fact more interested in teasing out more specific ways in it is related to politics/economics/environmental degradation - rather than just saying it does & leaving it that.

I was talking about the simultaneous demands made on the U.S. that seem to paint it into a corner--it's not supposed to imperialize (and I don't want it to), and force its lifestyle on the world, but then it's also supposed to gladly let everyone who has an inkling that they'd like to come on board into the country.

but who, exactly, is making those simultaneous demands, in the way that you state them? that's what I'm asking - it seems like something you've just decided. even the fiercest pro-immigration advocates (aside from those who want no borders at all, anywhere) don't want to let "everyone who has an inkling" in. letting people in is not the point - it's how people, legal & illegal, are dealt with.

But I was just wondering if maybe there was more violence going on or something...

nothing in particular, no. it's not supposed to be a "topical" thread. one for ideas, not for haggling about how bad it is/isn't.

tho tbc there's always a healthy amount of violence, of various types, being done on & around the border. "more" is I dunno, relative.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
Yeah...actually there are tons of government run clinics, or clinics subsidized with government funds...

this is not equivalent to "welfare".

But then, it's not an ideal situation for a lot of people who live here "legally"

true of course, tho surely one can be for both.

Culturally, illegal immigrants make up a gigantic portion of the population of lots of U.S. cities and increasingly more exurban or rural areas. But haven't they always?

no. they have for a long time, & even longer if you're talking about immigrants generally as opposed to only illegal ones. but, 2 things. this is immigration is different b/c it's not coming from Europe & it's not a wave that's going to recede at some point. & the spread into more rural/small-town areas is considerably more recent (going back to, AFAIK, roughly the 80s - discounting the SW which has always been largely Hispanic)

I suppose my main reaction to this is that it's never been easy for immigrants, legal or illegal. But yours is that policy has changed in recent years to make a big bureacratic nightmare and increased tensions at the border.

these are both true. they also don't contradict each other.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
Climate change will see to that

this is something I'm quite interested in - it's something I sees/hears cited pretty regularly but I'd like to see data. studies, if they exist, on how climate change & secondary effects - desertification, droughts, etc. - have already affected the flow of humans & how they will do so in the future tho I'd guess it's rather hard to predict specifics.

as well things like, say, the link between overfishing in Somali waters & the Somali pirates.
 

sufi

lala
yeah FT magazine (slogan"All times are London time") this weekend predicts a 10fold increase in refugees by 2050 (after quoting latterday malthus lovelock)
Estimates of the number of environmental refugees in 2050, when the global population is expected to peak at 9 billion and the planet is forecast to be in the throes of a 2°C-or-more temperature rise, vary between 50 million and 1 billion people. But the most commonly repeated number – included in Britain’s 2006 Stern Review – is between 200 and 250 million, or around 10 times the number of refugees and internally displaced persons in the world today.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/bb6b0efc-5ad9-11de-8c14-00144feabdc0.html
of course not all refugees are illegals and vice versa, (quite apart from the question of how environmental refugees fit the international legal framework of the 1951 refugee convention) altho states prefer illegals as they are less costly on welfare/benefits, and can be exploited much better to ensure our cherished cheap veg and chicken reaches the shelves of sainsbury tesco etc...
for me (having worked in this field for some few years) the govt have a fine tuned double speak on this, their ideal suituation is where noone can migrate legally, thus they win the daily mail PR battle, and at the same time, maximum illegals who are ready for exploitation - the US seems to be actually slightly more honest about admitting the extent that the ecomony relies on illegal labo(u)r, looking more cynically (tho doubtless less cynically that govt strategists) border controls filter the migrants so that only the fittest make it thru, mostly strong, educated young blokes who are ready to work and havent been a burden on the state for their upbringing & education

woolas, that plonker, personifies this, face to face and when he's talking to stakeholders, is perfectly reasonable and even fairly intelligent, but when he's in front of the press he becomes a raging bonkers loon
welcome to my world
 
Top