What is central Europe supposed to do in the current migrant crisis?

Plan in place for over 5 years, unexpected event happens, react to it, go back to existing plan, not exactly rocket science.

But then again I thought we both agreed to leave it there.

 

We have a plan, do we?





Let's come back to this in a year's time.

 

Pretty disingenuous to say this, including rolleyes smiley, when you've just "agreed to leave it there" after a 1000-word "final say" post. If you really were going to leave it there you could have just agreed to do so without yet another in a series of epic multi-quote rebuttal posts. That goes for both you and Nexxo, by the way

 

I'm skipping a few pages here but going right back to the topic, isn't the problem here that everything is based on the approach that giving asylum automatically has to mean effectively giving permanent residence and most probably in time citizenship? Surely there must be a way of granting a temporary, renewable assylum, with the assumption that if the conflict can be resolved (separate issue, separate thread, please) then they can return to rebuild their country.

Surely most of these people would be willing to take temporary shelter without the prospect of permanent migration and it would surely help defuse a lot of the political charge from this?

 

Imagine that your British citizenship could be taken away from you at any time, and you'd have to take your children out of school, leave your job, your friends, your home. If you bought a place, a business perhaps, you'd have to sell up. Then you'd go back to a country you left perhaps over a decade ago, and possibly has changed in politically and culturally profound ways. Perhaps you're not that welcome. Perhaps whatever status and qualifications you had achieved in the UK are meaningless there. Your children, used to growing up in a Western culture don't settle well, don't speak the language that well anymore, and feel alienated. Perhaps going back returns the nightmares and flashbacks that you thought you had left behind.

Refugees are not pieces to move about on some geopolitical game board. They are people with lives. They need a safe place, somewhere to belong, a future. Once they are settled you can't up and move them again when it suits you.

 

I think you're jumping to conclusions there. I'm actually intensely relaxed immigration in general but it does have negative consequences for some, in that it depresses wages, particularly at the lower end of the spectrum and if you are willing to have an open door, you will necessarily have to make the welfare state less generous in the medium term given finite resources.

However this isn't the view of the population at large, particularly those who feel their jobs or wage levels are at risk. I was thinking that it would be more politically viable to offer asylum to far more refugees, if the population here saw it as refuge from conflict not permanent migration.

 

Humanitarian tragedies are hard to relate to because of the enormity of them. We lose grip on that we are dealing with people's lives. But we are, and it is not helpful to treat it politically as if we are not just so the population won't get upset.

I am sure that there are people here at the low end of the wage spectrum who worry about their jobs, but possibly if they feel threatened in their job prospects by a refugee (or for that matter, an illegal immigrant) who may be traumatised, barely speaks the language and has no UK qualifications to speak of, then perhaps it is time to take a long hard look at themselves.

 

It's not about worrying about their job, it's about having their wages driven down.

It's unlikely that people would lose their job, but studies show for every 1% increase in the share of migrants leads to a 0.6% decline in the wages of the 5% lowest paid workers.

Another study showed that in the unskilled and semi-skilled service sector, a 1% rise in the share of migrants reduced average wages in that occupation by 0.5%

 

Same difference. If refugee immigrants are a serious threat to their salary, it's time to take stock of themselves.

 

So screw the 5% of lowest paid workers and the unskilled and semi-skilled service sectors in favor of helping other people first?

I'm also not sure taking stock of themselves would help much as there's always going to be a 5% of lowest paid workers no matter how much stock an individual takes of their life.

 

I love the way you keep inventing ways of disagreeing with me. It almost makes me feel special.

Where did I say: "Screw the 5% of lowest paid workers and the unskilled and semi-skilled service sectors in favour of helping other people first"? That's right: I didn't.

I just pointed out to Risky that once we allow refugees to settle here, we cannot just send them away again at some point in the future. They are likely to be here for keeps. We have to keep that in mind when we take them in --but that's all part of that forward planning thing again.

