4 ms·
>And if you encourage immigration as the solution to shrinkage you end up with rising racism and other reactionary trends to these changing demographics. One o
by fiblye 8y ago
>And if you encourage immigration as the solution to shrinkage you end up with rising racism and other reactionary trends to these changing demographics.
One of the worst things about using immigration as a solution is that it's merely a bandaid. The worst thing is that people who encourage mass immigration are (likely) unknowingly saying their country is more deserving of the temporary benefits of immigration, and the source country can go to hell.
Many countries that are currently sources of large numbers of immigrants are rapidly approaching sub-replacement levels (e.g. Mexico), if they haven't already reached that point (e.g., Vietnam, China). The idea behind mass immigration is that you have a constant supply of workers and tax payers to subsidize the welfare of the retiring natives of a country. The idea of having a class of people subsidize others is troublesome enough, but the real problem is those less wealthy countries that immigrants come from are now lacking in workers and losing their own future. For countries that are still only beginning to develop, such as Vietnam, their future is a hell of a lot more at risk than something like Canada.
First world countries relying on immigrants have infrastructure and various frameworks built up that'll last them for quite a while after populations begin to dip. Poor countries do not have that benefit. Shit will hit the fan and hard. Young people who struggle to meet basic daily needs are going to be pissed when they're working for dollars a day and expected to support the social nets given to 3 generations above them while being told there's nothing left for them.
Right now, the government is saying we should mass import Vietnamese people to change the diapers of our old and do dirty construction jobs. What's Vietnam going to do in 25 years when its population crisis catches up with it, and every country around it is going through the same problem? Nobody's changing their diapers and their streets are going to crumble from insufficient laborers.
- Nasrudith 8y agoReally I have seen the "unfair to the source country" arguement against immigration several times and it has never failed to look like a bizzare pretext because the true reasons would be unacceptable to say out loud. The source countries already fail to use their potential. States are not people. They have no rights - rights are for people and they have no right to them.
- tabtab 8y agoRe: The idea behind mass immigration is that you have a constant supply of workers and tax payers to subsidize the welfare of the retiring natives of a country. Politicians run up deficits and then cover their boo boo via immigration. I'm not making a value judgement on immigration here, but politicians have a bad habit of sacrificing the future for current benefits largely because their political career is a relatively small slice of time. It's why we have debt and pension problems. True, voters play a part by having short memories, voting for instant gratification.
- Gpetrium 8y agoI find your argument quite flawed. Have you asked yourself why people immigrate? It is often to have or provide a higher quality of life to the people they care about. It is not about where you were born. People and countries often make choices, some choices allows them to prosper while others don't. Think of Venezuela for example, the people chose to vote for a populist government and the government's decisions destroyed their economy. The individual living there now has to make a decision to stay and whether the storm or to leave in search of a better life. Is it the fault of Colombia, Brazil, Canada, US, Mexico that Venezuelans are looking for a higher quality of life? Is it the fault of these Colombia,et al that they look to find a way to sell it to their people that they should accept migrants? Although this is an extreme case, it puts things into perspective since you can do the same exercise for famines, wars, etc at different scales and different times in history. On another point, some countries and families are dependent on remittance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remittance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remittance) to support their policies/themselves.
- shellkr 8y agoBeing able to move where the jobs are... aren't really a bad thing. It helps all participants. The only downside is that you might have a bit of a brain drain. Which is not necessarily bad. Those with brains goes to another country where they can work and then being able to send money back home. Poor countries in Europe did this in the big emigration and populated America. Those countries are among the richest in the world now. Both America and Europe benefited by it. They might not be able to find jobs in their home country which could be a burden on the country. If they move and start working in another country. They might get a job that is harder to recruit to and not only just fill that spot but also pay taxes. Most studies I have seen claim that the more exposure one have to people of other cultures, the more acceptance it will have. So it is actually the opposite. The more immigrants, the more acceptance there should be.