Random political thought thread.

[The Cat]

 

[Red Herring]

I just dug into some numbers in preparation to a possible later post and got some interesting results.

Anti-immigrant sentiment seems to be a common denominator among the right in much of the Western world. But the individual situations can differ considerably.

In the US some 14% of the population are foreign-born and half of those are naturalized, meaning that 7% of the US population are foreign citizens.

In Germany some 18% of the population are foreign-born and 15% of the population are foreign citizens. If you include locally-born children of migrant parents the share of the population that can be considered migrant rises to 30%. Among children and teenagers 40% are either migrants or children of migrants.

In the US the main country of origin of migrants is Mexico (23%), followed by India (6%), China (5%), the Philippines (4%) and El Salvador (3%).

In Germany the main country of origin is currently Ukraine (a quarter of a million people in 2023 alone) followed by other Eastern European countries. If you look at everybody with a migratory background, the main countries of origin are Turkey (11.9 %), Poland (9.2%), Russia (5.7%), Kasachstan (5.6%) and Syria (5.1%). However, among foreign citizens living in Germany the list goes: Turkey (11.1%), Ukraine (8.7%), Syria (6.9), Romania and Poland (6.6% each), some more European countries and Afghanistan at 2.8%.

In the US about 3/4 of all migration is legal migration and most of the illegal migration seems to happen across the Mexican border.

In Germany, which is surounded by fellow EU member states things are a bit more complicated. The main problem here revolves around people from outside Europe who come to Germany to apply for asylum. If they put a foot in a "safe" country (which is basically every other European country including all neighboring countries) that safe country is legally responsible for them but de facto many enter Europe elsewhere and then make their way to Germany. If their country of origin is considered safe chances of them getting asylum are very low but they can usually stay while their paperwork is being processed which can take months or even years during which they are not allowed to work and often live on welfare in crowded make-shift housing. If they come from countries like Syria or Afghanistan they might not be considered persecuted, so no asylum as such, but enjoy "secondary protection" meaning it is considered inhumane to send them home. If they belong to a persecuted minority in their home country (like gays in Uganda or atheists in Pakistan, etc) or if they are politically persecuted activists or journalists, etc, they get actual asylum. But that is rarely the case. The vast majority of asylum seekers do not have a legal right to asylum. The are either sent home after years of staying here and waiting for their application to be processed or they are granted secondary protection only. The main countries of origin of asylum seekers are Syria, Afghanistan, Turkey, Iraq, Somalia and Iran.

In the US there are a few more male asylum seekers than female ones but the numbers are roughly comparable.
About 2/3 of asylum seekers in Germany are men. Among the 16 to 25 year old (the largest age group) more than 80% of them are men.

In the US the unemployment rate among the "native population" (4.3%) and the foreign-born population (4.2%) were basically equal.
In Germany the unemployment rate among the "native" population is 2.6%, among Germans "with a migratory background" it is 6.2% and for foreign citizens it is 15.3%.

In the US studies consistently find immigrants to be significantly less likely to commit crimes than "natives". The overall trend is for crime to go down. The crime rate for violent crime is 370 cases per 100.000 inhabitants. The murder rate is a little over 6 in 100.000.
In Germany foreign citizens are more than twice as likely to commit crimes compared to "natives", especially in the case of violent crime. The overall trend is also for crime to go down but it is currently at a 15 year high. With that in mind, the crime rate for violent crime is 265 cases per 100.000 inhabitants. The murder rate is about 1 in 100.000.

In the US about 1% of the population are Muslim, their household income resembles that of the general population average. They tend to have a very diverse ethnic background. 65% of them say religion is very important to them. That is in line with 68% of overall Americans saying religion is very important to them.
In Germany about 5-6% of the population are Muslim, their household income tends to be significantly lower than average. Their education level and employment level tends to be significantly lower than average. They tend to be significantly younger and slightly more male than the average population (in line with immigration trends). Almost half of them have Turkish roots (many of them second or third generation), the rest is mostly Middle Eastern or North African. About 70% of them follow religious rules and 40% report praying daily. However, only 33% of the overall population in Germany report thinking that religion is important or very important. A little over 60% of Germans thinks religion has little or no importance.

In the US 55% say immigration strengthens society while 40% consider it a threat. I could not find reliable data on the fear of polarization.
In Germany about 53% of the population consider immigration to bring more good than bad. Support for the immigration if skilled labor is higher, at 63%. Thise are older numbers from 2019 though. According to the survey I found, 86% fear rightwing-extremism and rightwing violence, 81% fear increased social polarization and 73% fear increased crime and terrorism. Only 30% fear competition on the job market.

What else? GDP growth in the USA: 1.9% per year. Germany: 1.8% per year. Fertility rate USA: 1.66 children per woman Fertility rate Germany: 1.58 children per woman. Average age of the US population: 38.3 years. Average age of the German population: 44.6 years.

