What type of system do you think would suit the best when it comes to immigration?

Australia has been denying immigrants for several years now. At first, with the left govnerment, they simply didn't accept them and accepted some people from Papooa-ginea (or whatever you spell it like in English) for a payment. Nowadays, the immigrants who were once denied, are now simply dragged back by the military ships to Indonesia.

Immigrants from countries like Afghanistan, Irak and Iran flee to Indonesia where they meet up with other people on the run. They search smugglers who are willing to put them on the Christmas Island, an island not very far to the south of Indonesia. Christmas Island is part of Australia and from there on they hope to get into Australia. Though, The govnerment doesn't allow them to set even one step on their land.

On the other side of the world, in Europe, there's a different situation. People flee to north-Africa where they take a boat to Lampadoosa, yet again for a 'fee'. Same story as Australia, except they actually manage to get into Europe, that is if they survive the journey.

Now my question is this: Would you rather prefer a system that Australia is applying or a system that Europe (or more specifically: the EU) is applying? Or maybe want a different system, a system that's different from both of those or in between them? Think of systems as these:

1. A number of immigrants is accepted into the territority per month or annually. This way immigration is stable and (mostly) controllable. This number can also differ on the situation. For example, if a country is doing economically worse, then they might want to choose to get no or less immigrants so their economy can be rebuild faster. A country could also want to accept more immigrants if they need/want more people to strengthen population growth in economically good times (or for whatever other reason).
   
2. No immigrants are accepted, but instead their home countries are given aid and helped to easen up their situation.
   
3. Other (please specify).

Personally I prefer to option of being able to control the flow of immigrants, but at the same time give aid. Those two factors can of course be increased or decreased depending on the situation the country is in.

The free movement of labour is something that in nearly every case is beneficial to all involved parties, you could say it should be implemented on a case-by-case basis, but ultimately it works in most cases anyway. Despite the provincial views of the right, immigrants are statistically more harder working and less likely to wish to take state handouts and are generally a bigger credit to the economy than the natives of their similar socio-economic status.

When looking at Britain and America, population growth with the combined effects of immigration still did not stop unemployment reaching within 1-2% of the 'full employment' threshold for much of the 2000s. Indeed, looking at labour market statistics, Britain's current unemployment rate of 7.4% is a similar rate to that of unemployment in 1997, when the economy was in its true non-inflationary boom; from this we can only deduce that the immigrant influx and population growth are indeed becoming increasingly insufficient to meet the demands of the labour market. This growing demand should ultimately be resolved through statutory changes to employee conditions, to stop the growing reliance on government subsidies to bump up the wages of lower end service employees, primarily in inner cities and former industrial areas; reforms to the financial service sector to allow 'real' business investment and invest in productivity and industry over cheap mortgages and finally an improved urban planning programme and public service infrastructure to improve the fundamental shortages Britain faces in these areas to cater for new immigrants. Changing immigration itself is a matter which needs numerous indirect policy adaptations to be implemented without causing major economic damage.

To see politicians in this country openly denounce immigration whilst knowing fully well that our economy relies on this is infuriating, and then for them to blame the EU for it is enough to drive me to distraction. The likes of UKIP are distracting us from the fact that the majority of immigration is only happening because of the continual refusal of governments to bring our great financial services sector to any utilisation for driving productivity in the rest of the economy; whilst alienating our continental cousins from us during the time of reform when we could potentially create an EU which could work better to Britain's needs. And while we're at it, we could replicate the rest of Europe's world trading and current account surpluses which we most definitely lack. Euroskeptics are, rather ironically, distracting from the rest of their right wing ideals by missing the true source of their quibbles in the government sat in Westminster and while UKIP claim they are against the elite ruling class, their leader (the privately educated son of a banker) sits in his office in Brussels with a healthy MEP wage and discusses political moves with the rest of the senior leadership of his party (former members of the Conservative government that ruled Britain for 18 years) belonging to a movement that is only bolstering the elite in Westminster by distracting the public from the government's disastrous policies.

Went off on a bit of a tangent there...

Oh don't worry, that brings life and content to the discussion!

lol

What policy type do you believe in?

