Mediterranean migrants- specific questions

RDM_83 again

Lockstep wrote: »

When a meta-analysis of existing studies on migration show that the economic impact of immigration on unemployment is "small to non existent", it's not much of a defense to claim that immigration leads to unemployment. Especially when other sources such as the Commission predicting that even with the vast influx of refugees, unemployment is set to fall in the EU and that

Likewise, several studies show that welcoming refugees (specifically) has a neutral to positive impact on economies and wages

So if you're trying to argue that immigration leads to rising unemployment, you'll need to do better than that.


Can you link to your post? There'd need to be extremely heavy native displacement for this to take place and this would need to be a significant move given that the NHS operates out of central hospitals. For example, when I lived in Nottingham, QMC was the major regional hospital and took in patients from surrounding areas. It wouldn't matter if someone moved from say, immigrant filled St Anns to strongly white Beeston, they'd still be using the same hospital in the region.
If you've any relevant studies to prove your point, please provide them.



As the other IZA link shows, this is based on raw data. When conditioning for employment status, immigrants are even less likely to claim welfare than natives. Even if you were to solely use raw data, immigrants are less reliant on social welfare than natives anyway. This is confirmed by [url=http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/52045/1/664412149.pdf Barret and Maitre [/url]





Yes and at those times, member state citizens would have been partaking in the same growing economy that non-EU ones were. So I dunno what your point is.



I'm not sure what your point is here. You said nations are unable to restrict welfare to immigrants in case it impacts their own citizens. They can easily do this just by increasing the residency requirements.


. Once again, this relies solely on unconditioned data. At any rate, unemployment benefit is only one small part of a nation's social welfare system. Which all the studies above show that immigrants partake of less than natives.



Actually, Figure 2 shows that the vast majority of the countries had a positive fiscal impact from immigration.

As for the UK, it relies on three studies. One by MigrationWatch (which are an anti-immigration lobby group and their 2014 report is of dubious validity (Also, see here , one by Dustmann and Frattini (who themselves acknowledge that their data for non-EU immigrants should not be relied on
and Rowthorn who finds they've made a positive contribution. Keep in mind this data goes up to 2011 so it's operating during the recession.


Actually it does: the Commission Forecast shows that not only will the current refugee impact benefit GDP but that it will have negligible impact on employment.
Given that immigrants are less reliant on social welfare than the rest of us and make no discernible impact on employment rates, I dunno what your problem is.

On phone so short reply.

Firstly the commission is the definition of a politically motivated group (and AFAIK look up the sugar industry fiasco to see their failings)

That hospital stuff is actually in your own link.

You keep missing the point the unconditioned data is what matters and it shows high dependency on welfare, its no use adjusting to compare with natives because as a whole they don't match the native population.
Similarly for employment your own data shows effect is neutral to negative.

Lockstep

RDM_83 again wrote: »

On phone so short reply.

Firstly the commission is the definition of a politically motivated group (and AFAIK look up the sugar industry fiasco to see their failings)

So we're falling back in the "This is biased so I'm going to dismiss it.
So you're saying that the Commission's forecast is biased or wrong? What is your source that the economic forecast is biased or wrong?
Why would the Commission (which is not beholden to any member state government) produce a wrong or inaccurate report on the refugee crisis?

RDM_83 again wrote: »

That hospital stuff is actually in your own link.

Please point out where it shows that

migrants move in older natives move out, waiting times decrease in migrant area or stay neutral, waiting times rise in area where natives move too

Nowhere does it say that waiting times increase in the other areas. It says

we found that higher immigration in an area actually reduces waiting times for outpatients there. On average, a 10 percentage point increase in the share of migrants living in a local authority would reduce waiting times by slightly more than 9 days. Using previous estimates of patients’ willingness to pay for a reduction in waiting times, we estimate that a 10 days reduction in waiting time would be equivalent to a person receiving about £38 in 2013 prices.
[...]
we find that higher levels of immigration increase the likelihood of UK-born individuals moving from that area, a conclusion that has also been supported in previous studies. This means the effects of immigration on the demand for health care services are dispersed throughout the country via internal migration.

So it highlights that even as immigration increases the liklihood of UK born residents leaving the area, nowhere does it state that this causes waiting times to increase elsewhere. Rather, it causes significant falls in waiting times in the areas where immigrants move to.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

You keep missing the point the unconditioned data is what matters and it shows high dependency on welfare, its no use adjusting to compare with natives because as a whole they don't match the native population.
Similarly for employment your own data shows effect is neutral to negative.

And you keep trying to dance around the inevitable conclusion: that migrants are less dependent on social welfare than the general population. Therefore, even with their higher unemployment, their consumption of social welfare is less than the national average.

The data shows that the results of immigration on unemployment are inconclusive: that immigration has either a small or neutral effect on employment. If you're going to try and argue that immigration causes unemployment, you don't seem to have a strong case.
Likewise, as the Washington post article shows,

From Denmark to Uganda to Cleveland, studies have found that welcoming refugees has a positive or at least a neutral effect on a host community's economy and wages.
[...]
In the longer run, refugees appear to play an outsized role in creating new jobs, and even raising the wages of natives. One reason is that refugees appear more likely than other groups to open small businesses.
[...]Research by Giovanni Peri of the University of California, Davis and Mette Foged of the University of Copenhagen shows how an influx of lower-wage immigrants into a community tends to raise wages for everyone else. Low-skilled foreign workers and low-skilled domestic workers often complement each other instead of displacing each other, their work shows. Peri says the reason is that an influx of workers with different skills encourages people to specialize in jobs that they are uniquely suited for, which helps businesses and the economy to grow. As refugees come in, they typically fill jobs that require few language skills. Natives, in contrast, move to jobs that require more native skills, like managing these new workers, or talking to customers and suppliers. This specialization of workers makes companies more productive, which allows businesses to expand.

