Danes, Swedes impose new border checks in fresh blow to open-frontier Europe

bugslet

Generali wrote: »

I think part of the problem is that people see a load of migrants and they leap to stereotypes: ill-educated, not employable. The fact is that many of the refugees will be trained doctors or teachers or nurses or chefs or plumbers have one of any number of skills that can well be put to use in Europe. That someone arrives in a country doesn't make them a burden in anything but the short term.

In the UK there are more job vacancies than unemployed people and unemployment continues to fall. If some refugees go to the UK and fill those roles not only does a job get filled, that person will then want to consume food and drink and transport and clothing and so on. All things that will create more employment in other parts of the economy.

While the liberal side of me wants to agree with you Gen, experience of the illegal migrants at Calais doesn't endear me to them. By the time you've had damage to vehicles, drivers threatened, loss of business and for an alarming few weeks, worried that you might lose your business when 18 decide to join you on the journey, your experience as opposed to what you read in the papers is going to colour your perspective.

Whilst many will be professionals or tradesman, many equally will not be. It will be a mix. I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory that government and big bosses want to import labour to supress wages, however in my industry there is an element of a downward pressure on pay with the increase in East European drivers in the UK.

princeofpounds

Frankly, I think countries controlling their own borders is perfectly right when other countries within the Schengen zone are letting in (and even encouraging, briefly) millions of undocumented economic migrants.


Just like a customs zone, you lower your borders to your neighbours when you trust them to enforce their external borders as well as your own. When they decline to do that, the deal is off.

Adding another million to that is small fry.

One million is small fry. One million per year is absolutely not small fry, especially when in reality they are all heading to a fairly restricted set of areas, rather than being spread over the whole of the EU.


For example, Sweden has accepted refugees this year alone equal to 2% of its population.


Given the fact that 27% of Swedes are now originally of foreign nationality Sweden is essentially going to be a foreign country within 12 years at the current rate.


That number is a bit aggressive as many existing foreign residents are from European countries, however it does not include the effect of birth rate differentials. I would also note that Sweden records nationality but not ethnicity, so the number of second-generation immigrants are not included.


But it's just to illustrate the point that demographic change is vast, and far quicker than people imagine.

As a continent, Europe can deal with the refugee problem far better than leaving it to Greece, Italy and Spain.

Probably true.

princeofpounds

Deleted - wrong thread

Generali

princeofpounds wrote: »

Deleted - wrong thread

Like some sort of thread illegal immigrant. Bah.

purch

princeofpounds wrote: »

Deleted - wrong thread

If only it was that easy :eek:

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Of course they can.

The EU population is 500 million people.

Even 5 million a year (which is 5 times the arrivals last year) would only be 1% of population a year.

Britain alone needs a million immigrants a year just to keep the population balance between generations to historical norms, and avoid crippling the young with onerous levels of taxation to support the old. Germany needs more than that.... And then there's all the rest...

There is no evidence that the UK is short of labour: there is no general upward pressure on wages. We have large pool of under employed people.
You have frequently said you believe in the productivity lump of labour theory but surely a little sense and an little historical knowledge must make you question this nonsense.

There has been a major decline in the standard and quality of living for the under 40s in London and the SE (and other hotspots) due to the pressure on housing, directly caused by the 3-4 million foreign born workers in the region.

You are honest enough to admit you are only concerned about you own self interest and damn everyone else. I recognise that an over crowded South is in the best interests of a greedy benefit spongers in Scotland who live off the London money tree.

A million immigrants a year for 30 years is 30 million people which will transform the country and drive us to poverty. Only a mad-man believes that's in the best interest of the people of the UK but may well be in the best interest of the idle in Aberdeen.

kinger101

There's still to much mixing of the terms migrant, refugee and asylum seeker on this thread, and it's not particularly helpful.

Migrant is too general. It includes some people we definitely do not want, as they have no right to work here, no particular skills, and no need for protection from the country from which they're fleeing.

Refugees should be allowed in regardless of their skills. Given the scale of the crisis in Syria, I don't think Britain can hold it's head up high with the amount of refugees it proposes to accept.

Generally, before people are accepted as refugees, they are asylum seekers. In the UK, asylum seekers generally have no right to work, so can make very little if any contribution to the economy. If they are genuine, it's not a problem, but there's no point pretending asylum seekers are filling job vacancies because they can't. But the point of someone claiming asylum shouldn't be what job they can go, or how they contribute to the UK economy.

Economic migrants are either from the EU and don't require a visa, or outside the EU and require a visa. If you're outside the EU and don't have a visa, it's because the UK government has decided you're not required, and if you're here working, it's illegal. I'm not sure why people think breaking the law in this fashion is an acceptable side of commerce. It often involves human trafficking, tax evasion and illegal work conditions. But hey, if you can get you car hand-washed for £5 from some guy who's practically a slave, it's acceptable to turn a blind eye to it and pretend you're doing someone who might be a refugee a favour.

Please, stop mixing the two issues. The protection the UK should offer to those in danger should have no bearing on how the UK should fill any skills gaps, and vice versa.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

I think part of the problem is that people see a load of migrants and they leap to stereotypes: ill-educated, not employable. The fact is that many of the refugees will be trained doctors or teachers or nurses or chefs or plumbers have one of any number of skills that can well be put to use in Europe. That someone arrives in a country doesn't make them a burden in anything but the short term.

The problem appears to be that it only takes a handful of "migrants" to create a significant issue.

These issues are happening in Brussels now, with literally handfuls of people disrupting huge numbers of lives. These people were "let in".

The same has happened in Munich with the NYE terror alert. Thousands of people effected by a handful of people who came over from Syria.

Same in France, over 100 killed and thousands effected by a samll group of people who just walked over borders, not even once, but twice, even though they were on the radar.

We can't ignore these hugely significant events and pretend it's all about people not understanding that some people will be doctors and teachers.

This particular migrant crisis was handled in an extremely poor way. Controls simply ignored. We HAVE imported terrorism onto European streets. And that's what is creating anger and fear. That overrules any rational need for any number of skilled people and the economics of pyramid scheme pensions.

Edit: I've just read Buglets post, and it pretty much sums up what I said above. The economic need of the countries simply doesn't come first when you yourself are suffering the violent consequences.

kinger101

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Same in France, over 100 killed and thousands effected by a samll group of people who just walked over borders, not even once, but twice, even though they were on the radar.

The majority of the attacks in Paris in November 2015 were conducted by French Citizens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks

I think the major threat in the UK too comes from 2nd or 3rd generation. That's not to say some of the planning and training occurs overseas, but it would be naive to think terrorist attacks would stops with tighter border controls.

CLAPTON

kinger101 wrote: »

The majority of the attacks in Paris in November 2015 were conducted by French Citizens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks

I think the major threat in the UK too comes from 2nd or 3rd generation. That's not to say some of the planning and training occurs overseas, but it would be naive to think terrorist attacks would stops with tighter border controls.

on the matter of correct use and meaning of words: being a citizen doesn't imply place of birth