4 ms·

Why is that "scary"? The usual arguments (which I don't subscribe to) about social welfare etc don't really apply to people willing to pay that much. I don't c

Why is that "scary"? The usual arguments (which I don't subscribe to) about social welfare etc don't really apply to people willing to pay that much. I don't care for any immigration restriction at all. The war on immigration is failing globally. The US pays about 18 billion Dollars a year to enforce these laws, and has about a dozen Million illegal immigrants. Germany is quickly approaching the point where it should be deporting something like 500.000 persons a year, roughly the dimension of third-reich deportations, to not increase the population of illegal immigrants. But of course we can't deport that many people, even if we wanted to. There will be a point where the European Union is forced to abandon the war on immigration. I just hope we don't lose our souls while trying to avoid that conclusion.

allendoerfer 11y ago
Yeah, that position is easy. You are on the side that wants the poor African childs to live, while I am the bad guy in your story. I am not against individual immigrants either. But you have to be realistic. You just can not deny the fact that massive immigration is a challenge for a society. If we only had an example of a country whose leading film industry produces movies about China towns, Ghettos, racism, the Italian mafia and the like, that I could show you … Blaming the EU for its war on immigration is shortsighted. The European Union is as pro immigration as it can get. It is a continent with countries that spend the last thousands of years killing each other and people of 28 states are now free to move wherever they want. And it is expanding. Social integration does not magically work. It is a good thing, when it works, but you need the commitment to invest big sums into it. See how hard it is to do this inside the EU. If we wanted to fix Greece, it would be a small hickup in our statistics. If the EU now opens its borders without investing billions in integration programs, we will not get our melting pot but our very own salad bowl with Baltimores and Fergusons all over the place. I would say, pick an easier one first and take a look at Greece or Romania and Bulgaria, whose people are free to move here but have problems of similar scale [0] and the bad EU opened up to recently. That investment will pay dividends enabling us to take on the next one. [0]: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2285796/Romanian-gypsies-living-condemned-ghetto-mayor-built-wall-around.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2285796/Romanian-gyp...
- bayesianhorse 11y ago
  I'm saying "It's impossible to deport half a Million illegal immigrants, because of logistic and ethical reasons" and you are saying "We have to, out of convenience!" And yes, it's about convenience. The number of immigrants could be a few times higher before we're actually at a point where it's not just costing some money.
  - allendoerfer 11y ago
    Not deporting 500.000 people != "not caring for immigration restriction at all" Where do you get this number from anyway? You know, Germany has no borders, but the EU has indeed some. You can stop people there. There are other things you can do. Germany is taking proactive measures to stop emigrants from the Balkan. We could stabilize North Africa again - hopefully this time without the dictators - and get them to stop the smugglers for us, like Gaddafi did. I am not saying to not let them in either. Just list some requirements like knowledge of the language, a degree, maybe a job, just like the US, Canada and Australia do - typical countries Germans emigrate to, where they have to meet their requirements.
    - bayesianhorse 11y ago
      Easy: 2015 there will be roughly 500.000 refugees seeking asylum. An additional large number (about 200.000, but hard to determine) is arriving in Germany and doesn't request asylum. Then there's currently about 135.000 people who got refused on asylum. Projecting a further rise in asylum seekers, it's not unreasonable to assume that from the currently 100k-300k additional people arriving as either asylum seekers or poor illegal immigrants, it's not unreasonable to assume that about 500.000 people have to be deported to halt the rise in the "asylum/illegal" population. The exact number doesn't matter, currently, we can deport maybe 20K, so even 100k would mean scaling the capacity by a factor of five. The examples of US and Canada are particularly bad. Yes, they have strict immigration laws, yes they enforce them strictly, but both countries are losing their war on immigration. The US spends 20 billion Dollar a year on immigration enforcement, and some people say there are still 30 Million illegal immigrants. Canada has a lower population, owing to their geography, but they have roughly 300.000 illegal immigrants that they can't get rid of. Australia on the other hand fights "illegal immigration" by detaining boat refugees on sea for months, or for years in extraterritorial concentration camps ("out of sight, out of mind"). And that doesn't mean that they don't have a population of illegal immigrants living in their country regardless of all their efforts...

allendoerfer 11y ago

Yeah, that position is easy. You are on the side that wants the poor African childs to live, while I am the bad guy in your story. I am not against individual immigrants either. But you have to be realistic. You just can not deny the fact that massive immigration is a challenge for a society. If we only had an example of a country whose leading film industry produces movies about China towns, Ghettos, racism, the Italian mafia and the like, that I could show you … Blaming the EU for its war on immigration is shortsighted. The European Union is as pro immigration as it can get. It is a continent with countries that spend the last thousands of years killing each other and people of 28 states are now free to move wherever they want. And it is expanding. Social integration does not magically work. It is a good thing, when it works, but you need the commitment to invest big sums into it. See how hard it is to do this inside the EU. If we wanted to fix Greece, it would be a small hickup in our statistics. If the EU now opens its borders without investing billions in integration programs, we will not get our melting pot but our very own salad bowl with Baltimores and Fergusons all over the place. I would say, pick an easier one first and take a look at Greece or Romania and Bulgaria, whose people are free to move here but have problems of similar scale [0] and the bad EU opened up to recently. That investment will pay dividends enabling us to take on the next one. [0]: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2285796/Romanian-gypsies-living-condemned-ghetto-mayor-built-wall-around.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2285796/Romanian-gyp...

bayesianhorse 11y ago
I'm saying "It's impossible to deport half a Million illegal immigrants, because of logistic and ethical reasons" and you are saying "We have to, out of convenience!" And yes, it's about convenience. The number of immigrants could be a few times higher before we're actually at a point where it's not just costing some money.
- allendoerfer 11y ago
  Not deporting 500.000 people != "not caring for immigration restriction at all" Where do you get this number from anyway? You know, Germany has no borders, but the EU has indeed some. You can stop people there. There are other things you can do. Germany is taking proactive measures to stop emigrants from the Balkan. We could stabilize North Africa again - hopefully this time without the dictators - and get them to stop the smugglers for us, like Gaddafi did. I am not saying to not let them in either. Just list some requirements like knowledge of the language, a degree, maybe a job, just like the US, Canada and Australia do - typical countries Germans emigrate to, where they have to meet their requirements.
  - bayesianhorse 11y ago
    Easy: 2015 there will be roughly 500.000 refugees seeking asylum. An additional large number (about 200.000, but hard to determine) is arriving in Germany and doesn't request asylum. Then there's currently about 135.000 people who got refused on asylum. Projecting a further rise in asylum seekers, it's not unreasonable to assume that from the currently 100k-300k additional people arriving as either asylum seekers or poor illegal immigrants, it's not unreasonable to assume that about 500.000 people have to be deported to halt the rise in the "asylum/illegal" population. The exact number doesn't matter, currently, we can deport maybe 20K, so even 100k would mean scaling the capacity by a factor of five. The examples of US and Canada are particularly bad. Yes, they have strict immigration laws, yes they enforce them strictly, but both countries are losing their war on immigration. The US spends 20 billion Dollar a year on immigration enforcement, and some people say there are still 30 Million illegal immigrants. Canada has a lower population, owing to their geography, but they have roughly 300.000 illegal immigrants that they can't get rid of. Australia on the other hand fights "illegal immigration" by detaining boat refugees on sea for months, or for years in extraterritorial concentration camps ("out of sight, out of mind"). And that doesn't mean that they don't have a population of illegal immigrants living in their country regardless of all their efforts...