gallag

Lockstep wrote: »

If you expect your claims to be taken seriously, you'll need to do better than that (your link doesn't work by the way)
Dismissing credible sources for being biased isn't on, unless you can show why they're biased. Claiming bias isn't a trump card for sources that don't fit with your pre-existing opinions. You need to show *why*.
As for your "real world observations", maybe you've got some excellent evidence that the rest of the world isn't privy to but if all you can do is say "But in my experience", then you can't expect others to take you seriously, especially when they're able to provide evidence and you are not.
RationalWiki do a good piece on why anecdotal evidence is a poor source

Ok, let me explan why I believe my personal experiences and sources I read trumps you guys opinions and sources, it really is as simple as I am right and you guys are continually wrong, right from the start of this invasion every single prediction I have made had been correct and you guys have been amazingly wrong.

If you are a neutral reading this then just go look at any of the threads started when this invasion began, sure you might need to hunt as many of them were closed due to "racists" but you will see many of the "refugees benefit society" gang above being absolutely wrong, here are a few things they got wrong (but had good sources at the time to show how correct they are)

1. It was noticed early on by many that most of the poor refugees were young, fit and healthy men and it appeared the media was covering this up as every photo had as many women and kids shoehorned in as possible and avoiding mentioning the fact, many of the posters in this very thread tried to reassure us with links to many charities and ngo's operating out there that there were equal numbers of women and men, later this argument changed under the pressure of insurmountable evidence to paint the lone men as hero's who are beating a path for the women and children who were safer in the war zone awaiting extraction.

Yous, with your links were wrong, I was correct.

2. Many were worried that the refugees actually resembled a conquering army the way they rampaged through greece and rioted at border check points, we were told by the pro refugees gang that in fact they were a peaceful people and Syria was a bastion of liberal democracy just a few years ago! They were just poor and hungry! Of course when video after video of fight, destruction of food and aid, attack and riot emerged we were told this was simply frustration from the tiredness and hunger and was absolutely not an indication of a sense of entitlement that would soon be violently unleashed upon Europe.

I got this right, yous were wrong.

3. Numbers, yeah, over a million, remember how yous tried to reassure that there wouldn't be that many? It wasn't a big problem! But sure after the summer months it shall slow to a trickle, so wrong but again yous did have links! As it happens I predicted this would be one of the biggest migrations of people the world has seen, like the fall of Rome I said! My links were admittedly weaker than yours at the time.

Yous were wrong, I was right.

4. I remember specifically having a debate with the dark horse and others about how immagrants from third world countries where women were treated like cattle and had very limited rights would be a lot more likely to be misogynist and involved in crimes of a sexual nature, I provided evidence in the form of a freedom of information request showing that muslims were vastly overrepresented in rape statistics in the UK, man was I ever trailed over the coals for this one, to many it made complete sense, afterall these men mostly come from communities were there has been no feminist movement and be constantly told a woman are inferior to them in law as well in the house, a culture that tells these women to cover up so as not to offend the males and force them to rape! It's so bloody obvious that if you import a million males from a culture like this that you will have a massive sex crime problem on your hands!!! I was amazed that yous could not see this glaringly simple concept, but again yous had links and sources to in fact show that I was actually just a bigoted racist and in fact there would be no problems from these men if let in....

I was correct, yous were dangerously wrong and women have suffered.

5. Many were worried that the young male migrants would forever be a burden on the economy! Remember? Yous had links to show that they were all doctors, engineers and captains of industry who were coming so we could all have pensions and comfort in our old age, source after source reassured us that most of these immigrants had university level education and our economies would fly! Also apparently during an unemployment crises in Europe we still needed them to fill jobs, that didn't make sense to me but sources!!!! Then the truth came, how we were horrified to learn most did not have enough education to enable them to enter the jobs market and many countries like Germany now have to set aside 10's of billions to provide for these people with no end in site.

Again yous were wrong.

6. Many feared such amounts of young males would cause ghettoisation and no go areas for natives, how yous laughed, afterall yous had sources to show how stupid that belief was, anyway I wonder how Malmos doing? Paris? How many are booking next year's NYE celebrations in cologne? Pretty unbelievable that now the german media is talking about many german city's being no go areas already!!!!!!

Again, dangerously wrong.


To be frank, I could go on, but the point I am making is your sources are worthless to me at this point, yous have been constantly wrong in your predictions, do yous not see it yourselves? It's like a religion at this point were yous have invested so much into it to admit yous have been wrong is unthinkable, it's actually dangerous, so people in Europe are now victims to your ideology, your narrative actually costs lives.

johnnyskeleton

Mod Note:

Gallag, you have been warned before about presenting sources and as you are no doubt aware you are the subject of claims of biased moderation in the feedback thread. So I will explain my reasoning for banning you in greater detail than I normally would.

The warning was:

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If this is all you have to add to this thread then please do not post in it. Other posters have presented sources for their claims and you have not.

So it was clear that you were being warned to either engage with the source material or produce source material of your own. You then say:

gallag wrote: »

Ok, let me explan why I believe my personal experiences and sources I read trumps you guys opinions and sources

Yet in your whole post you didn't refer to a single source.

right from the start of this invasion

This is gutter journalism style, and that's the kindest way I can describe your turn of phrase.

every single prediction I have made had been correct and you guys have been amazingly wrong.

This, and the subsequent "I was right, you were wrong" style of posting is childish points scoring and is rude and disruptive. It is nowhere near the standard of substantial posting that this forum requires. In particular:

I was correct, yous were dangerously wrong and women have suffered.

is a ridiculous assertion and I consider it a form of baiting/trolling to suggest that other posters have allowed women to suffer because of their views.

