Tag Archives: Immigration

THE BEADY EYE SAYS. WE AINT SEEN NOTHING YET WHEN IT COMES TO IMMIGRATION.

05 Friday Dec 2025

Posted by in Immigration, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

( Seven minute read)

In the uk, immigrants are presently a very hot subject of debate due to the numbers arriving into the country both legally and illegally.

Because climate refugees will swam any system.

The first thing is to distinguish the difference between immigrants and refugees.

Refugees seek protection as they cannot safely return to their home countries. Immigrants, on the other hand, are people who choose to move to another country, often for reasons such as better economic opportunities, education, or family reunification.

With this in mind, the problem becomes how should get priority when applying for asylum.

The asylum process determines whether a person can remain in the UK because they have a “well-founded fear of persecution” in their home country.

Almost everyone who arrives by small boat claims asylum – they made up 41% of all asylum applications.

How does one determine the difference?

I suppose the word fleeing a war is the crux.

When the war is over should the refugees be sent home?

When the migrant application for asylum is approved how long should he or she be in the country before permanent residency is granted?

Should they be allowed to work and contribute to the country economy?

When should they be allowed to claim benefits?

Should they be house in holding camps?

Asylum hotels is expensive – costing £5.7m per day in 2024-25. 

Should the residents tax payers foot the bill of their accommodation?

Should the uk cape the number of immigrants, this year the numbers are in the thousands.

The vast majority of UK immigration, however, is legal – this includes people who have been granted permission to come to work, study, claim asylum or for other authorised purposes.

Even the most basic calculations put the economic burden on the British taxpayer of an illegal migration population of 1.2 million at £14.4 billion.

That is just shy of 10% of NHS England’s budget for this year.

While they wait, most asylum seekers are not permitted to work, cannot choose where they live, and rely on government cash grants equivalent to £7 per day for food, sanitation and clothing.

Germany received the highest number of asylum applicants (127,730) in the EU+, followed by France (96,510).

When compared with the EU+ for the same period, the UK received the 4th largest number of applicants (44, 190 – including main applicants and dependents).

Majority of arrivals work in healthcare like NHS, lots of people work in education, & other critical occupations.

About 25% of the English population are in their 60th

Any growing economy need migration… That the sign of a successful country.

How to solve the problem.

Returns must be carried out faster.

Illegal migration must be reduced to become manageable. This can only be achieved by creating external entry points.

The challenges this involves are exacerbated when family members are allowed to immigrate subsequently to join beneficiaries of subsidiary protection.

People eligible for asylum must be distributed within the country and not allowed to gather in groups.

They must attended English speaking classes.

Applicants from safe countries of origin should be subject to strict residence restrictions and work bans during the asylum procedure.

Naturalisation cannot be fast-tracked; it must be the end-point of an integration process to avoid creating misguided incentives.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

Contact; bobdillon33@gmail.com

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: WHERE IS MIGRATION GOING TO GO?

30 Tuesday Apr 2024

Posted by in 'Refugee' and 'Migrant' 

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: WHERE IS MIGRATION GOING TO GO?

Tags

, , , ,

 

( Five minute read) k;ldsa;k;

 

Understand where migrants come from, where they go, and why migration is increasing, is going to be a major problem with climate change.

Why it’s time to rethink migration?

Because it’s increasingly likely that people will encounter—or become—migrants in their lifetime.

Just imagine if Chinese people had to move (1,425,293,425) it would be worse than a nuclear bomb.

Faced with such a reality, the question is not whether migration is right or wrong. The question is how can we make it work best to support prosperity and development for countries of destination, countries of origin, and the migrants themselves.

This is where the debate often becomes confused because we use a single word — migration — to refer to distinct types of movements that have different impacts, and call for different policy responses than  trafficking in humans legally or non legal. 

The challenge is to manage the cost, to reduce it and to share it as global.

Climate change along with inequality requires smarter policies for global development and a prosperous future.

Where people migrate depends on what’s happening in the world shaped by new global challenges, the rise of technology, and protracted modern conflicts, in Sudan, the Middle East and Ukraine.

—————–

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimated that by the end of 2022, over 100 million people were forcibly displaced. Syrians, Palestinians, and Afghans account for more than half of all refugees.

Around 80 percent of refugees live outside camps.

Out of the 60.9 million recorded displacements that occurred last year, 32.6 million, were due to climate disasters, including floods, drought and landslides.

More than 280 million people—roughly one out of every thirty people on earth—currently live in a country in which they were not born.

