4 ms·

Hello from Germany. We effectively have "free" movement of people from Africa to Europe. Once they're ashore, we can't readily send them back. We also used to

Hello from Germany. We effectively have "free" movement of people from Africa to Europe. Once they're ashore, we can't readily send them back. We also used to have movement from Iraq and Syria through Turkey, but that was curbed. We took in about a million refugees and we did not manage to integrate well over 90%+ into any form of employment. We don't have jobs for these people. It has cost us about 20 billion in 2016, about 3% of taxes earned total, to support these people. We've managed to "oppress" the flow of refugees with unpopular measures. If we didn't, how many more people are we supposed to take in?

conanbatt 9y ago
For someone escaping a war torn country, finding a wall he cant surpass to escape death and destructive would surely be oppressive. He wants to do something that provokes no harm, and a state is telling him he can't. If you don't like that they represent a cost to the german state, you can take it up to the idea of welfare, and if you removed completely for the people that entered the country, they would still go to germany, because where they come from the situation is much worse. The case for germany to still provide financial support is that is a huge long term benefit that is tax beneficial, especially for a country with demographic issues. My understanding is that there are reports that justify the tax investment. > If we didn't, how many more people are we supposed to take in? This is the point : you are not supposed to take in anyone, the state shouldnt decide whatsoever what individuals do with their lives. The state doesn't own these people and neither does it own you. If you dont want to provide foreigners with resources then don't. Foreigners cant vote for such measures even if they wanted them. With free passage, you would not even know how many peope pass, and it would have a marginal cost to the state (and a much higher benefit!)
- Zahlmeister 9y ago
  You're special pleading for those fleeing from war-torn countries. Your original argument however is that everyone should be able to move freely. There were migrants coming in from Africa well before the Syria/Iraq crisis, though most of those never ended up in Germany, but rather in Greece or Italy. > The case for germany to still provide financial support is that is a huge long term benefit that is tax beneficial, especially for a country with demographic issues. My understanding is that there are reports that justify the tax investment. If you want to make an utilitarian argument, then so can I: We could just let people apply through a visa process, and decide who to take in. Why should we spend the extra effort to educate all these people when we could just take those already educated in other countries? You know, just like the US does it. Also, there are lots of lower-income EU countries whose citizens have the right to be here. They're performing a lot of the work that they could lose to even cheaper immigrants from even poorer countries, if the laws allowed it. The pressure for unskilled labor is higher than ever. > With free passage, you would not even know how many peope pass, and it would have a marginal cost to the state (and a much higher benefit!) People aren't gonna pass forever, they're gonna settle. Right now, they're settling here. If we didn't pay them, they'd be forced to beg on the streets once they run out of travel money.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    > You're special pleading for those fleeing from war-torn countries I wasnt talking about refugees at all until you mentioned it and i tried to answer. If you wish we can remove them altogether from the general case of immigration policy. > If you want to make an utilitarian argument Im not making a utilitarian argument, I'm explaining that the tax-cost can be a very cost-effective tax investment for the state, so it can be sensible policy, regardless of ideology. This however pertains very exclusively to the refugees that need assistance a lot more than the general case of an immigrant, that could have some sort of idea and means to do something. > We could just let people apply through a visa process, and decide who to take in. I dont get how this is utilitarian at all. The cost of the infrastructure + lost benefits from the people that dont move + the increased barrier of entry has an economic cost. Thats the whole point of the original article, that there is value to be created by reducing the restrictions. > Why should we spend the extra effort to educate all these people when we could just take those already educated in other countries? Then don't..who is asking for that? Certainly not foreigners at the ballots. > You know, just like the US does it. U.S. is a good example of shooting itself in the foot. Unles some special circumstances are allowed, no foreign software engineer can get hired in the US until Oct. 2018, which means lots of people are going to move to germany which has a way more lax immigration policy. Biggest favor the US government did to the Berlin startup scene. > Also, there are lots of lower-income EU countries whose citizens have the right to be here. They're performing a lot of the work that they could lose to even cheaper immigrants from even poorer countries, if the laws allowed it. The pressure for unskilled labor is higher than ever. "We should use force to not allow other people to move so I can have higher wages" -> how is this not oppression to you? Motive, Means and Opportunity. > If we didn't pay them, they'd be forced to beg on the streets once they run out of travel money. You have to choose if you wish to do charity or not. You should not be obliged to do charity, but you should not harm people because you do charity. The beggar in Germany would be better there than begging in Syria, or otherwise they would not keep moving the way the do. That you find a beggar unsightly is a problem to you, not the beggars problem,and you are welcome to try to fix it by donating.
    - Zahlmeister 9y ago
      > I'm explaining that the tax-cost can be a very cost-effective tax investment for the state, so it can be sensible policy, regardless of ideology. Not as cost-effective as simply picking the cherries from other countries. Plus, the risk is lower. That's my point. If you appeal to economics (or utility, whatever), follow through. > Then don't..who is asking for that? If we don't educate them or don't give them the means to do so, they have zero opportunity here, as opposed to slightly above zero. > U.S. is a good example of shooting itself in the foot. Unles some special circumstances are allowed, no foreign software engineer can get hired in the US until Oct. 2018... Which is exactly not my point. That is Trump's protectionism at work, not the idea that you pick the cherries from other countries (instead of letting them just flow in). > "We should use force to not allow other people to move so I can have higher wages" -> how is this not oppression to you? We're talking about people at the very bottom of pay, how much lower are their wages supposed to drop? I suppose that you believe in the magic of an idealized market, but in the real world there's real people there defending their interests. The same kind of people that will gladly elect populists, by the way. If you want to call that oppression, fine. What difference does it make? > That you find a beggar unsightly is a problem to you, not the beggars problem,and you are welcome to try to fix it by donating. The beggars problem is going to become the mob of people that will ask for them to be locked up and deported, in case they become too much of a nuisance. Again, you're arguing too much like an idealist, which isn't really useful.
nostromo123 9y ago
Furthermore, in Germany, after a couple of years even an illegal migrant who should have been deported gets "tolerated status" and de facto will remain in the country.