1. It was noticed early on by many that most of the poor refugees were young, fit and healthy men...

2. Many were worried that the refugees actually resembled a conquering army the way they rampaged through greece and rioted at border check points...

3. Numbers, yeah, over a million, remember how yous tried to reassure that there wouldn't be that many...

4. I remember specifically having a debate with the dark horse and others about how immagrants from third world countries where women were treated like cattle and had very limited rights would be a lot more likely to be misogynist and involved in crimes of a sexual nature...

These four points have nothing to do with the point that was being discussed i.e. whether migrants were a net benefit/drain on society. You are creating several straw men which might or might not have been argued in previous threads (I am not going to follow your injunction to look up every thread on this issue over the whole site) and you are also shifting the goal posts. This is very far below the standards that are acceptable.

It's so bloody obvious that if you import a million males from a culture like this that you will have a massive sex crime problem on your hands!!!

Saying something is "bloody obvious" is not a particularly compelling argument. And while there may be substance to your argument, simply asserting it and saying "I've been right before and I'll be proved right again".

5. Many were worried that the young male migrants would forever be a burden on the economy! Remember? Yous had links to show that they were all doctors, engineers and captains of industry who were coming so we could all have pensions and comfort in our old age, source after source reassured us that most of these immigrants had university level education and our economies would fly! Also apparently during an unemployment crises in Europe we still needed them to fill jobs, that didn't make sense to me but sources!!!! Then the truth came, how we were horrified to learn most did not have enough education to enable them to enter the jobs market and many countries like Germany now have to set aside 10's of billions to provide for these people with no end in site.

Would it have been a terrible inconvenience for you to quote the source material that shows that most of the migrants don't have sufficient education to get jobs or the cost to Germany? I'm sure you're probably correct in what you say, why couldn't you just post those links, quote the salient paragraphs and make the simple argument that, whatever about historic migrants, the current Middle Eastern migration is in fact costing money and the employment prospects would be low.

If you had provided such a contribution, that would be a great contribution. It is exactly what we are looking for - someone who knows the real situation better than others and who can express that view calmly, fairly and with sources. But you didn't do that. Not even close.

6. Many feared such amounts of young males would cause ghettoisation and no go areas for natives, how yous laughed, afterall yous had sources to show how stupid that belief was, anyway I wonder how Malmos doing? Paris? How many are booking next year's NYE celebrations in cologne? Pretty unbelievable that now the german media is talking about many german city's being no go areas already!!!!!!

Again, why not post a link? The charter requires you to post a link when requested, you were requested, you refer to German media which you seem to be very familiar with. I'm sure it says exactly what you claim it says, but it is not up to other posters to seek out the articles you are reading. If you want to discuss this matter like an adult, you must provide the links to the specific articles so people know precisely what you are referring to.

To be frank, I could go on, but the point I am making is your sources are worthless to me at this point, yous have been constantly wrong in your predictions, do yous not see it yourselves? It's like a religion at this point were yous have invested so much into it to admit yous have been wrong is unthinkable, it's actually dangerous, so people in Europe are now victims to your ideology, your narrative actually costs lives.

That is a classic deflection. If you don't believe those sources, that's great for you. If you want others to disregard those sources, provide other sources or argue their contents logically. By saying other posters are constantly wrong you are playing the ball not the man.

I've banned you for 24 hours. Please use this time to consider your style of posting. Please feel free to come back and show everyone who wrong they are, but do so in accordance with the charter. If you can't engage in serious debate and insist on name calling, baiting and refusing, when asked, to provide the supporting materials that you claim to have, then there is no place for you in the Politics forum.

Nodin

gallag wrote: »

1. It was noticed early on by many that most of the poor refugees were young, fit and healthy men and it appeared the media was covering this up as every photo ...............

The notion that a young male is not a refugee and/or cannot have a valid claim is a non-sequitur.

gallag wrote: »

2. Many were worried(..............)upon Europe..

They were claimed to be a "conquering army". Video and pictorial "evidence" (usually lacking provenance, context and so on) was then put up as supposed proof and any incident that did actually occur has been used to support the original claim, which preceded it. Essentially certain parties saw and see exactly what they wanted and have read the facts to suit their conclusion rather than the reverse.

gallag wrote: »

3. Numbers, yeah, over a million, remember how yous tried to reassure that there wouldn't be that many? It wasn't a big problem! But sure after the summer months it shall slow to a trickle, so wrong but again yous did have links! As it happens I predicted this would be one of the biggest migrations of people the world has seen, like the fall of Rome I said! My links were admittedly weaker than yours at the time...

The numbers are irrelevant, given the size of Western Europe. This has been done to death.

gallag wrote: »

4. I remember specifically (.............) women have suffered....

Allowing adult males travel at all will result in some rapists travelling abroad and committing a crime. Yet, strangely, this doesn't seem to lead to a call to ban men from international travel. Why then should the risk stop people legitimately claiming asylum? Again, this has been covered already.

6. Many feared such amounts of young males would cause ghettoisation and no go
areas for natives, how yous laughed, afterall yous had sources to show how
stupid that belief was, anyway I wonder how Malmos doing?
Paris? How many are booking next year's NYE celebrations in
cologne? Pretty unbelievable that now the german media is talking about many
german city's being no go areas already!!!!!!

People have been claiming things about Sweden and France since long before the refugee crisis. Occasionally it has some basis in fact, but more often than that its misrepresentation.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Gallag has been banned for 24 hours so he can't reply until tomorrow. Please don't reply to his posts until tomorrow when he can contribute again if he wishes.

RDM_83 again

Lockstep wrote: »

So we're falling back in the "This is biased so I'm going to dismiss it.
So you're saying that the Commission's forecast is biased or wrong? What is your source that the economic forecast is biased or wrong?
Why would the Commission (which is not beholden to any member state government) produce a wrong or inaccurate report on the refugee crisis?

