Economic freedom of movement

[mishkin]

Epic fails for the integration/social policies in Sweden and Germany (and many other european countries probably) then. (Btw, arent "Turks and Kurds living in Germany for almost four generations" germans?)

[nhytgbvfeco2]

(Btw, arent "Turks and Kurds living in Germany for almost four generations" germans?)

Not how ethnicity works. The Welsh were controlled by English for centuries, they're still not English.

[Copperknickers II]

Not how ethnicity works. The Welsh were controlled by English for centuries, they're still not English.

That's total lol, the Welsh are the people who live within the borders of Wales. Many Welsh people are of English origin, as southern Wales was settled extensively by English migrants in the Medieval period, but they view themselves and are viewed as Welsh now. Anyway Wales is not a sovereign state with an official nationality: you can have different ethnicity and nationality. Germans of Turkish descent are German by nationality and Turkish by ethnicity, just as Jews in Germany are German by nationality and Yiddish by ethnicity, and Irish Americans are American by nationality and Irish by ethnicity.

[sumskilz]

Germans of Turkish descent are German by nationality and Turkish by ethnicity, just as Jews in Germany are German by nationality and Yiddish by ethnicity, and Irish Americans are American by nationality and Irish by ethnicity.

Ashkenazi, Yiddish is the language, short for Yidish-Taitsh, which is literally Jewish-German.

[mishkin]

Not how ethnicity works. The Welsh were controlled by English for centuries, they're still not English.

And how does citizenship woks? I did not know we were here judging people because of their ethnicity, by the way.

[Aexodus]

Actually, the Welsh do have genetic differences, having a lot more in common with the Irish Celts, and Basques of Spain and France, whereas the English are almost identical to people from Friesland, in the Netherlands. You can read about it here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2076470.stm

Its not a sovereign state, but it is a nationality, Britain itself is effectively a multi-national state with semi-devolved governments, with different laws as those governments see fit.

But anyway, yes, if you're a Turk living in Germany, you're still a Turk. Just saying. Just as someone who somehow still would have majority German heritage after four generations living in Turkey is still a German, with Turkish citizenship.

What I don't get is: how do you pretty much remain identifiably mostly Turkish or Kurdish after four generations, how the does that even happen.

[sumskilz]

But anyway, yes, if you're a Turk living in Germany, you're still a Turk. Just saying. Just as someone who somehow still would have majority German heritage after four generations living in Turkey is still a German, with Turkish citizenship.

How can you say these people are not Germans?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Aexodus]

Indeed, how bigoted of me.

Almost as bigoted to want to resist British towns becoming like Luton

The town is synonymous with Islamic fundamentalism, according to the received wisdom of the British media. The Stockholm suicide bomber was radicalized here, Muslims from Luton have died fighting with the Taliban, a member of the fertiliser bomb plot gang was a Lutonian. Muslim extremists here jeered at returning British soldiers with banners calling them “butchers of Basra”. It was at Luton railway station that the 7/7 bombers left their car and boarded a train to London to kill 52 people on the capital’s transport system in 2005.

The wonders of multiculturalism.

[LinusLinothorax]

Epic fails for the integration/social policies in Sweden and Germany (and many other european countries probably) then.

Strange that the integration policies only not seem to work with migrants of Muslim background. We barely have any problems with Vietnamese, Russian or southern European migrants.

(Btw, arent "Turks and Kurds living in Germany for almost four generations" germans?)

Certainly not if they identify themselves as "Ausländer" ("alien"), speak only bad German and root for the Turkish football team while playing against Germany.

[Mithradates]

Epic fails for the integration/social policies in Sweden and Germany (and many other european countries probably) then.

Yep, its not their fault, its always someone elses...

Btw, arent "Turks and Kurds living in Germany for almost four generations" germans?)

Some of them are, yes. Those who live as germans.

[HannibalExMachina]

Strange that the integration policies only not seem to work with migrants of Muslim background. We barely have any problems with Vietnamese, Russian or southern European migrants.


Certainly not if they identify themselves as "Ausländer" ("alien"), speak only bad German and root for the Turkish football team while playing against Germany.

they do indentiy as aliens? how large a percentage does only insufficently speak german? your football comment is very funny, but youll understand why i have to dismiss it as irrelevant.

and no problems with russian immigrants, thats new to me, russo-germans were quite a presence when it comes to media coverage, until everyone predictably moved on. they face the same prejudices as other migrants, except for the religion, which you have oc shown to be a very convinient case of singeling out islam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia...German_society

[mishkin]

Yep, its not their fault, its always someone elses...