conanbatt 9y ago

For someone escaping a war torn country, finding a wall he cant surpass to escape death and destructive would surely be oppressive. He wants to do something that provokes no harm, and a state is telling him he can't. If you don't like that they represent a cost to the german state, you can take it up to the idea of welfare, and if you removed completely for the people that entered the country, they would still go to germany, because where they come from the situation is much worse. The case for germany to still provide financial support is that is a huge long term benefit that is tax beneficial, especially for a country with demographic issues. My understanding is that there are reports that justify the tax investment. > If we didn't, how many more people are we supposed to take in? This is the point : you are not supposed to take in anyone, the state shouldnt decide whatsoever what individuals do with their lives. The state doesn't own these people and neither does it own you. If you dont want to provide foreigners with resources then don't. Foreigners cant vote for such measures even if they wanted them. With free passage, you would not even know how many peope pass, and it would have a marginal cost to the state (and a much higher benefit!)

Zahlmeister 9y ago
You're special pleading for those fleeing from war-torn countries. Your original argument however is that everyone should be able to move freely. There were migrants coming in from Africa well before the Syria/Iraq crisis, though most of those never ended up in Germany, but rather in Greece or Italy. > The case for germany to still provide financial support is that is a huge long term benefit that is tax beneficial, especially for a country with demographic issues. My understanding is that there are reports that justify the tax investment. If you want to make an utilitarian argument, then so can I: We could just let people apply through a visa process, and decide who to take in. Why should we spend the extra effort to educate all these people when we could just take those already educated in other countries? You know, just like the US does it. Also, there are lots of lower-income EU countries whose citizens have the right to be here. They're performing a lot of the work that they could lose to even cheaper immigrants from even poorer countries, if the laws allowed it. The pressure for unskilled labor is higher than ever. > With free passage, you would not even know how many peope pass, and it would have a marginal cost to the state (and a much higher benefit!) People aren't gonna pass forever, they're gonna settle. Right now, they're settling here. If we didn't pay them, they'd be forced to beg on the streets once they run out of travel money.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  > You're special pleading for those fleeing from war-torn countries I wasnt talking about refugees at all until you mentioned it and i tried to answer. If you wish we can remove them altogether from the general case of immigration policy. > If you want to make an utilitarian argument Im not making a utilitarian argument, I'm explaining that the tax-cost can be a very cost-effective tax investment for the state, so it can be sensible policy, regardless of ideology. This however pertains very exclusively to the refugees that need assistance a lot more than the general case of an immigrant, that could have some sort of idea and means to do something. > We could just let people apply through a visa process, and decide who to take in. I dont get how this is utilitarian at all. The cost of the infrastructure + lost benefits from the people that dont move + the increased barrier of entry has an economic cost. Thats the whole point of the original article, that there is value to be created by reducing the restrictions. > Why should we spend the extra effort to educate all these people when we could just take those already educated in other countries? Then don't..who is asking for that? Certainly not foreigners at the ballots. > You know, just like the US does it. U.S. is a good example of shooting itself in the foot. Unles some special circumstances are allowed, no foreign software engineer can get hired in the US until Oct. 2018, which means lots of people are going to move to germany which has a way more lax immigration policy. Biggest favor the US government did to the Berlin startup scene. > Also, there are lots of lower-income EU countries whose citizens have the right to be here. They're performing a lot of the work that they could lose to even cheaper immigrants from even poorer countries, if the laws allowed it. The pressure for unskilled labor is higher than ever. "We should use force to not allow other people to move so I can have higher wages" -> how is this not oppression to you? Motive, Means and Opportunity. > If we didn't pay them, they'd be forced to beg on the streets once they run out of travel money. You have to choose if you wish to do charity or not. You should not be obliged to do charity, but you should not harm people because you do charity. The beggar in Germany would be better there than begging in Syria, or otherwise they would not keep moving the way the do. That you find a beggar unsightly is a problem to you, not the beggars problem,and you are welcome to try to fix it by donating.
  - Zahlmeister 9y ago
    > I'm explaining that the tax-cost can be a very cost-effective tax investment for the state, so it can be sensible policy, regardless of ideology. Not as cost-effective as simply picking the cherries from other countries. Plus, the risk is lower. That's my point. If you appeal to economics (or utility, whatever), follow through. > Then don't..who is asking for that? If we don't educate them or don't give them the means to do so, they have zero opportunity here, as opposed to slightly above zero. > U.S. is a good example of shooting itself in the foot. Unles some special circumstances are allowed, no foreign software engineer can get hired in the US until Oct. 2018... Which is exactly not my point. That is Trump's protectionism at work, not the idea that you pick the cherries from other countries (instead of letting them just flow in). > "We should use force to not allow other people to move so I can have higher wages" -> how is this not oppression to you? We're talking about people at the very bottom of pay, how much lower are their wages supposed to drop? I suppose that you believe in the magic of an idealized market, but in the real world there's real people there defending their interests. The same kind of people that will gladly elect populists, by the way. If you want to call that oppression, fine. What difference does it make? > That you find a beggar unsightly is a problem to you, not the beggars problem,and you are welcome to try to fix it by donating. The beggars problem is going to become the mob of people that will ask for them to be locked up and deported, in case they become too much of a nuisance. Again, you're arguing too much like an idealist, which isn't really useful.

nostromo123 9y ago

Furthermore, in Germany, after a couple of years even an illegal migrant who should have been deported gets "tolerated status" and de facto will remain in the country.