You can't simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state. I prefer the free immigration over the welfare state.

Umm, yes, you can; as long as there's enough jobs.

Kentucky wrote:You can't simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state. I prefer the free immigration over the welfare state.

It is not about having enough jobs, it is if immigrants will take them. Notice how illegal Mexican immigrants take all sorts of jobs while there is a very high unemployment rate among legal immigrants. People will immigrate to first world nations from crappy nations because they know they can do jack shit and still live.

The problem, if that's true, would then be the attitude of the legal immigrants, not any sort of failure of the welfare state.

To solve this, you could control which jobs people have before giving away money.

fascism

Yobobo wrote:lol

What policy type do you believe in?

A number of immigrants is accepted into the territority monthly and give out aid annually (0.5% of gdp). The aid doesn't, however, necessarily need to be in the form of money. On top of this I'd put another part of the gdp apart to spare up for any situation in other countries (I'd say 0.25% of the gdp anually). For that I'm talking about situations like earthquackes, hurricanes etc.

The number of immigrants should always be below 2.5k so not too many flood in at once. Though, emergencies may break that rule. Immigrants are randomly picked, not per country. If a person is selected, their family (or whoever they else also want to bring over) are also accepted, they do still add up for the number of immigrants regardlessly!

TheMyrco wrote:

Yobobo wrote:lol

What policy type do you believe in?

A number of immigrants is accepted into the territority monthly and give out aid annually (0.5% of gdp). The aid doesn't, however, necessarily need to be in the form of money. On top of this I'd put another part of the gdp apart to spare up for any situation in other countries (I'd say 0.25% of the gdp anually). For that I'm talking about situations like earthquackes, hurricanes etc.

The number of immigrants should always be below 2.5k so not too many flood in at once. Though, emergencies may break that rule. Immigrants are randomly picked, not per country. If a person is selected, their family (or whoever they else also want to bring over) are also accepted, they do still add up for the number of immigrants regardlessly!

How about seasonal migrants who travel for harvests in different EU states? Or the EU open border policy in general?

Yobobo wrote:

TheMyrco wrote:

Yobobo wrote:lol

What policy type do you believe in?

A number of immigrants is accepted into the territority monthly and give out aid annually (0.5% of gdp). The aid doesn't, however, necessarily need to be in the form of money. On top of this I'd put another part of the gdp apart to spare up for any situation in other countries (I'd say 0.25% of the gdp anually). For that I'm talking about situations like earthquackes, hurricanes etc.

The number of immigrants should always be below 2.5k so not too many flood in at once. Though, emergencies may break that rule. Immigrants are randomly picked, not per country. If a person is selected, their family (or whoever they else also want to bring over) are also accepted, they do still add up for the number of immigrants regardlessly!

How about seasonal migrants who travel for harvests in different EU states? Or the EU open border policy in general?

EU border policy remains: free traffic. Though, if an enormous amount of people from one country keeps coming then obviously there should be put a halt to that. Or at least it should be reduced.
Seasonal migrants are the same deal.

Australia has a good policy where they put a cap on the amount of nationalities allowed in linked to the state of the economy.

In the 70's and 80's there were a lot of Arabs coming to work in the mines because of the Lebanese civil war and the Iran-Iraq war and for that reason there is a large community of 2nd generation Lebanese/Iraqi ex-miners in Sydney and Melbourne most of them now are tracksuit gangs.

So if the country say for all reasons only has 100 jobs availible and 50 australians are unemployed then they will allow 50 foreigners in starting with the British and western countries then the countries with cheap labor like Indonesia.

muhaimim wrote:Australia has a good policy where they put a cap on the amount of nationalities allowed in linked to the state of the economy.

In the 70's and 80's there were a lot of Arabs coming to work in the mines because of the Lebanese civil war and the Iran-Iraq war and for that reason there is a large community of 2nd generation Lebanese/Iraqi ex-miners in Sydney and Melbourne most of them now are tracksuit gangs.

So if the country say for all reasons only has 100 jobs availible and 50 australians are unemployed then they will allow 50 foreigners in starting with the British and western countries then the countries with cheap labor like Indonesia.

I agree, that's a nice policy.