This means that more than 1 in every 74 people have been forcibly displaced.

—————–

Though migration is not a new phenomenon, it takes on a new significance in an increasingly interconnected world.

Migration—who migrates, where, and why—is constantly evolving. #WorldOnTheMove 

“Flotsam of Humanity”

The majority of migrants, however, are pulled to countries that offer better economic prospects for themselves or their families.

People are far more likely to be international migrants today than in the recent past.

About one-third of all international migrants come from just ten countries. However, numbers alone don’t tell the whole story:

Many refugees and asylum seekers, who make up just over 10 percent of the world’s international migrants, have more than likely previously within their own countries. 763 million people are internal migrants, who have moved within their country.

High-income nations hosted a majority of international migrants.

That’s not surprising considering that a vast majority of the world’s international migrants are economic migrants who have voluntarily left their countries for better economic opportunities elsewhere.

In 2020, 93.9% of all people living in the United Arab Emirates were international migrants, followed by 80.6% of people in Qatar and 71.3% of people in Kuwait.

The U.S. has more migrants than any other nation, but migrants only account for about 15.1% of the U.S. population – a smaller share than in 24 countries or territories with a total population of at least 1 million.

Though India is the single largest source of international migrants, its 17.9 million migrants in 2020 accounted for only 1.3% of all people born in India by that year.

By comparison, the United Kingdom’s 4.7 million international migrants accounted for 7.6% of those born in the UK by 2020. Mexico’s 11.2 million international migrants accounted for 8.2% of those born in Mexico.

Many of the forces driving migration today are.

  • Poverty
  • Conflict and violence
  • Persecution
  • Political instability
  • Economic opportunity
  • Competition for resources
  • Natural disasters and environmental changes
  • Reuniting families

Who decides which migrants receive refugee status?

The UN Refugee Convention defines a refugee as any person who owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. 146 nations agree to this definition.

However, host governments ultimately get to decide whether to recognize someone as a refugee. This protective status is known as asylum. 

Both refugees and asylum seekers are fleeing for their safety. However, the distinction between these two, though seemingly small, makes a big difference in how they are treated by governments and international organizations. 

Just like refugees and asylum seekers, internally displaced persons by the end of 2022, there were over seventy-one million. This is nearly twice the number of refugees in the world. They don’t have the same protections as refugees.  International law does not apply to them. Instead, they fall under the laws of their own national government.

Predictions in the field of migration appear particularly difficult given the complexity and diversity of the migration processes, the limited availability and quality of data, and the limited understanding of the migration drivers.

Borders define our fate, our life expectancy, our identity, and so much more.

With up to three billion people expected to be displaced by the effects of global warming by the end of the century, should it lead to a shift in the way we think about national borders.

It can be argued, however, that most of these imaginary lines are not fit for the world of the 21st Century with its soaring population, dramatic climate change and resource scarcity.

As global temperatures increase, causing climate change, sea level rise and extreme weather over the coming decades, large parts of the world that are home to some of the biggest populations will become increasingly hard to live in. 

Unable to adapt to increasingly extreme conditions, millions – or even billions – of people will need to move.

One to three billion people are projected to be left outside the climate conditions that have served humanity well over the past 6,000 years.

The threat posed by climate change and its social reper­cussions dwarf those surrounding national security.  

Enabling free movement could double global GDP.

In addition, we would see an increase in cultural diversity, which studies show improves innovation. At a time when we have to solve unprecedented environmental and social challenges, it could be just what is need. What if we thought of the planet as a global commonwealth of humanity, in which people were free to move wherever they wanted? We’d need a new mechanism to manage global labour mobility far more effect­ively and efficiently – it is our biggest economic resource, after all.

THE CHANCES OF THIS HAPPING IS ZERO.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin,

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

Here’s a Question. Is it time to redefine what it means to be a nation?

10 Wednesday Dec 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on Here’s a Question. Is it time to redefine what it means to be a nation?

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is a vast subject governed by innumerable historical beliefs some of which are set in concrete and blood so I am going to discuss this subject in two parts.

Part One:

If I happen to offend anyone that has lost or might suffer the loss of a love one in defense of their Nation with anything I write in these posts I apologize.

I am not advocating that we should abolish the sense of Nationhood rather that we must look at what it means as there is going to be in the next hundred years a massive remix of people whether we like it or not. 

Population mobility is accelerating and across the globe, people have become far more able and willing to re-locate in search of better employment prospects and a higher standard of living; or increasingly as a lifestyle choice where borders have remained open to them.

