MIGRATION...and CULTURAL COMPATABILITY...

I refer all readers to my topic in the general discussion area on this, BUT..
this author is telling the migration story as it really is...and as I and others have been saying for quite some time..

IT'S ABOUT THE "MONEY" STUPID..... i.e.. Ecomonic migration.

This naive and idealistic child of an author applauds the idea that the poor of one country going to another for a better deal will help everyone.. ROT ! if you follow that TREND to its logical conclusion you will just have everyone POOR.

But he also misses a very glaring reality. COMPATABILITY.

Do the new arrivals pose a threat to everything we cherish

- jobs, ....................... not so much.
-the welfare state,............ nope..they just enjoy it.
-our national identity and .... YES absolutely.
-way of life, even our ....... YES.. absolutely.
-freedom and security ........ 11 Muslim men in Sydney and 13 in Melbourne on trial say YES..ABSOLUTELY.

We canNOT speak of migration in purely economic terms.. we MUST speak about it in cultural and religious terms as well.

2/3rds of Swedes believe Islam is not compatable with Western Values.
just after the poll was taken the Malmo Mosque was burnt to the ground..for the 2nd time.

LESSON ? yep..there is an important one. MESS WITH THE PEOPLES WILL...and the PEOPLE WILL REACT..

Gee.. now that was hard to figure out wasn't it ? Cronulla.. lack of policing.. lax law enforcement of thug behavior.. KA-BOOM. 5000 people are wreaking havoc.

Blind Aunt Nellie could have seen that coming.. and she would have done something EARLY....
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2005-09/19/article07.shtml

The weight of academic studies on migration conclude there is little or no net benefit to the host country. Most of the economic benefit goes to the migrants themselves, the rest goes into the pockets of big business.

There is an almost limitless supply of poor migrants from poor countries, enough to swamp the host country and destroy the very benefits that migrants were seeking there in the first place. That's what will happen if we open the floodgates.

If you're a poor or middle class Australian, high immigration is not in your interests. The fact that it is happening is a silent conspiracy between the political class on the left and right. The right see migrants as cheap labour, the left see them as cheap votes.

The end result of migration has, in every case I can think of, been disastrous for the recipients of the migration flow. Although the new society of imigrants has ofter been very successful, often, only the crumbs are left for the original imhabitants. Is that you want for our kids.

Before you scream rubbish, here are a few examples.
Austrailian Aboriginals; American Indians; Indians; Malays; Polynesians; Picts; Celts; Aztec, & there are hundreds more.

Anywhere, that some members of the community can falsely blame their lack of success on their ethnicity, is heading for trouble, & we probably have over a million of them now

‘Robg’ wrote:
>Fear of foreigners:
>If there were nothing to fear, people would not be afraid. In many
>cases the fears are real, and justifiable. It is not a matter of a
>host country doing a better job integrating migrants: it that people
>naturally prefer to stick with their own. No laws or practical
>policies will change that.

In 1949 I first encountered a song from the musical "South Pacific". Written by Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II, it taught me a lot about fear and racism. I was 7 years-old and have never forgotten its lesson. Here is its Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ve_Got_to_Be_Carefully_Taught#_note-1

South Pacific received scrutiny for its commentary regarding relationships between different races and ethnic groups. In particular, "You’ve Got to Be Carefully Taught" was subject to widespread criticism, judged by some to be too controversial or downright inappropriate for the musical stage. Sung by the character Lieutenant Cable, the song is preceded by a lyric saying racism is "not born in you! It happens after you’re born..." The song begins:

You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear,
You’ve got to be taught from year to year,
It’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear—
You’ve got to be carefully taught

You’ve got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a different shade—
You’ve got to be carefully taught.

You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late—
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate—
You’ve got to be carefully taught!
You’ve got to be carefully taught!

Rodgers and Hammerstein risked the entire South Pacific venture in light of legislative challenges to its decency or supposed Communist agenda. While on a tour of the South, lawmakers in Georgia (U.S. state) introduced a bill outlawing entertainment containing "an underlying philosophy inspired by Moscow." One legislator said that "a song justifying interracial marriage was implicitly a threat to the American way of life." Rodgers and Hammerstein defended their work strongly…

BOAZ_David, I was... TRYING to READ... your POSTING but I got A severe CASE of SPOTS'nDOTS... before MY eyes.... SoMEThing ABOut...Immigration...maKING us..ALL PoOR. Then THE ROT REAlly SEt..IN...

Legrain makes it all sound lovely, doesn’t he?

Unfortunately, he misses a vital parameter. The migrants who are generally being accepted into the richer countries are themselves from the educated elite of their home countries and that means that these countries are being deprived of a much needed resource. This in turn will drive their economies downward in the long term. From an economic viewpoint, we are really raping them.
It could be argued that a more humanitarian migration program would involve the influx of unskilled people who are doing it really tough in their home countries. Most employers who need unskilled labour in this country complain of the difficulties they have in finding people who are willing to do menial tasks. The suggestion by plerdsus that we outsource our labour needs is a good one. It gets away from the problems of integration whilst giving the poorer people of the developing countries a leg up. It also takes away from them the need to breed large families. This ties in with the comments of GuyV.
BOAZ_ David, I don’t always agree with you, but on this occasion, I think your summation is right on the money.
Likewise, grn. Absolutely no benefit to the poor of either country, in fact the reverse is true.
Hasbeen Your comments are not altogether true, although I must say that generally, it has been a mixed blessing in many countries. Our own natives didn’t fare too well. The great British Empire bought many benefits to the nations under its sway. The major problems seem to have happened when government was handed back to the natives. Some have not coped too well since, perhaps with the exception of India
Robg, Legrain is an economist who has been taught by people who don’t realise the dynamics of the subject, so that his solutions, which might have been valid once, no longer apply.