4 ms·

The only way such a move would have the desired effect is if those countries also took up Japan's extremely restrictive migration policies. That is unlikely to

The only way such a move would have the desired effect is if those countries also took up Japan's extremely restrictive migration policies. That is unlikely to happen in most lower-nativity (i.e. 'western' or 'westernised') countries.

adventured 8y ago
> That is unlikely to happen in most lower-nativity (i.e. 'western' or 'westernised') countries. That is already happening in most western nations. Sweden shut down its immigration flood as one prominent example. It was a policy mistake that will not benefit their nation at all and they aggressively reversed course. Denmark has mostly followed Sweden in restricting its briefly loose immigration policies, because the results have been very poor. Australia has implemented an extremely strict immigration system that locks almost everyone out unless you meet their merit requirements. Canada has had a strict merit system in place for a long time. They have no plans to change that, because they know the damage it would do to their very nice welfare state. Norway and Finland never relaxed their immigration policies in the first place. Merkel's immigration flood exploded in her face with massive backlash politically. Germany was forced to turn back against that approach as it was politically untenable. France has seen zero economic benefit from its loose immigration policies over the last two decades. When I say zero, I mean their immigrants have high unemployment and low education levels, the economy has not expanded at all, productivity is not expanding, GDP per capita has not expanded, and median wages have not expanded. They thought it would bolster their economy, it did the exact opposite, it's now a massive drag on each person in France that has to support the high immigrant unemployment rate. Next will be the US, which will entirely turn against allowing mass low skill immigration. The US has dramatically expanded its welfare state over the last 30 and 50 years. The US now spends as much on its welfare state per capita as Canada. You can't combine increasingly shifting to a very expensive welfare state system with unfettered low skill immigration that can't pay its own way (and in fact does the opposite, it drowns the system). Bernie Sanders, to use one prominent example, understands how this combination has to work economically. It's why Finland only has 5 million people and isn't in a big hurry to get to 10 million (they could open the gates tomorrow and allow in millions of people; it's clear why they don't do it). You can have sustainable immigration in an expensive welfare state only if it pays for itself. All the best nations - highest standards of living - on earth follow this model for obvious reasons.
- Chris_Chambers 8y ago
  Everyone who uses the downvote as a disagree button and downvoted this obviously insightful comment should be banned immediately.
- MockObject 8y ago
  > Next will be the US, which will entirely turn against allowing mass low skill immigration. Will it? The policy class shows no signs of this.
- Yetanfou 8y ago
  > Sweden shut down its immigration flood as one prominent example Sweden had the third-highest migration count ever in 2018, with ~137.000 people migrating to the country. The second-highest was 2017 (~144.000), the highest 2016 (~163.000). Source: SCB (Statistiska Centralbyrån -> 'Central Bureau for Statistics') report [1]. No borders were closed, not for real. In 2018 Migrationsverket ('Migration authority', responsible for handling migration) expected over half a million people (~5% of the current population) to come to Sweden in the coming 5 years. Half of the women giving birth in Sweden are now wholly or partly of foreign descent, 35% partly or wholly of non-western descent, this also according to a recent SCB report. [1] https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/sverige-i-siffror/manniskorna-i-sverige/invandring-till-sverige/ https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/sverige-i-siffror/mannisk...
  - Shaanie 8y ago
    Depends a bit on what you're looking at. Here's a graph of the approved residencies for asylum seekers : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQwHObtLmiVV7VeMU2JRb-u51SeHlFmIMvS8eF-di7W397pXJMYW-R2nfkPkfBq_mG2keCkkejRhMJ6/pubchart?oid=1303258054&format=interactive https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQwHObtLmiVV... It shows a clear decline in recent years, though overall immigration may not be affected.
    - Yetanfou 8y ago
      Do note that I was talking about 'migration', not about 'asylum seekers'. Also, when discussing migration (of any sort) to Sweden it is best to keep to verified sources - SCB being a prime example of such - as the discussion around this subject is so polarised that anything less than pristine data is suspect. Random spreadsheets don't count as verified data.