The theory of development that has been force-fed into dominant economic discourse all over the world is now contributing as to one of the main reasons we see immigration. With the predictions of climate change in the future this immigration can only increase.

In 2010 there were 214 million international migrants and if they continue to grow in number at the same pace there will be over 400 million by 2050 (IOM 2010).

Forced migration, where people have to move as a result of climate change, conflict and war, threaten to dwarf these numbers.

For the world as a whole at the moment 13% primarily considered themselves as “citizens of the world”, 38% put their Nation-State first, and the larger remainder put local or regional identities first.

There is no getting away from it that Identity is becoming more multi-faceted and whereas multiculturalism has been firmly rooted in racial constructs, ideas about difference has developed in other directions.

Sexual orientation, gender, faith and disability and other aspects of identity are now firmly in the public sphere and contributing to notions of personal identity alongside national identity.

Identity is increasingly complex. As well as the now routine hyphenating of nationality, faith and ethnicity, the consequence of people from different identity groups sharing the same society has also led to the growth of ‘mixed race’ or multiple identities.

This group is now the fastest growing minority in Britain and many other countries.

Inter-marrying, building new virtual networks, and creating real and tangible personal relationships at all levels is currently changing nations from the inside out.  ( What once was Christian will be Muslim. What once was American will be Spanish Mexican, What once was German will to Northern African and so on.)

States – and especially their political elites – have inevitably tried to cling to the idea of clear national boundaries and governance and any suggestions of the loss of sovereignty or the advent political plurality are quickly contested. (For example the recent Resignation of the Israel Government over changing its Constitution to place Jews in a privileged position of citizenship. )

There are now 20 cities with more than 1 million foreign-born people and another 59 cities worldwide with a presence of 100,000 or more foreign-born residents.

These include 11 cities with an immigrant presence of between 500,000 and 1 million people, for example in Argentina, Canada, USA, Russia and Israel (Clark, 2008,).  This is not simply about numerical growth however, migrant communities are also increasingly diverse and this inevitably leads to much greater complexity within nation states, particularly in the Western economies, which are often the target countries for migration.

The extent of population movement is such that all western economies are now characterized by ‘super’ or ‘hyper’ diversity with cities, like London, Stockholm, Toronto, New York and Amsterdam with over 300 language groups.

This is beginning to re-define our notion of multiculturalism which had previously been seen as the then essentially White countries coming to terms with migrants from a limited number of former colonies.  Relationships are now much more complex and community relations are multi-faceted, no longer simply revolving around majority/minority visible distinctions underpinned by distinct sociology-economic positions (Cantle 2012).

The reality is however that national and cosmopolitan identities now also need to sit alongside each other – they are not opposed – something that multiculturalism has never acknowledged.

Governmental responses to date have been ambivalent.

The changing nature of personal identities, with the separate components shaped by increasing diversity in terms of faith, present locality, and ethnicity – as well as an apparently declining sense of nationality is changing what it means to be Irish, English, French, American. Take your choice from Australia to Canada and you finds this taking place.

For the most part, Governments have attempted to reinforce their view of national identity through such measures as the teaching of national history and promoting national citizenship and identity. By steadfastly retaining the pretense of the integrity of national borders and governance, and by attempting to deny the interdependence brought by globalization, they reinforce a fear of ‘others’.

They appear not to want to grasp or lag behind the current reality of multi-faceted identities within their communities and may well find that the new phenomenon of social media will begin to create new transnational relationships which transcend traditional power structures.

Already there is clear evidence of a decline in traditional democratic traditions across Europe, with election turnouts and political party membership in decline. There is also some evidence of the growth of new political movements from the indignados in Spain to that led by the comedian Grillo in Italy and the current lack of trust and disconnection from mainstream parties suggests that these movements could grow still further.

In the UK, along with many other countries, there have been attempts to restrict immigration and to ensure that those immigrants that do come are able to speak the native language and past various tests based on attitudes and knowledge of customs and history (Cantle, 2008).

There has been little by way of any systematic attempt to engage with globalization through intercultural education and to enable people to become more at ease with diversity and globalization

Identity remains promoted on the basis that it is fixed and within boundaries.

Sen, Suggests that conflict and violence are sustained today, no less than the past, by the illusion of a unique identity (Sen, 2006).

He argues that, the world is increasingly divided between religions (or ‘cultures’ or ‘civilizations’), which ignore the relevance of other ways in which people see themselves through class, gender, profession, language, literature, science, music, morals or politics. He challenges ‘the appalling effects of the miniaturization of people’ and the denial of the real possibilities of reasoned choices.