Some of them are, yes. Those who live as germans.

Do you have any proof that a Turkish and a German perform differently in the same job position? That the Turks are genetically inferior, maybe? More stupid? Unable to concentrate? That they are less demanding with themselves? If the cause of a supposed failure is not something inherent to them, the failure will be in the society in which they find themselves / the government.

Define "living as a german". (Let me guess: Speak a perfect German, support the local football team and not be Muslim).

[NosPortatArma]

Epic fails for the integration/social policies in Sweden and Germany then.

yes exactly. integration is obviously not working. so how about we stop making the problem worse? how about we stop letting in more people from groups which have proven difficult to integrate?

Do you have any proof that a Turkish and a German perform differently in the same job position?

bad question. problem is not that they do the same job worse. problem is that many dont even get a job in first place, and that those who do get jobs get low paying jobs. a turk may flip hamburgers as well as a german does.. problem is the % of burger flipper is much higher for turks than for germans in germany.

That they are less demanding with themselves? If the cause of a supposed failure is not something inherent to them, the failure will be in the society in which they find themselves / the government.

as had been said, we do not have these problems with other groups, like east asians. why is it that east asian immigrants consistently end up better educated, less criminal, and generally better off than middle eastern immigrants? yes, it has to do with middle eastern people. there is something inherent with them that causes the problem. it is certainly not our fault, since we have already been generous beyond all reason.

[Aexodus]

In the UK, 55% of population growth in the last 27 years is a result of net migration. Is this sustainable? I don't think it is.

In particular, annual net migration substantially increased from the beginning of the 1990s, exceeding natural change as a driver of UK demographic trends in all years from mid-1998 to mid-2011

A recent ONS report (Dormon 2014) using the latest Census data for England and Wales has shown that births to foreign-born women made up 25.5% of all births in 2011, up from 16.4% one decade earlier (2001). However, this was mainly due to the increase in the number of foreign-born women of childbearing age – total fertility rates of non-UK born women remained constant between 2001 and 2011 (2.21 in both years), resulting in a decreasing gap with the fertility levels of UK-born women that increased from 1.56 to 1.84 over the same period (Dormon 2014: 2). For a shorter period (2001-07) and for the UK as a whole, Tromans et al. (2009: 33) estimated the overall contribution of foreign-born women to the increase in the number of births at 65%.

[NorseThing]

I do not understand your post regarding population increases in the UK being unsustainable? First the population density in the UK is not uniform. The most densely populated area is naturally London as is historic. The density follows the pattern not just historic, but also similar to the low countries in mainland Europe. Much of immigration is from the EU though some is indirect from other areas via the EU. This will possibly an probably change due to Brexit. Then there is the Commonwealth immigration, but that is a question of who the UK deems to have priority and today the policy is to favor the Commonwealth for immigration just as the UK favors going ex-pat to Commonwealth countries as well. Time will tell, but what do you mean by unsustainable? No future trends are ever really sustainable or unsustainable. Straight line projections based on current trends are iffy under the best of circumstances.

A good starting point on this is the https://countrydigest.org/uk-population/ which you have alluded to but did not include a link with your quotes.

[Aexodus]

This was my source http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.a...lation-growth/

By unsustainable, I meant for example that there is only a certain amount of people that we can effectively integrate at one time. Mass immigration means that if people move as a group all at once, then it is harder to integrate those people.

Another thing is the fact that if you are relying on immigration for population growth more than you are on actual births, you've failed as a society.

https://populationmatters.org/docume..._migration.pdf

But with noconfirmed policy intent by the government to curb migration, it is now projected, directly and indirectly due to its impacton the birth rate, to account for 70% of population growth from 2006 to 2031.

We live on an island, and at current levels we are either going to have to expand into the green belts, or create uber-high density hell-holes of cities. In a welfare state, you HAVE to have strong borders, it just doesn't work any other way.

OPT RECOMMENDED POPULATION POLICY ON MIGRATION OPT maintains that the UK is overpopulated and that its population should be allowed to stabilise and reduce to asustainable level. The ecological issue is one of population numbers, and of resource demand and environmentalimpacts created by different sizes of population at given rates of affluence and technology.
As far as the migration part of population policy is concerned, OPT supports immigration. We want to go on doing ourshare of protecting persecuted refugees as well as welcoming additional skills and cultures to our already rich mix ofpeople. The problem is how many? Since we maintain that our population density is now too great for our resources,we think that a just solution is to balance immigration with emigration to help reverse population growth.