The Commision has an agenda related to this. To quote Dimitris Avramopoulos

“The Commission does not take the blame because it does not care about the political cost,” he said. “The Commission is here for five years to do its job and we did it with vision, responsibility and commitment. Because what is driving us is not to be re-elected. That is why for us the political cost means nothing.”

In relation to why I doubt their reports particularly on issues they have an ideological agenda in, I mentioned the Sugar Industry. In 2004 The Commission pushed for a "rationalization" of the European Sugar Industry (which fits their open markets ideology and distinct lack of care about ordinary workers), the problem is they used out of date/flawed statistics.
Here's what the Commision said would happen

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-04-915_en.htm

Here's what did happen, 120,000 job losses across the EU, no reduced sugar prices for consumers, EU no longer self-sufficient, and production halted completely in a number of countries
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/eu-auditors-say-sugar-factory-closure-needless-1.675119
http://sugaralliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ProSunergy-EUSupportReport.pdf

Fairly sure there is a court of auditors report around too. So yeah doubting the Commissions predictions about issues they have an ideological attachment too isn't unfounded paranoia its a view based on their past actions and misrepresentation of data.

Lockstep wrote: »

Please point out where it shows that
Nowhere does it say that waiting times increase in the other areas. It says

So it highlights that even as immigration increases the liklihood of UK born residents leaving the area, nowhere does it state that this causes waiting times to increase elsewhere. Rather, it causes significant falls in waiting times in the areas where immigrants move to.

Here, it directly contradicts what you are saying that it does not impact natives waiting times (overall I don't disagree that its neutral, however migrants age too and as the report points out they work higher risk jobs so impact will only rise)

An increase in the stock of immigrants equal
to 1% of the local initial population increases the native out-migration rate by 16 percentage points and the native in-mobility rate by 6.2 percentage points. As a result, native net out-migration rate increases by 9.7 percentage points. These results conVrm that immigration leads natives to move towards diUerent areas. This also explains why we Vnd no diUerences in the eUect of immigration on waiting times when we include population size as a control variable.
Native out-migration in response to immigration may increase demand for health-care services in the local areas that natives move into. As we can see in Table 6 (column 1) a 1 percentage point increase in the
native population relative to the resident population in the previous year increases the average waiting time for outpatients by approximately 6 days (13% more with respect to the mean of the dependent variable). The coeXcient diminishes when we include LSOA time-varying characteristics (column 2) and does not change substantially when we control for population size. The eUect of native out-migration on waiting times for elective care and A&E was insigniVcant (not reported)).

Thats from the study itself.
https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/sites/www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/files/documents/BSG-WP-2015-005.pdf

Lockstep wrote: »

And you keep trying to dance around the inevitable conclusion: that migrants are less dependent on social welfare than the general population. Therefore, even with their higher unemployment, their consumption of social welfare is less than the national average.

I am not dancing around the issue, you are literally just ignoring my point Why can you not engage with what I am saying , adjusted data doesn't matter because we are looking at group impacts can you please tell me what the problem with grasping the fact that migrants (non-EU and refugees in particular) in the real world (backed up by the data which shows higher unemployment) do not generally match the native populations skills and socio-economic status.
In relation to the other welfare benefits, pensions are a major factor, as far as I know there is no longitudinal studies that examine this, the study that attempted this is written of by its own authors and yourself as it doesn't show previous contributions (the one that states a 120 deficiet for non EU migrants). Since migrants are human and age its an extremely safe assumption to make that they will access state pensions at an equivalent or higher due to increased entry level and temporary employment without employer pensions schemes as the native population. Therefore looking at the big picture, at present they have higher unemployment and in the future they will match or exceed natives as drains on the welfare system.

Lockstep wrote: »

The data shows that the results of immigration on unemployment are inconclusive: that immigration has either a small or neutral effect on employment. If you're going to try and argue that immigration causes unemployment, you don't seem to have a strong case.

All your studies say that it doesn't create employment is at best neutral and at worst slightly negative for employment. I don't get how you can argue that it creates employment when your own links state the opposite

Lockstep

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The Commision has an agenda related to this. To quote Dimitris Avramopoulos

“The Commission does not take the blame because it does not care about the political cost,” he said. “The Commission is here for five years to do its job and we did it with vision, responsibility and commitment. Because what is driving us is not to be re-elected. That is why for us the political cost means nothing.”

Yes, that's the entire point of the Commission: it acts in the interests of the EU (compared to the European Parliament which directly represents the EU citizens and the Council of Ministers which represents governments). The reason it exists is to have a body capable of making EU decisions and avoid NIMBYISM. The Commission is certainly not unaccountable (it can be dismissed by the European Parliament). This doesn't mean it has "an agenda" outside of in the EU's interests as a whole.

[QUOTE=RDM_83 again;98320386
In relation to why I doubt their reports particularly on issues they have an ideological agenda in, I mentioned the Sugar Industry. In 2004 The Commission pushed for a "rationalization" of the European Sugar Industry (which fits their open markets ideology and distinct lack of care about ordinary workers), the problem is they used out of date/flawed statistics.
Here's what the Commision said would happen

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-04-915_en.htm

Here's what did happen, 120,000 job losses across the EU, no reduced sugar prices for consumers, EU no longer self-sufficient, and production halted completely in a number of countries
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/eu-auditors-say-sugar-factory-closure-needless-1.675119
http://sugaralliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ProSunergy-EUSupportReport.pdf

Fairly sure there is a court of auditors report around too. So yeah doubting the Commissions predictions about issues they have an ideological attachment too isn't unfounded paranoia its a view based on their past actions and misrepresentation of data.[/quote]
The EU rationalised sugar production due to WTO demands on sugar dumping. At any rate, production is set to rise substantially by 2017.