Interculturalism should be part of this response and has been proposed on the basis of a progressive vision (Cantle, 2012) to support the necessary changes, replacing multiculturalism which became completely out of step with this new world order.

The era of transnational relationships, the growth of diasporas, new and pervasive international communications and travel, mean that such policies are no longer tenable. ‘Interculturalism’ can provide a new positive model to mediate change across regions and nations and recognize the multivariate relationships across all aspects of diversity.

When power resides with a global elite, and the economic crisis links our fate across borders, we are, it seems, all ‘citizens of the world. A ‘global village’ mediated through electronic communication.

Globalism, global civil society, global consciousness and cosmopolitanism were to sweep away tribalism of nations to clear the path for a new and better world in which humanity would finally achieve unity and share happiness.

Globalization frees and unites us. Increased freedom of movement, a revolution of communication, the hyper-acceleration of cultural production, have together created a fertile ground for innumerable imagined communities, unrestricted by the limits of geography.

What is now called globalization is only the backlash of an age-old process, constantly fostered by capitalist expansion, which started with the constitution of rival national units, at least in the core of the world economy.

It is very hard to find any trace of this optimistic view of globalization

For me the world economy is evidence of the pervasive ideas of Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization as panacea for all the problems our countries faces today.

World-wide solidarity among workers, disadvantaged and oppressed appears to remain an ideal than a reality and anti-immigrant sentiment is on the rise in the many parts of the world.

The world is certainly globalized and is still globalizing but the old nations and nation-states have not withered away.

If you take Europe it does not exist except as a discursively constructed object of consciousness so it follows that Europeans also do not exist as a people with shared past, other than conflict. Europeaness consists as much in the way of values, interests,and beliefs, modes of justification, etc are mediated and negotiated as in a specific set of identifications. European identity or being European has not seriously undermined the centrality of nationalism in the modern world.

There is little point in contesting the  ‘emptiness’ of so many arguments for global citizenship. It is easier to be a global citizen if you are secure in your rights as a national citizen.

The logic that ‘only if the rich get richer will the poor live better! is a joke.

So why are Nation-states forfeiting their sovereignty in order to support global and regional markets, by selling their natural resources and future infrastructure to Sovereign Wealth Funds. The idea that the Welfare State has failed its citizens is sold through the mechanism of the Public Private Partnership, to pave the way for the take over of public assets by private interests.

The handing over common owned resources by interlinking of rivers, mining projects and disinvestment corroborated by the stock market fly in the face of Nationhood. (see previous Posts) For example in 2007, the total volume of trade by private corporations world over was over $1171 trillion. The sum of the earnings of all countries was a mere $66 trillion, almost twenty times less!

It needs to be understood that the financial power of the multi-nationals’ private business is huge.

The sovereignty of the state is no longer linked to a territory, nor are today’s communication technologies or military strategy, and this dislocation does in fact bring about a crisis in the old European concept of the political Nation.

The nation’ is frequently presented under the banner of Globalization as an outdated inconvenience, a domain of racism and intolerance.

New kinds of national identity are being forged.

A conversion from an ethnic to a multicultural and cosmopolitan community are evolving with alternative forms of belonging. That modernity is almost unthinkable without capitalism (despite any such attempt to render modernity as a democratizing force tied to a conception and experience of time).

Divisions in society are no longer based on citizenship, but rather on economic factors: access to employment, housing conditions and education opportunities.

So is it time for us to redefine the meaning of Nationhood. To rewrite and rethink our individual and collective destinies. Can we turn away from the future of the past and embody the logic of a future to come.

States now need to come to terms with the new circumstances that confront them.

The composition of western societies has become far more dynamic and complex. Ideas about personal and collective identity have inevitably begun to change as a consequence.

While states attempt to assert their relevance in a global age through both multiculturalism and top-down nationalism, new models of identity and strategies of participation need to be developed to deal with the co-existing phenomena of national experience and cosmopolitanism.

We all know that it is all but impossible for races and cultures that have differences going to the root of their immigration to be assimilated into a united whole.

It is my view that a Nation without a written Constitution that enshrines equality across the board can no longer offer Nationhood.

Because the concept of Citizenship and Sovereignty that emerged during the 17th/19th Century have become outdated and remains to this day significantly flawed.

The state remains a very powerful force in the lives of many people and is the most significant unit of democracy in the developed world. For many, being a citizen of a particular state, having absorbed the traditions and cultures, being subject to its laws and economic regulation and taking part in the polity, a sense of belonging is still very evident. This is a key point.