You are right that there is always going to be a 5% of lowest paid workers, but as long as the locals are not amongst them because they all have better qualifications than refugee immigrants, they have nothing to worry about, no? But if they find an immigrant is actually able to compete with them on the job market, then it's time for them to improve their skills and qualifications. It's called capitalism, and we used to think it's a pretty good system.

 

I'm not inventing ways of disagreeing with you, I just wanted clarification on what you seemed to be saying, that if you wages are being driven down by immigration then that's your problem.

 

Yes it is, because that's how capitalism works.

 

Perhaps in your haste to prove something or some misconceptions you seem to have it seems you missed what I was asking for clarification on, either that or I failed to communicate what I wanted clarification on.

While we agree on that's how capitalism works and improving skills and qualifications, what I was asking for clarification on was if wages being driven down for the lowest 5% of workers by immigration was a acceptable?

Take for example your job, if there was a sudden influx of migrants all able to do your job, that the employment market became saturated with qualified *clinical psychologists, is it your problem that your wages dropped by 0.5% because there's now more supply than a demand for qualified *clinical psychologists?

*apologies if I got your job title wrong.

 

No, I'm clear about what you are asking. I am talking about how things are. You want to know my opinion about it, but my opinion won't change how things are.

Yes, it is my problem. Who else's problem would it be?

 

My apologies I thought discussions were places where people talk about their opinion on things, not just places to say how things are.

So it couldn't be the fault of TPTB for allowing so many qualified clinical psychologists into the country? Or the costs involved with improving your skills and qualifications is beyond your reach, or any other reasons?

 

It's my opinion in as much as that is how I perceive things to be.

Nope, because that's how capitalism works. Which we signed up to at the last democratic election.

If I don't like it, I can vote for UKIP, I can join BNP protest rallies, I can scweam and scweam until I'm thick and bang my little fists --or I can accept that this is how things are, that a £16,-- a month pay drop (at my current band) is no big deal really, and invest in improving my skills and qualifications. Which, since I've been planning ahead I am already doing anyway. Not a clinician out there who is not constantly developing their skills, because that is mandatory by your professional body (and they do check) and how you progress in your career.*

Indignant outrage is a wasted emotion. If it's a problem to you, it's your problem. Own the problem, deal with the problem.

* I was recently quite suddenly promoted to consultant and head of service. The circumstances that led to this were highly unusual and unexpected, but because I had been planning ahead I had built up years of relevant training and experience which put me in a prime position to be considered for the role.

 

Seems odd *to me that if you wages are being driven down by immigration that would be seen as your problem, or your fault for not improving your skills and qualifications, rather than the large increase people wanting to do your job.

I guess it comes down to supply & demand and how each of us view that equation, is over supply the problem, or not being in demand enough the problem.

*Note the "to me" that's not meant as any slight against your opinion before you see it as some kind of invented way of disagreeing with you, I'm simply stating mine, as people do in conversations.

 

I think it's nobody's fault, and that it doesn't matter from which end you look at the problem; under-demand, over-supply: either way there's more competition so you have to maintain competitive advantage. It's how a free market economy works, so that's the reality we have to work within. What else can you do?



My former line manager and I would regularly say to our team: "Our jobs are always at risk. Never forget that". And we don't.

The UKIP voting public who argue for a protectionist UK market really don't understand economics very well. Sure, competition for jobs drops which means that job security and salaries go up, but consequently so do prices for goods and services. Consumer choice drops, which means the incentive to deliver quality goods and services drops too. Monopolistic practices increase. Inflation rises, and exports and economic growth go down. In the end, the economy suffers, consumers suffer and employment suffers.

 

Yea I get that's how a free market economy works, or at least that's how it's supposed to work, but companies and governments restrict supply all the time don't they?

Doesn't debeers or what ever the guy/company that controls the supply of diamonds is called artificial restrict supply to keep prices high, and governments fiddle with taxes and what not to protect prices of some local goods.

While I agree with the example you give of a protectionist UK market it *seems like that's an extreme case, don't governments tweak things to prevent such an extreme example?

*To me, personally, not starting an argument, or any other disclaimer you want to add so you don't view this as some kind of attack.