 

[SensEye]

In the US there are a few more male asylum seekers than female ones but the numbers are roughly comparable.
About 2/3 of asylum seekers in Germany are men. Among the 16 to 25 year old (the largest age group) more than 80% of them are men.

That's because most of them are not asylum seekers at all but economic migrants. Hence all the young men. Most of the women are probably wives and children of older economic migrants. The system is easily gamed though.

The now departed Sunak's plan in the UK to ship these fake asylum claimants to Rwanda was brilliant. The small percentage of true asylum seekers probably wouldn't be happy, but they would accept to go there for safety. The other 95% (or more) would have been screaming bloody murder as there are neither jobs nor generous social programs in Rwanda. A few years of this approach would have made all the migrants redirect to soft jurisdictions and solved the UK's problem. It's a shame we'll never see it come to fruition.

 

[Virtual ghost]

That's because most of them are not asylum seekers at all but economic migrants. Hence all the young men. Most of the women are probably wives and children of older economic migrants. The system is easily gamed though.

The now departed Sunak's plan in the UK to ship these fake asylum claimants to Rwanda was brilliant. The small percentage of true asylum seekers probably wouldn't be happy, but they would accept to go there for safety. The other 95% (or more) would have been screaming bloody murder as there are neither jobs nor generous social programs in Rwanda. A few years of this approach would have made all the migrants redirect to soft jurisdictions and solved the UK's problem. It's a shame we'll never see it come to fruition.

I am not so sure that will never come to fruition. Perhaps it wouldn't be exactly the plan like this one but in Europe things are moving heavily in right wing direction when it comes to social issues. Going against multiculturalism and immigration while that is still viable in the terms of demographic numbers. Throwing away various pro LGBT or gender based rules under the bus ... etc. Therefore with this trend on the continent UK will have to do something in that direction as well. Since people will demand it and as recent developments show they will not bother to show that in public. After all if the Conservatives and Reform party where preforming as one party they would have won the recent elections. So the numbers are there, it is just that first past the post system isn't showing the real ratios.



Ursula von der Leyen’s EU Commission sausage fest

This is from today and in a sense this is perfect picture of a German that is trying to cope with wider European reality as it is today.


Therefore I would be careful about that "never". In North America you have much more of melting pot dynamic and thus it can be hard to change directions. While Europe has much more history and it's own cultural heritage, not to mention much whiter population. What can quickly override all kinds of laws and paradigms.


Where all of this will actually go remains to be seen.

 

[Red Herring]

The now departed Sunak's plan in the UK to ship these fake asylum claimants to Rwanda was brilliant. The small percentage of true asylum seekers probably wouldn't be happy, but they would accept to go there for safety. The other 95% (or more) would have been screaming bloody murder as there are neither jobs nor generous social programs in Rwanda. A few years of this approach would have made all the migrants redirect to soft jurisdictions and solved the UK's problem. It's a shame we'll never see it come to fruition.

There is a reason that plan was abandoned.

I get that you do not particularly care about the human suffering it would have caused but there are national and international laws as well as practical aspects to be considered as well. Sunak's plan was for everybody arriving in the UK without documents to be flown to Rwanda. People were to then claim asylum there. The UK already paid and was to pay Rwanda hundreds of millions of pounds for them to host them.

Let's look at a little more data first to know what we are talking about.

Asylum seekers and refugees made up 11% of all immigration to the UK last year. The share was usually lower during the last two decades. The main countries of origin for people claiming asylum in the UK are currently Albania, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Vietnam, India and Bangladesh. Is there poverty in those countries? Sure. But most of them also have abysmal human rights records. So people from these countries tend to have a legal case for subsidiary protection.

Looked at as a share of the total population, refugees currently make up less than 0.5% of the UK population.

I am not sure what numbers your claim about the overwhelming majority if cases being fraudulent is based on but the official government numbers I could find state that 33% of all cases were rejected in 2023. The year before that 24% of asylum applications were rejected. So in recent times between 2/3 and 3/4 of cases were deemed legitimate. There once was a time when 88% were rejected, which might be what you were referring to, but that was twenty years ago. Those whose application was refused have a legal right to appeal the decision - which about 3/4 of them do, a persistent number over time. And about one out of two appeals in the UK is successful.

Looking at absolute numbers:
As of June 2023, the total ‘work in progress’ asylum caseload consisted of 215,500 cases. Of these, 138,000 cases were awaiting an initial decision, 5,100 were awaiting the outcome of an appeal, and approximately 41,200 cases were subject to removal action. (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/).

Here's a good summary of the overall UK data on refugees: https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...023/how-many-people-do-we-grant-protection-to

There were 67,337 asylum applications (relating to 84,425 people) in the UK in 2023. The UK has roughly 67 million inhabitants.
In Germany that same year 351.915 asylum applications were filed. Germany has roughly 83 million inhabitants.
For our American readers: 45.888 asylum applications were filed in the USA in 2019, the highest number in decades, it fell again after that. The US has about 333 million inhabitants.