As an elite of politicians, businessmen and media executives literally fly over the great unwashed it is important to recognize that the nation, by now understood as both an antagonistic and unequal grouping as well as the potential for collective sovereignty, really is dead for many of those in positions of global power.

Nationalism will have to develop a new way of comprehending the world.

The answer to all of this will have to wait for the next post.

Why?

Because our Politicians are driven by the economy and not by what their people need to live fulfilled lives.

In the Corporate world Nations only exist in the contested space of conversation. In part two we will address this concept.

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Should Immigration be Legalized ?

02 Thursday Oct 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on Should Immigration be Legalized ?

Tags

The immigration debate is a timeless one, and will continue to be so.

It is fundamentally the story of the human race from its origins to the present.

Migration is an integral aspect of life on this planet. People move to survive. It can be divisive, or it can unite a country or a region. Refugees and seekers of sanctuary should be treated humanely, kept from destitution, and should be allowed to work if we take a long time to determine their claims – indeed, they should be expected to in the same way any of us is expected to.

At the moment we are only seeing the tip of the Iceberg.  Wait till climate change starts to move people.

Global warming and resource depletion have no boundaries.

Indeed, given the massive migrations to come, due among others to climate change and economic opportunities, it’s a question that needs some proper thinking.

As a reminder, let me quote a 2009 United Nations Populations Fund report:

“Estimating future climate change-related population flows presents [a great] challenge, with figures ranging wildly from 50 million to 1 billion people by the middle of the century, either within their countries or across borders, on a permanent or temporary basis. The most widely used estimate of people to be displaced by environmental factors by 2050 is 200 million” – compared to the current 25 million.

Some feel that these environmental issues cannot be addressed by nations acting individually. Thus, they might argue that the movement of people around the globe becomes the province of the world, not that of individual nations.

” There go I but for the grace of God”

So where to start? “Let’s start with the obvious:

Most of us are nations of immigrants.  The death toll is increasing as more people are attempting to illegally enter countries. We still have to confront the reality of Migration.

“What can happen will happen but we can’t let it happen.”

It’s not that I don’t like you, it’s just that I was better-off before you came
will have no place in future thinking.

So let me propose a possible solution to what is presently happening.

I cannot see for the life of me if we ignore for the moment the myriad of ethical issues and questions, why in this age of ( no where to hide)  technology, it is not possible to get all Immigrants at the point on entry to fully understand and sign a legal document of review. The document commits the Immigrant to returning to his or hers country of origin once the war/conflict is over. It could allow entry like a visa to stay for a period of five years.

Would this not be better than the tragedies we witness every day.

A person enters a country with a proper Legalized non transferable, non replicated, free, world recognizable Card with a personal pin Id number (other than a passport)  They would not have to live in constant fear of being detained and deported. ( Immigrants must endure intolerance and suspicion, while navigating the complexities of assimilating to a language and a culture foreign to their own.)

The difficulties occur when it is time to find them, (without a tracking bracelet) when the review comes due.

So this solution seems to simplify and objectify the issues and does not serve any useful purpose, because unless it is know-en where they came from in the first place they cannot be returned.

One way or the other it might help stop Trafficking and also stop illegal immigrants causing unemployment.

It would make it more difficult to create a cover for terrorists and criminal.

Undocumented immigrants may have to accept jobs far below their skill level, and endure blatant discrimination but at least they would have some legal dignity.

Who are the migrants of today?

Refugees of war-torn countries, Economic of poverty ridden countries, Natural disasters, or illegal traffic people, drought, plagues, floods, or other natural disasters have triggered migration. Modern Slavery, escape from slavery, invasions, and exile have created forced migration.

The human condition is complex, as are the reasons for migration.

  • What are the costs of migration? What is the cost in terms of lives lost?
  • What are the financial costs both to the migrant and to the countries involved?
  • How does society measure the risks and benefits of migration?
  • Can these risks and benefits be measured?
  • Do nations have an ethical obligation to do the least harm to migrants when establishing and enforcing immigration laws?
  • How should discussions about migration be conducted?
  • Whose voices should be included in such discussions?

So how do we understand the needs and rights of those who migrate?

Can countries to close their borders at all costs, or do they have some obligation to minimize the harm to persons crossing their borders an obligation beyond those they owe their citizens? If not, then what entity has the power and will to protect migrants? Are migration issues best served when addressed nationally, regionally, or internationally through orderly processes and clear laws? Or are there times that individual citizens or communities can and should address migration issues outside of national laws and legal processes?