OPT first formally proposed Zero Net Migration in 2003, and polls show that this policy proposal has the backing of themajority of voters in the UK. As around 350,000 people leave our shores each year, we suggest limiting immigration tosimilar numbers, to reduce population pressures. More asylum seekers could be accommodated if there is acorresponding reduction in the number of economic migrants. We can then take advantage of naturally decliningfertility rates to reduce our overall numbers to environmentally sustainable levels. OPT's remit, in studying thequestions of sustainable or optimum population numbers, is to deal with relationships between demographic trends,the environment, energy and aspects of the economy.

There are many fake asylum seekers

In the years 1999-2003, asylum seekers made up a growing and large proportion of total immigration numbers, and anestimated 80% of these proved not to be genuine asylum seekers.

How many homes, and how many schools are we going to need to build? Why should we? Why not just have borders like any normal country? Why give up our rural areas to mass immigration.

When does it end? Ultimately, this kind of immigration policy just leads to endless growth, which is in no way sustainable.

Far from solving labour market requirements, excess immigration appears to have made them worse - by increasing the basepopulation requiring services for which there may already be an inadequate supply of labour. If more people enter thanleave, and the inflow is excessive, a perpetual spiral of demand for further immigration can be created. Population growthof about 250,000 a year from 2001-2004 has not solved the 'problems' of skills shortages. It has instead created additionaldemand for goods and services which employers claim they need to import yet more labour to satisfy.

Ultimately, mass immigration benefits the migrants themselves more than the native population.

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/269

For many years the Labour government claimed that immigration added £6 billion a year to GDP. However, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee[1], reporting in April 2008, said that what mattered was GDP per head. They concluded that:

We have found no evidence for the argument, made by the government, business and many others, that net immigration generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population.

In January 2012 the Migration Advisory Committee[2] went further. They said that even GDP per head exaggerated the benefit of immigration because:

It is the immigrants themselves rather than the extant residents who are the main gainers.

They suggested that the GDP of residents should be the main focus. They recognised that the resident population would gain via any “dynamic effects” of skilled immigration on productivity and innovation, remarking that “these exist and may be large, but they are elusive to measure”.
In their annual Fiscal Sustainability Report, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility concluded in August 2013:

In our attempt to summarise the vast literature on the impact of immigration on the labour market and productivity we have not found definitive evidence on the impact of immigrants on productivity and GDP. Most of the literature seems to indicate that immigrants have a positive, although not significant, impact on productivity and GDP.[3]

As regards EU migration, a study by the NIESR in 2011 found that the potential long-run impact of EU8 migration (Poland et al) on GDP per head was expected to be “negligible”[4] ranging from 0.17% to -0.17%. However, this result relied upon an upward ‘age adjustment’ on the assumption that migrants tended to be of working age and thus to be “net contributors to the government coffers”. Subsequent research on the fiscal contribution of migrants to the UK suggests that this assumption may well be unsound (see 3. below)

[NorseThing]

Thanks for clearing up your term regarding unsustainability.

Your comment:

Ultimately, mass immigration benefits the migrants themselves more than the native population.

is very clearly true on an individual basis, but I think less clear on an aggregate basis. Your points about strong borders and a welfare state are also on point. But yet there is a great urge to migrate for economic gain. Migration is about more than the individual, it is also about the family and the future of each particular migrating family. Strong borders need to be respected, but playing within in the rules need not mean exclusion either. The UK has traditionally had many claiming of over population for centuries.

From a few years ago:

The northern ticket hall of King’s Cross St Pancras tube station is supposed to be a wonder of the London underground, with its expanses of gleaming floor and high-ceilinged walkways that would be wide enough for cars. In 2008, the tube’s then managing director, Tim O’Toole, assured the London Evening Standard that, with the new hall, which cost £395m, “the underground station complex will ... be capable of handling all the extra demand predicted for years ahead”.It has not worked out like that. In the morning rush hour, the pedestrian tunnels are packed. Every few months, the whole complex becomes so congested that it has to be evacuated.
In big and small ways, London feels more crowded these days: parks fill to pop-festival density on every sunny weekend; West End shoppers walk in the road because there is no space left on the pavement; mobs of kerbside drinkers dwarf poky pubs in Soho; East End evenings of the most esoteric music sell out; rush hours last all day. People have complained about London overcrowding for centuries, but the current situation is new. Last year, the capital’s population reached an all-time peak of more than 8.6 million. By 2050, it is forecast to be 11 million, and possibly as high as 13 million.
The UK population is growing unusually fast, too. At the present rate of progress, the Office for National Statistics expects it to swell by 4.6 million during the 2010s – “the biggest growth in the last 50 years”. In 2014, the latest year for which figures are available, the UK had almost 65 million inhabitants, its greatest ever total. It is predicted to be home to more people than France by 2030 and more people than Germany by 2047, which would make this much smaller land mass the most populous country in Europe.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...pulation-panic

from later in the article and from a time I am familiar with regarding depopulation fears in London and the UK:

But is alarm the right response to the population boom? Jonathan Portes of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research thinks not. “Population is not well discussed in Britain,” he says. “Our self-image is an old and constrained country. We find it hard to be positive about population growth. But it has boosted economic growth. It has made austerity less painful, by increasing total employment and tax revenues. And congestion, pressure on services – they’re considerably easier to cope with, from a collective point of view, than the opposite problems. We’ve forgotten what depopulation feels like.”
Portes grew up in London in the 70s. The postwar baby boom was ending. The arrivals of modern contraception and feminism were making families smaller. The British economy was entering a troubled phase. Millions of manufacturing jobs were disappearing from cities. For many Britons, expectations about the future were diminishing.

Between 1975 and 1978, the UK population fell. In 1982, it dropped again. “The population of inner London fell by 20% in the 70s,” says Portes. “Many people said London was basically doomed. It was going to go the way of Detroit. Inner London would become wasteland.”

Just like inflation, population growth should not be fixated on zero change since bouncing up and down around the zero change may be worse than a steady small net gain of population thru immigration.

[Aexodus]

Indeed, I'm not saying we should have net zero growth, I'm saying we should have both economically and culturally sustainable​ growth.

First the population density in the UK is not uniform.

And just by the by, I wouldn't want it to be. Unending, unprecedented population growth will eventually require us to expand our cities, creating greater pressure on green space and rural areas, creating greater pressure on agriculture and lead to more intensive farming and/or the need to import more food from abroad than we are, neither of which I want.

Ultimately, the amount of people we can support is not limitless.

[Copperknickers II]

Strange that the integration policies only not seem to work with migrants of Muslim background. We barely have any problems with Vietnamese, Russian or southern European migrants.

"Now students, today's lesson is about ze Muslims. Before ze Muslims came to Germany, vee vere known worldwide as a peace-loving, un-warlike country, and vee had no social problems at all. Then ze Muslim migrants came. Zey brought crime, murder and violence to Germany."
"But sir, didn't Germany have problems before the Muslim migrants arrived and in other communities, for example in Berlin-"
"NEIN! Before ze Migrant crisis, Berlin was a nature reserve fur ze bunny rabbits!"



"The freedom of movement that people enjoy in post-cold-war Europe has turned Germany into a paradise for bands of ethnic criminals. Those made up of Russians, Romanians, Chinese and people from the former Yugoslavia are among the most successful, but those from Vietnam have emerged as the most brutal."

"The shocking level of brutality that Vietnamese gangs have used in their Berlin battles have fed the anti-foreigner sentiment that bubbles below the surface throughout Germany."

"German diplomats believe that the Vietnamese Government is in no hurry to allow the return of refugees whose numbers may include brutal gangsters."

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/23/w...ietnamese.html

Every time migrant communities come to Europe, people get into a big moral panic about them. This has been going on for hundreds of years. And like it or loath it, many migrant communities don't really integrate for 100 years or in some cases much much longer, such as Jews, Gypsies, Irish Catholics in the UK, Russians in Germany who by the way overwhelmingly voted for AfD and see Putin as their favoured European leader rather than Merkel, Germans in Eastern Europe prior to WW2 ... Even the Normans in England haven't fully been absorbed yet by the native population, since after 1000 years they still populate our upper middle class with worrying frequency.

There will still be Muslims in Europe in 1000 years time descended from the current wave of migration. There will probably still be recognisable South Asians in Luton in 300 years who still maintain remnants of their Punjabi language. But then again, good luck finding much evidence of the huge Lithuanian migration into Scotland in the early 20th century, they nearly all changed their names to Scottish ones and many people here don't know they have Lithuanian ancestry. The Flemish and Huguenots in London and other British cities have disappeared without a trace. It's hard to predict which migrants will integrate and which won't, the main trends seem to be that if people enter the country as very significantly higher or lower in social class than the average person, and if they have large enough numbers to sustain cultural institutions that prolong their way of life (e.g. their own places of worship, etc), and it must be said, if they are a visible minority from outside Europe, they are more likely to retain their distinctiveness for centuries without being absorbed.