source

Also, if you're going to dismiss a reputable body for not being infallible then your list of sources must be extremely thin.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Here, it directly contradicts what you are saying that it does not impact natives waiting times (overall I don't disagree that its neutral, however migrants age too and as the report points out they work higher risk jobs so impact will only rise)

An increase in the stock of immigrants equal
to 1% of the local initial population increases the native out-migration rate by 16 percentage points and the native in-mobility rate by 6.2 percentage points. As a result, native net out-migration rate increases by 9.7 percentage points. These results conVrm that immigration leads natives to move towards diUerent areas. This also explains why we Vnd no diUerences in the eUect of immigration on waiting times when we include population size as a control variable.
Native out-migration in response to immigration may increase demand for health-care services in the local areas that natives move into. As we can see in Table 6 (column 1) a 1 percentage point increase in the
native population relative to the resident population in the previous year increases the average waiting time for outpatients by approximately 6 days (13% more with respect to the mean of the dependent variable). The coeXcient diminishes when we include LSOA time-varying characteristics (column 2) and does not change substantially when we control for population size. The eUect of native out-migration on waiting times for elective care and A&E was insigniVcant (not reported)).

Thats from the study itself.
https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/sites/www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/files/documents/BSG-WP-2015-005.pdf

That's fair enough: I was referring to the summary on the LSE page. However
from the report

These results confirm that immigration leads natives to move towards different areas. This also explains why we find no differences in the effect of immigration on waiting times when we include population size as a control variable.
The coefficient diminishes when we include LSOA time-varying characteristics (column 2) and does not change substantially when we control for population size. The effect of native out-migration on waiting times for elective care and A&E was insignificant (not reported).

It then concludes

We find that immigration reduced waiting times for outpatient referrals. A 10percentage points increase in the share of migrants living in a local authority would reduce waiting times by 9 days on average. We find no evidence that immigration affects waiting times in A&E and in elective care. This result is likely to be driven by two key factors. First, migrants tend to be young and healthy upon arrival and likely to have a smaller impact on the demand for NHS services. Second, the arrival of immigrants increases the likelihood of natives moving and accessing health services in a different local authority. Thus, the effects of immigration on the demand for healthcare services are dispersed throughout the country (via internal migration

Evidently, the claims that immigration clogs up healthcare is an extremely weak one.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I am not dancing around the issue, you are literally just ignoring my point Why can you not engage with what I am saying , adjusted data doesn't matter because we are looking at group impacts can you please tell me what the problem with grasping the fact that migrants (non-EU and refugees in particular) in the real world (backed up by the data which shows higher unemployment) do not generally match the native populations skills and socio-economic status.

What it means is that unemployed non-EU nationals are less likely to access unemployment benefits than natives: see table 2
Likewise, Barrett and Maitre conclude

Echoing what was found in Section 2, but to a stronger degree, the broad conclusion to be drawn from the regression analysis is that there is little evidence of excessive receipt of support by immigrants relative to natives, where “excessive” is defined as higher rates of receipt whether adjusting for socio-economic characteristics or not. To the extent that higher rates of receipt are present, they appear to be restricted to unemployment support; but even in this case, this only applies in a restricted number of countries.But

RDM_83 again wrote: »

In relation to the other welfare benefits, pensions are a major factor, as far as I know there is no longitudinal studies that examine this, the study that attempted this is written of by its own authors and yourself as it doesn't show previous contributions (the one that states a 120 deficiet for non EU migrants). Since migrants are human and age its an extremely safe assumption to make that they will access state pensions at an equivalent or higher due to increased entry level and temporary employment without employer pensions schemes as the native population. Therefore looking at the big picture, at present they have higher unemployment and in the future they will match or exceed natives as drains on the welfare system.

Actually, a significant number of immigrants return home

Return migration by labor migrants has historically been on high levels, with generally more than half of the labor immigrants returning to their origin countries. This has been the case more or less irrespective of immigration regime in the host country. In the labor recruitment era in northern and western Europe, from the 1950s to the early 1970s, several immigration regimes were launched, with different guest worker systems ine.g. Germany, Switzerland and France, whereas Sweden and other countries choose a system of permanent residence rights. The experience is that rates of return migration did not differ as much as one would expect, given the institutional differences

Likewise, the IOM lists the number of return migrants as "considerable"
Likewise, the UN says the following

Temporary migration was for long one of the most neglected areas of research on international migration, despite the fact that a large fraction of all emigration was followed by return migration. Studies on international labor migration have shown return rates of more than 50 percent, and some even up to 80percent. Impressed by the absolute size of the phenomenon, not to mention its social, economic and cultural impacts, academics frequently noted the lack of knowledge and debate on the topic and called for more research.

source

RDM_83 again wrote: »

All your studies say that it doesn't create employment is at best neutral and at worst slightly negative for employment. I don't get how you can argue that it creates employment when your own links state the opposite

Let me put it this way: if I started saying that immigration increases employment and I stuck to this, even when meta-analysis show that the effect is neutral to very slightly positive, would you see this is as proving my point or would it show that the evidence is far too inconclusive to claim immigration causes employment?
When the evidence is so mixed, it's a very weak argument to maintain that immigration increases unemployment.

RDM_83 again

Quick sort of topic question.
Just read this article.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/07/cologne-police-struggled-to-gain-control-of-mass-sexual-assaults-new-years-eve

Realistically though if asylum has been granted can people be deported, thought rulings tended to be that risk of life/human rights prevented it?

Lockstep

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Quick sort of topic question.
Just read this article.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/07/cologne-police-struggled-to-gain-control-of-mass-sexual-assaults-new-years-eve

Realistically though if asylum has been granted can people be deported, thought rulings tended to be that risk of life/human rights prevented it?

