Global politics

[Buck_Mulligan]

I am a Labour voter who didn't vote Brexit and I criticise everyone. Not sure what point you're trying to make here.

You can criticise your own side you know.

Not much point in criticizing Labor at this early stage. Got to give their policies time to take effect.

[Buck_Mulligan]

When we understand that there's no moral grounds for restricting people's freedom of movement...that human rights are supreme over national rights, then we can have serious discussions about immigration.

If what you say is correct, then there's not much need for serious discussions about immigration. I don't believe you are correct. Care to elaborate?

[jimmy jazz]

Not much point in criticizing Labor at this early stage. Got to give their policies time to take effect.

Was talking generally, I'm not just going to defend Labour because I'm a Labour voter. And just because I don't vote for someone else doesn't mean they're wrong on everything.

I just posted that as you seemed to think I am on the right. You can find plenty of evidence of me criticising Tories and the like on here.

[Weekender]

There is a purely scientific debate to be had over how much immigration is destabilizing over what period of time.

Generally, high levels of immigration are good for a nation's economy for the same reason higher birth rates lead to higher GDP, but that doesn't mean the benefits are spread evenly. Some areas may be harmed by immigration while others prosper.

This hints at the flaw of looking at the world as being made up of countries rather than communities. Northern England has a separate identity from Southern England. Your average Texan does not really care about people in Maine etc.

Borders create the problems of immigration (which are political) but they can not solve them.

[Psy-Fi]

Belgium gives sex workers the same employment rights as other workers in world-first law

[jimmy jazz]

There is a purely scientific debate to be had over how much immigration is destabilizing over what period of time.

Generally, high levels of immigration are good for a nation's economy for the same reason higher birth rates lead to higher GDP, but that doesn't mean the benefits are spread evenly. Some areas may be harmed by immigration while others prosper.

This hints at the flaw of looking at the world as being made up of countries rather than communities. Northern England has a separate identity from Southern England. Your average Texan does not really care about people in Maine etc.

Borders create the problems of immigration (which are political) but they can not solve them.

Now this bit I agree with.

Immigration is not all positive bros.

There does come a point where you have to say, enough!

[Weekender]

History tells us that if you go about saying "enough is enough" from the perspective that immigration rights are something that the host country extends and retracts according to its whim, there will be a couple problems:

1. The politics of Nationalism always end up being anti-labor, anti-trade, anti-peace, undemocratic, and generally neglectful of the working class. Again, the crux of the issue is that there is in reality no such thing as a national identity.

2. Stricter immigration policy goes hand in hand with militarization. Invasion of privacy and bloat in the defense budget is a sure bet when you go down this path.

So, I propose we look at immigration from the perspective of a peace agreement. Doing this requires that we give due respect to refugees on the basis that they do hold inalienable rights (which are codified by the UN). This kind of resolution will produce better outcomes for the very reason that it emphasizes the existence of human rights.

[Buck_Mulligan]

The last graph above reads like communism, which sounds good in theory, but not so much in practice.
Beyond refugees (fleeing famine, war, persecution) there are other reasons for migration. Economic migrants are not refugees.

[Weekender]

Right to movement aligns neatly within free market values. Since England's spike in immigration is wrapped up in the refugee crisis I focused on people displaced by war. Refugee has a legal definition but I think everyone understands that in practice it's not so clear. In fact, there's a backlog of pending applications because it is costly and difficult to assess refugee status.

We might say that refugees are different from economic immigrants in that the latter is responding to demand. Refugees are not arriving by choice in search of opportunity so much as they're fleeing from desolation.

Economic immigration is most effectively reduced by policies that punish employers, but such policies are almost never pursued because they are inflationary.

[Buck_Mulligan]

In the UK in 2023 only 14% of immigrants sought asylum refugee status. In the US the number was 2%.
Not a good idea to base policy on the needs of small minorities.
If you're in favor of unlimited migration, why would you want reduce economic migration?

[jimmy jazz]

In the UK in 2023 only 14% of immigrants sought asylum refugee status. In the US the number was 2%.
Not a good idea to base policy on the needs of small minorities.
If you're in favor of unlimited migration, why would you want reduce economic migration?

This is what I thought too. I didn't have stats but just based on living here, I'd have said no way are most immigrants refugees.

Weekender where are you from?

[Saulaac]

^^^This thread is interesting and heartening. Every one of us has built up experience working in different global environments and we have all read shedloads of articles on global politics & economics and spoken to shedloads of people. The above posts are healthy, and are digested views of current affairs (a bit like Readers' Digest which I think TH quipped about recently. BTW I wrote Readers Digest not Readers Wiv.. FFS!   

That's why I tune into SCD! It provides quite a balanced view, and saves me having to go through the left and right leaning stories of the day. Appreciate all your views and I hope I can contribute more myself forthwith.

[Weekender]

In the case of the EU it's the increase in immigration that's of interest. Immigration talks in America however are completely disconnected from any tangible reality.

I'm in favor of immigration policy that takes into account individual freedom.

A conversation about limiting someone's speech begins with the assumption of freedom of speech...so too should the conversation on immigration begin with the assumption that people have a right to migrate.

I do not have a specific interest in reducing immigration, but I offered a more reasonable way to go about it.

[Buck_Mulligan]

You're mistaken to assume free speech is a given.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-freedom-of-speech

If you want to institute a regime that globally abolishes borders etc. you can't be concerned with only immigration to the EU. Another of your contradictions, but leaving that aside...

Three of the top six destination countries, and two of the top five origin counties for asylum seekers are in the Americas.


https://www.worlddata.info/refugees-by-country.php

[Weekender]

It is a given when you and I have a conversation about putting limitations on it. I came into a conversation about British immigration so that's what my posts addressed.