Certainly not if they identify themselves as "Ausländer" ("alien"), speak only bad German and root for the Turkish football team while playing against Germany.

You're seriously saying there are second-generation immigrants in Germany who can't speak German properly? I mean, I'm sure there's third and fourth generation immigrants who were raised speaking Turkish at home, but they would be fully bilingual in Turkish and German.

Actually, the Welsh do have genetic differences, having a lot more in common with the Irish Celts, and Basques of Spain and France, whereas the English are almost identical to people from Friesland, in the Netherlands. You can read about it here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2076470.stm

That study is based on extreme rural samples, it does not apply to the populations of England and Wales as a whole, and also that study is extremely outdated. Current consensus is that until 200 years ago or so, most areas of England showed high levels of 'Britonnic' genetic markers, with the exception of areas along the East and South-East coasts and the Home Counties which were Anglo-Saxon. But of course since then, there has been huge population exchange and mixture, so the only people to whom that still applies are people in rural areas with local pedigrees going back generations, which is a small and decreasing minority of English people. Someone such as myself who is of urban English ancestry would have a mixture from all over the country: my surname is from the West Country, my grandfather was from the West Midlands with Welsh ancestry, my English great grandfathers were from Yorkshire on one side and London on the other side. My situation is not at all unusual among people born in big cities. That's not including my Irish heritage which is also pretty common in many big cities.

But anyway, yes, if you're a Turk living in Germany, you're still a Turk. Just saying. Just as someone who somehow still would have majority German heritage after four generations living in Turkey is still a German, with Turkish citizenship.

If you have German citizenship then that makes you German by nationality and therefore a German in common parlance. It doesn't matter if your family are from Alpha Centauri, a German citizen is always a German according to the basic rules of a little thing called the English language. That does not mean they can't also be a Turk. What is so difficult to understand about the fact that ethnicity and nationality are two separate categories?

What I don't get is: how do you pretty much remain identifiably mostly Turkish or Kurdish after four generations, how the does that even happen.

For the same reason I am Catholic, and can list you out reams of Irish proverbs and recall various folk songs, despite the fact I've been to Ireland twice in my life and don't know any Irish people in my own generation. Those things were passed down to me as a way of keeping my culture alive, in an environment that is inherently hostile towards Irish people. If I am greeted with hostility for my Irish heritage (as is not uncommon for people of Irish heritage in these parts) it just makes me want to hold onto my identity more strongly. I imagine the same is true of Muslims, except they also have a language and a separate religion to hold onto, and much more racism and bigotry to spur them on. If there were no Catholic churches in my area I probably would go to a Protestant one, but since there's a long history of Irish immigration here there are plenty of Catholic churches, so I have no reason to go into a Protestant one. I wouldn't even know what to do if I went into a Protestant church, their rite is different to ours and I'd probably make a fool of myself by doing something wrong. Plus I have major doctrinal disagreements with them, mainly the fact that they don't perform the Eucharist in Scottish Protestantism, which is rather like having Christmas without the presents, totally pointless. All the above is not really true for me personally, but it is probably true for a lot of people I know and I mention it to give you some idea of the perspective of someone who has been brought up inside a community that has not integrated, in lieu of an actual European Muslim.

How can you say these people are not Germans?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Any proof that they are German, and not first generation migrants from Turkey, which would render your point a little silly?

[NorseThing]

@Copperknickers II -- I will admit I have not kept up to speed on other country's citizenship rules. I was poking about the internet on this regarding Germany:

Correction: April 18, 2013
An earlier version of this article misstated a regulation under which most children of foreign parents who were born in Germany automatically receive German citizenship. It applies to children born on or after Jan. 1, 2000, not before.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/w...-letter16.html

I did not know this was changed nearly two decades ago.

So is pretty much all of the EU now like the USA on births in country are now citizens???

If so, then I am still a bit confused why some countries allow for dual passports. I know that my uncle (deceased) had a few passports plus one from the USA, but that was most likely a bit of a shady deal not sanctioned by the USA.

In the case of economic migration, this can be a problem when a person holds a passport and thinks it is valid when in fact it is not.

btw -- I agree that ethnicity and nationality are often mixed and confusing but should not be so. However every country has rules and they may differ a bit from other countries, so this adds to the confusion.