It's been a long time since I've studied human rights law but if I remember rightly, asylum seekers can certainly be deported for criminal offences. The problems arise if they are being deported to a country where they face torture or cruel and unusual punishment.

RDM_83 again

Lockstep wrote: »

It's been a long time since I've studied human rights law but if I remember rightly, asylum seekers can certainly be deported for criminal offences. The problems arise if they are being deported to a country where they face torture or cruel and unusual punishment.

Thats what I mean, can you deport some one to a country where they are at risk of life. Presumably if someone is granted asylum they are at risk?
Just thinking of that somalia (might be wrong) that stayed in ireland after prison.

johnnyskeleton

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Thats what I mean, can you deport some one to a country where they are at risk of life. Presumably if someone is granted asylum they are at risk?
Just thinking of that somalia (might be wrong) that stayed in ireland after prison.

There are a few permuations so bear with me:

1. Declared refugees - someone arrives, seeks asylum, gets a hearing, it is believed that what they say is true and there is a serious risk of persecution if they are to be returned to their Country of Origin. This declaration can be revoked in the following circumstances:

(a) has voluntarily re-availed of the protection of their C.O.

(b) has voluntarily re-acquired nationality of their C.O.

(c) has acquired a new nationality of a country that can protect them

(d) voluntarily returned to the country they claimed asylum from

(e) able to return to the C.O. because there is no state protection or internal relocation options available there

(f) able to return to their C.O. because there is no longer persecution there

(g) is a threat to national security or public policy

(h) giving false or misleading information.

Basically, because they materially lied in their claim, their country is now better or they have acquired citizenship of another State.

2. Programme refugee - the UN/EU says "Right, Ireland, take 5,000 of these here refugees". This lasts as long as the programme does, so a programme for people feeling war might end when the war is over, but a programme for an ethnic minority may never end. An example of this is the Kosovan refugees who came in c. 1999.

3. People who have applied for asylum but failed or who have had declared or programme refugee status but who no longer have same.

So long as a person retains 1 or 2, they are entitled to reside in the State and cannot be returned to their C.O. or removed from the State. In the case of 1, it can be revoked if they are a threat to public order or security, etc and in the case of 2 it can be revoked when the programme ends or the person is removed from the programme (but the law is unclear on this latter part).

If the status is revoked, or they never had that status, 3. above, the Minister can make a deportation order against the person. Before making a deportation order, she must ensure that section 5 of the Refugee Act is not breached i.e. if they would be killed or imprisoned for a convention reason.

So a person could, in theory, lose their refugee status because they were a threat to Irish public security, but they could also remain here because to deport them would expose them to a risk of death or loss of freedom.

In addition, if a person has lost or has never obtained refugee status they can voluntarily leave before a deportation order is made if they have somewhere to go to i.e. someone who has both Syrian and Iraqi citizenship might choose to go to Iraq as being slightly safer than Syria rather than being deported back to Syria.

KingBrian2

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

In addition, if a person has lost or has never obtained refugee status they can voluntarily leave before a deportation order is made if they have somewhere to go to i.e. someone who has both Syrian and Iraqi citizenship might choose to go to Iraq as being slightly safer than Syria rather than being deported back to Syria.

Yeah right Iraq the state that place was left in by the west won't be liveable for many decades. They would fare better in Palestine provided they would like to live under Israeli occupation. The treatment of Arabs in Israel and Kurds in Turkey is dastardly. In Syria these communities at the very least are granted the powers to defend themselves. Sending the refugees to some of these other Muslim countries would be a death sentence.

Lockstep

gallag wrote: »

Ok, let me explan why I believe my personal experiences and sources I read trumps you guys opinions and sources, it really is as simple as I am right and you guys are continually wrong, right from the start of this invasion every single prediction I have made had been correct and you guys have been amazingly wrong.

If you are a neutral reading this then just go look at any of the threads started when this invasion began, sure you might need to hunt as many of them were closed due to "racists" but you will see many of the "refugees benefit society" gang above being absolutely wrong, here are a few things they got wrong (but had good sources at the time to show how correct they are)

So many strawmen! But who needs any facts and sources when you can shout "BUT I'M RIGHT!"?

gallag wrote: »

1. It was noticed early on by many that most of the poor refugees were young, fit and healthy men and it appeared the media was covering this up as every photo had as many women and kids shoehorned in as possible and avoiding mentioning the fact, many of the posters in this very thread tried to reassure us with links to many charities and ngo's operating out there that there were equal numbers of women and men, later this argument changed under the pressure of insurmountable evidence to paint the lone men as hero's who are beating a path for the women and children who were safer in the war zone awaiting extraction.

Yous, with your links were wrong, I was correct.

Who claimed that there were equal numbers of women and men? Currently, 58% of arrivals are men (although it doesn't state whether they're 18 or 50)
This makes sense: during crises, it's totally normal for men to go on ahead first
Certainly most are men but if you can show any posters here who claimed anything different, please provide it.

gallag wrote: »

2. Many were worried that the refugees actually resembled a conquering army the way they rampaged through greece and rioted at border check points, we were told by the pro refugees gang that in fact they were a peaceful people and Syria was a bastion of liberal democracy just a few years ago! They were just poor and hungry! Of course when video after video of fight, destruction of food and aid, attack and riot emerged we were told this was simply frustration from the tiredness and hunger and was absolutely not an indication of a sense of entitlement that would soon be violently unleashed upon Europe.

I got this right, yous were wrong.