adventured 8y ago

> That is unlikely to happen in most lower-nativity (i.e. 'western' or 'westernised') countries. That is already happening in most western nations. Sweden shut down its immigration flood as one prominent example. It was a policy mistake that will not benefit their nation at all and they aggressively reversed course. Denmark has mostly followed Sweden in restricting its briefly loose immigration policies, because the results have been very poor. Australia has implemented an extremely strict immigration system that locks almost everyone out unless you meet their merit requirements. Canada has had a strict merit system in place for a long time. They have no plans to change that, because they know the damage it would do to their very nice welfare state. Norway and Finland never relaxed their immigration policies in the first place. Merkel's immigration flood exploded in her face with massive backlash politically. Germany was forced to turn back against that approach as it was politically untenable. France has seen zero economic benefit from its loose immigration policies over the last two decades. When I say zero, I mean their immigrants have high unemployment and low education levels, the economy has not expanded at all, productivity is not expanding, GDP per capita has not expanded, and median wages have not expanded. They thought it would bolster their economy, it did the exact opposite, it's now a massive drag on each person in France that has to support the high immigrant unemployment rate. Next will be the US, which will entirely turn against allowing mass low skill immigration. The US has dramatically expanded its welfare state over the last 30 and 50 years. The US now spends as much on its welfare state per capita as Canada. You can't combine increasingly shifting to a very expensive welfare state system with unfettered low skill immigration that can't pay its own way (and in fact does the opposite, it drowns the system). Bernie Sanders, to use one prominent example, understands how this combination has to work economically. It's why Finland only has 5 million people and isn't in a big hurry to get to 10 million (they could open the gates tomorrow and allow in millions of people; it's clear why they don't do it). You can have sustainable immigration in an expensive welfare state only if it pays for itself. All the best nations - highest standards of living - on earth follow this model for obvious reasons.

Chris_Chambers 8y ago
Everyone who uses the downvote as a disagree button and downvoted this obviously insightful comment should be banned immediately.
MockObject 8y ago
> Next will be the US, which will entirely turn against allowing mass low skill immigration. Will it? The policy class shows no signs of this.
Yetanfou 8y ago
> Sweden shut down its immigration flood as one prominent example Sweden had the third-highest migration count ever in 2018, with ~137.000 people migrating to the country. The second-highest was 2017 (~144.000), the highest 2016 (~163.000). Source: SCB (Statistiska Centralbyrån -> 'Central Bureau for Statistics') report [1]. No borders were closed, not for real. In 2018 Migrationsverket ('Migration authority', responsible for handling migration) expected over half a million people (~5% of the current population) to come to Sweden in the coming 5 years. Half of the women giving birth in Sweden are now wholly or partly of foreign descent, 35% partly or wholly of non-western descent, this also according to a recent SCB report. [1] https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/sverige-i-siffror/manniskorna-i-sverige/invandring-till-sverige/ https://www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/sverige-i-siffror/mannisk...
- Shaanie 8y ago
  Depends a bit on what you're looking at. Here's a graph of the approved residencies for asylum seekers : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQwHObtLmiVV7VeMU2JRb-u51SeHlFmIMvS8eF-di7W397pXJMYW-R2nfkPkfBq_mG2keCkkejRhMJ6/pubchart?oid=1303258054&format=interactive https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQwHObtLmiVV... It shows a clear decline in recent years, though overall immigration may not be affected.
  - Yetanfou 8y ago
    Do note that I was talking about 'migration', not about 'asylum seekers'. Also, when discussing migration (of any sort) to Sweden it is best to keep to verified sources - SCB being a prime example of such - as the discussion around this subject is so polarised that anything less than pristine data is suspect. Random spreadsheets don't count as verified data.