Yesterday the total of Syrian Refugees surpassed 3.5 million.almost all in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey, with smaller numbers in Iraq and Egypt.

To put this into perspective, Europe has a population of 670 million people.

Contrast that to Lebanon, which has a population of 4.4 million people and has received 1.1 million refugees.”Syria could potentially produce millions more refugees, since more than 6.5 million people are displaced within the country and there is no end in sight to the war.

So far 17 European countries have offered to resettle 31,800 of the most needy refugees. Russia an ally of President Bashar al-Assad – has not granted refugee status to a single Syrian, although it granted 1,193 temporary asylum requests in 2013.

There have been 123,600 asylum requests, mostly in Sweden and Germany, but that figure includes double counting, since some have asked for asylum in several countries. Europe must open its doors to more Syrian refugees, having welcomed only a “minuscule” number.  In more than 3 years of war, very few Syrians have made it to continental Europe.

What responsibilities do countries have to migrants?

Who decides what those limits are?

The UNHCR wants the continent to host 100,000 such cases, an average of about 3,000 per country.

Human beings have migrated since their origin. This migration has ranged from journeys of a few miles to epic travels across oceans and continents.  Adventurers have sought new land, fame, fortune, or power. Formation of empires, colonies, and nation states have taken people across Asia, Africa, Europe, Russia, the Americas, New Zealand, Australia, and Iceland.

Globalization these days is frequently viewed in economic and environmental terms. Goods and services move easily across regions and national boundaries. With this growing economic interdependence, some would argue that it is only natural that people (labor) follow the capital, wherever that might take them. Similarly, some argue that people should not have to move for jobs, but instead governments should encourage capital to remain in the nation and should protect jobs for citizens.

The growing interdependence of economies regionally and globally is a good predictor that migration will not be stagnant and that it will follow increasingly more complex patterns.

As the population of receiving countries age, how do nations best address the need for a young labor force and a need for care providers for an older population?

How has out-sourcing and re-location of businesses affected migration?

Others believe that in order for countries to protect their environment they need to restrict immigration. What are the limits on the power of countries to control or affect migration? How are the needs and rights of migrants to be balanced against those of the people from the sending, transit, and receiving countries?

 

Restrictive and selective immigration has been promoted by proponents as a way to preserve the cultural roots of the host country.

Many citizens and illegal aliens are competing for jobs, but because the undocumented immigrants are available for tougher jobs with lower wages, the companies are hiring them causing the citizens to lose their opportunities.

All of this raises many questions and no answers.

How can nations balance businesses’ need for additional labor with concerns about departure or arrival of large numbers of migrants?

  • Do businesses prefer to hire and train immigrant workers because it creates a labor force beholden to the employers?
  • Is it ethical to deny safe haven or opportunities for a better life to migrants in order to protect the environment of a particular country?
  • How should policy makers balance the concerns of environmentalists with the need for a growing supply of labor?
  • Does it matter that while demand for labor fluctuates, the environment is less able to change or recover?
  • Does increasing the labor force through immigration to care for an aging population create an exponential need for future immigrants to care for this labor force as it ages?
  • Is it necessary to prepared to periodically re-assess our assumptions and theories in order for policy to keep pace with shifting migration patterns?
  • Can policy change at the speed that migration can now occur?
  • What investments must nations make to keep pace with the technology, the speed, and the changing methods of migration?
  • Some might argue that this trend is a positive one. Others might disagree and would urge the use of national resources to stem the tide of globalization in order to protect the integrity of nation states, their boundaries, and their economies. Some might posit that globalization is occurring in spite of nation-states, while others would argue that globalization is the product of decisions and actions taken by nation-states.
  • If changes in the movement of goods and services mean the movement of people will also change, are leaders and policy makers.

When discussing ethics in the context of migration, it is important to remember first and foremost that migration is about the movement of people. Because the ethics of migration hi-lite the tension between individuals and nations, these discussions should always begin and end with the acknowledgement of the humanity of those who are moving and those who do not move.

Is migration systematic or is it organic?

The UK and Europeans states exploited overseas countries and therefore should be obligated to help these countries by allowing their entry. The USA was founded by Immigrants.

When I started writing this post I had no idea of the complexity of the subject. It cause tremendous tremors on our social conscious, with more questions than answers.

But I have learned something I will be one of the the lucky ones to have immigrated to the land of permanent nod as it will be worse than a nuclear war.  

A ship load of hope against hope.