Ah yeah, that old chestnut.
Not much of an invading army.

gallag wrote: »

3. Numbers, yeah, over a million, remember how yous tried to reassure that there wouldn't be that many? It wasn't a big problem! But sure after the summer months it shall slow to a trickle, so wrong but again yous did have links! As it happens I predicted this would be one of the biggest migrations of people the world has seen, like the fall of Rome I said! My links were admittedly weaker than yours at the time.

Yous were wrong, I was right.

Where did anyone deny it risked reaching a million?
In August, Germany estimated 800,000 would arrive in its borders alone
Certainly, some posters (including myself) rejected claims that it would continue at this rate for the next few years but it was very evident that hundreds of thousands would be arriving in Europe.

gallag wrote: »

4. I remember specifically having a debate with the dark horse and others about how immagrants from third world countries where women were treated like cattle and had very limited rights would be a lot more likely to be misogynist and involved in crimes of a sexual nature, I provided evidence in the form of a freedom of information request showing that muslims were vastly overrepresented in rape statistics in the UK, man was I ever trailed over the coals for this one, to many it made complete sense, afterall these men mostly come from communities were there has been no feminist movement and be constantly told a woman are inferior to them in law as well in the house, a culture that tells these women to cover up so as not to offend the males and force them to rape! It's so bloody obvious that if you import a million males from a culture like this that you will have a massive sex crime problem on your hands!!! I was amazed that yous could not see this glaringly simple concept, but again yous had links and sources to in fact show that I was actually just a bigoted racist and in fact there would be no problems from these men if let in....

I was correct, yous were dangerously wrong and women have suffered.

The treatment of women is a worry (hence why countries like Sweden are now requiring refugees to attend classes on the treatment of women. However, half of the Mediterranean arrivals are Syrian, a country with a decent record on women's rights (women's suffrage since 1949, [url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sy.html 81% [/url] female literacy rate [/url]

gallag wrote: »

5. Many were worried that the young male migrants would forever be a burden on the economy! Remember? Yous had links to show that they were all doctors, engineers and captains of industry who were coming so we could all have pensions and comfort in our old age, source after source reassured us that most of these immigrants had university level education and our economies would fly! Also apparently during an unemployment crises in Europe we still needed them to fill jobs, that didn't make sense to me but sources!!!! Then the truth came, how we were horrified to learn most did not have enough education to enable them to enter the jobs market and many countries like Germany now have to set aside 10's of billions to provide for these people with no end in site.

Again yous were wrong.

Who was claiming they were all doctors and engineers? Ridiculous strawman right there.
I certainly argued that Syrians (the most significant source of refugees) had a role to play in Europe given their education system: before the civil war, 93% of Syrian children attended school and 25% of eligible youngsters attended university , and even taking into account their civil war and elderly (Syrian life expectancy is 75, so it would include a fair number of old people who grew up before education became widespread) [url=https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sy.html over 86% of Syrians are literate[/url].
Germany has set money aside to train them in German and areas Germany has skills shortages in. It's an investment, given Germany's labour shortage

gallag wrote: »

6. Many feared such amounts of young males would cause ghettoisation and no go areas for natives, how yous laughed, afterall yous had sources to show how stupid that belief was, anyway I wonder how Malmos doing? Paris? How many are booking next year's NYE celebrations in cologne? Pretty unbelievable that now the german media is talking about many german city's being no go areas already!!!!!!

Again, dangerously wrong.

Ghettoisation has been a problem well before the Refugee Crisis. At any rate, I'm not sure of the examples you gave.
Paris where all identified attackers were European citizens?
Cologne where the mayor has denied any evidence that the attackers were refugees? with police also denying they're refugees?
(Also, the attackers were drunk so hardly bastions of Islam)

gallag wrote: »

To be frank, I could go on, but the point I am making is your sources are worthless to me at this point, yous have been constantly wrong in your predictions, do yous not see it yourselves? It's like a religion at this point were yous have invested so much into it to admit yous have been wrong is unthinkable, it's actually dangerous, so people in Europe are now victims to your ideology, your narrative actually costs lives.

You're right. There's blood on all our hands and we're like, totally responsible for deaths and stuff. If only we'd listened to your strawmen!

RDM_83 again

In relation to the cologne mayors statement

http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-1070894.html

details from internal police report indicate refugees (maybe not this wave though), may have been involved.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35259224

BBC which takes a very strong pro-refugee line reporting on a number of incidents across Europe and Germany definitely linked to asylum seekers/refugees.

(will get back to economics when can look at pdfs)

Shurimgreat

The view of some is that the migrants and I think most people accept it was migrants although how long they have been here is unclear, felt they could act with impunity and to be honest there is not a whole lot anyone can do. You can't arrest 1000 people. You'd have to try each one individually which would take years. And you can't deport them without convicting them of a crime first. And you can't really imprison them without trying them. In hindsight the arrival of a million migrants into Germany in such a short time was always going to cause these sorts of issues.

Lockstep

RDM_83 again wrote: »

In relation to the cologne mayors statement

http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-1070894.html

details from internal police report indicate refugees (maybe not this wave though), may have been involved.

I'm not sure what your point is here: German police highlight that many of the perpetrators were already known to police and not refugees.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35259224
BBC which takes a very strong pro-refugee line reporting on a number of incidents across Europe and Germany definitely linked to asylum seekers/refugees.

(will get back to economics when can look at pdfs)

How does the BBC take a "very strong pro-refugee line"?
The four charged with the gang rape are Syrian nationals but not asylum seekers

Until the perpetrators are identified and charged, it's fairly pointless using this to use this as an opportunity to highlight the dangers of the refugee crisis. Evidently, the perps need to be prosecuted and hopefully deported, but let's not use the victims as a political weapon.

View

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The view of some is that the migrants and I think most people accept it was migrants although how long they have been here is unclear, felt they could act with impunity and to be honest there is not a whole lot anyone can do. You can't arrest 1000 people. You'd have to try each one individually which would take years. And you can't deport them without convicting them of a crime first. And you can't really imprison them without trying them. In hindsight the arrival of a million migrants into Germany in such a short time was always going to cause these sorts of issues.

More than 2,700 people appeared before the courts in England after the London riots in 2011. The courts in Germany are presumably at least as capable of processing 1,000 people.

Lockstep

Looks like 31 have been arrested. 18 were asylum seekers of which 4 were Syrian. Here's hoping the feckers get deported.


The suspects include nine Algerians, eight Moroccans, four Syrians, five Iranians, two Germans and one each from Iraq, Serbia andthe US

RDM_83 again

Lockstep wrote: »

Looks like 31 have been arrested. 18 were asylum seekers of which 4 were Syrian. Here's hoping the feckers get deported.


The suspects include nine Algerians, eight Moroccans, four Syrians, five Iranians, two Germans and one each from Iraq, Serbia andthe US

So 58% of suspects arrested so far are asylum seekers hmmmmmmmm

View wrote: »

More than 2,700 people appeared before the courts in England after the London riots in 2011. The courts in Germany are presumably at least as capable of processing 1,000 people.

Would there be political will in germany for that sort of response given the discourse on migration and their waryness of their history with authoritarianism.

I do find it strange that 72% of the "asylum seekers" are male.

Seems odd to leave the women and children and old people in the middle of the war zone.

K-9

Shurimgreat wrote: »

The view of some is that the migrants and I think most people accept it was migrants although how long they have been here is unclear, felt they could act with impunity and to be honest there is not a whole lot anyone can do. You can't arrest 1000 people. You'd have to try each one individually which would take years. And you can't deport them without convicting them of a crime first. And you can't really imprison them without trying them. In hindsight the arrival of a million migrants into Germany in such a short time was always going to cause these sorts of issues.

Apparently this was a problem last New Year and befofe, though not to this extent.

View

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Would there be political will in germany for that sort of response given the discourse on migration and their waryness of their history with authoritarianism.

Yes. The courts function just as well in Germany as in any other European country.

And, unsurprisingly, the Bundesrepublik is founded on the principle of the rule of law, so, politically there is no problem with them enforcing the law to hand down sentences etc.

Lockstep

RDM_83 again wrote: »

So 58% of suspects arrested so far are asylum seekers hmmmmmmmm

Unlikely to be anything to do with the refugee crisis. Out of those nationalities, only Syria and Iraq comprise over 1% of the Mediterranean arrivals so the rest are not making the crossing in significant numbers. Even with the Iraqis and Syrians, there's no evidence that they arrived recently yet.

Lockstep

Deleted User wrote: »

I do find it strange that 72% of the "asylum seekers" are male.

Seems odd to leave the women and children and old people in the middle of the war zone.

That' because men comprise 58% of trans Mediterranean arrivals. Not 72%.This number includes all men, including the elderly.

http://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/regional.php

Women and children aren't being left in a war zone. The gender balance is very even in refugees camps. http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php



Men go on ahead to Europe as they're the most likely to survive the dangerous journey. They try to establish themselves so they can send for their families

RDM_83 again

Lockstep wrote: »

Unlikely to be anything to do with the refugee crisis. Out of those nationalities, only Syria and Iraq comprise over 1% of the Mediterranean arrivals so the rest are not making the crossing in significant numbers. Even with the Iraqis and Syrians, there's no evidence that they arrived recently yet.

Actually is this thread restricted to the Mediterranean Migrants? I thought it was now the main politics equivalent of the Cafes Immigration Crisis discusion

KingBrian2

I don't see how the resignation of the police chief is going to help the situation. He should have been given time to sort out the problems of his police force and prepare for this eventuality in the future. Nobody could have foreseen this mess. The way it became publicised so quickly, the political uproar we all knew the expressions of outrage towards foreigners had already been building but this was unprecedented.

Now that he is gone lessons will have to be learnt but be in no doubt this New Year has seen multiple arrests across Europe and America of terrorists and only yesterday a wannabe terrorist nearly blew himself up in a Paris police station. These people have serious challenges in taking on these criminals. This refugee situation is totally different to usual illicit activity and that is why serious reservations about the incoming immigrants should not be viewed as racist.

Lockstep

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Actually is this thread restricted to the Mediterranean Migrants? I thought it was now the main politics equivalent of the Cafes Immigration Crisis discusion

As the thread title is Mediterranean migrants, it's for discussing them. There've been enough general threads on immigration around before.

Tea drinker

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I don't see how the resignation of the police chief is going to help the situation. He should have been given time to sort out the problems of his police force and prepare for this eventuality in the future. Nobody could have foreseen this mess. The way it became publicised so quickly, the political uproar we all knew the expressions of outrage towards foreigners had already been building but this was unprecedented.

Now that he is gone lessons will have to be learnt but be in no doubt this New Year has seen multiple arrests across Europe and America of terrorists and only yesterday a wannabe terrorist nearly blew himself up in a Paris police station. These people have serious challenges in taking on these criminals. This refugee situation is totally different to usual illicit activity and that is why serious reservations about the incoming immigrants should not be viewed as racist.

It helps the 2 ladies keep their job, Merkel who has a huge role in this, and the Mayor who may be complicit in a media cover up, and is certainly complicit in telling women to cover up as part of a dress code.
Can you imagine if a man had told the women to cover themselves?

KingBrian2

Tea drinker wrote: »

It helps the 2 ladies keep their job, Merkel who has a huge role in this, and the Mayor who may be complicit in a media cover up, and is certainly complicit in telling women to cover up as part of a dress code.
Can you imagine if a man had told the women to cover themselves?

Same women who was stabbed trying to get herself elected.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34568236