In other words:
asylum applicants per 10.000 inhabitants in the UK: 13
asylum applicants per 10.000 inhabitants in the EU (average): 23
asylum applicants per 10.000 inhabitants in Germany: 39
asylum applicants per 10.000 inhabitants in the US: 1.3

Now, I anticipate you saying that those 138.000 cases awaiting decision in the UK should be sped up in the joint interest of both the applicants and society at large. I mostly agree. We have similar problems here in Germany. The administration here tends to be understaffed and it can take months to renew a passport or a drivers license. But that would mean either hiring more administrative staff (higher taxes!) or simply abolishing people's right to due process. However, faster processing tends to mean more mistakes being made and more decisions being overturned by the courts. Those appeals mean even more administrative work and even longer waiting times before applicants can be fully allowed into society, working and studying the language.

You mentioned economic migration (as opposed to political persecution). You are right in that most asylum seekers aren't personally persecuted in their home country as individuals as would be the case for journalists, artists or political activists. But quite a few belong to ethnic, religious or sexual minorities that are persecuted in their home country. And where there is poverty there is usually also violence and oppression and most of the countries listed above have dire human rights records. And of course there is war. That's why subsidiary protection exists in Europe.

Now lets look at the larger picture.
According to the UNHCR at the end of 2023, an estimated 117.3 million people worldwide were forcibly displaced due to persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations and events seriously disturbing the public order. Based on operational data, UNHCR estimates that forced displacement has continued to increase in the first four months of 2024 and by the end of April 2024 is likely to have exceeded 120 million. That is one in every 69 human beings on this planet.
Where do these 117.3 million displaced people go? The majority (67 million) are internally displaced persons (IDP) fleeing to other regions within their country, but 32.6 million people are refugees under the UNHCR mandate (not including asylum-seekers and Palestinians who both have their own statistical category). Of those externally displaced people 75% end up being hosted by low- and middle-income countries. Only one in four refugees worldwide seeks refuge in a first world country ().

The peak in forcibly displaced persons over the last few years mirrors the peak in conflict-related fatalities (https://www.unhcr.org/global-trends you'll have to scroll down a little to find the graphs).

So now that we have some background on how many refugees there are worldwide, in Europe and the UK, where they are from and what their chances of actually getting asylum are let us come back to Sunak's Rwanda plan.

The legal aspect

The plan hinges on the Sunak administration simply declaring Rwanda a "safe third country". Not only human rights organizations and lots of foreign governments but, arguably more relevant a the legal sense, also the UK Supreme Court has said that this is not the case.

Rwanda, one of the poorest, least developed and most densely populated countries in the world, is a one-party authoritarian dictatorship under president Paul Kagame. There are numerous reports of extrajudicial killings and torture. If you want to have a read: https://www.amnesty.org/en/location...he-horn-and-great-lakes/rwanda/report-rwanda/

The Sunak administration even considered dropping out of the European Convention on Human Rights to avoid the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (which, for our North American readers, is a Council of Europe thing, not an EU thing, of which the UK is still a member). But even if they gave up on European human rights standards there is still the United Nations' 1951 Refugee Convention. If the UK wants to violate refugee rights at a major scale (or, more positively phrased: if they want to throw off the shackles of international law, "take back control" and be independent from international agreements in their decisions on asylum processes) they'd basically have to retire from the civilised world.

But let's assume for a moment that the UK really was flooded with refugees and that sending them to Rwanda wasn't against national, European and international law.

The financial aspect

Migrants in general are net contributors to the UK economy and budget (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/economics/about-department/fiscal-effects-immigration-uk). They pay in more than they take out of the system and also tend to be more educated than "native" Brits. Newly arrived refugees however often costs money before they can start working and contributing to the economy. In 2023 the UK spent a total of almost £4.3 billion on feeding and housing recently arrived asylum applicants. That's for the entire 84.425 applicants ---> that's 50.933 pounds per person.

These 4.3 billion pounds are part of the UK's development aid budget which itself makes up 0.7% of the total budget. For comparison, the total annual budget of the UK is £1,139.1 billion. So the UK spends £4.3 out of £1,139.1 billion on refugees, that's 0.38 % of the national budget.

By the end of 2023 the Rwanda scheme had already cost the UK tax payer £240m (a total of £370m over five years has been pledged). However, the Rwanda deal includes several further payments:

A “five-year processing and integration package” for each relocated person, which covers accommodation, essential items such as food, medical services, education and other integration programmes has also been agreed, the report said. This will cost up to £150,874 for each deported person.

The figures mean that if the UK sends 300 people to Rwanda, it will cost the taxpayer £490m under the partnership; an extra £6m in individual payments; plus £45m for processing and operational costs over five years. The total costs would be £541m, which works out as £1.8m per asylum seeker.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/01/rwanda-plan-uk-asylum-seeker-cost-figures

Granted, the latter number is a ficticious example, but given that so far the UK hasn't deported people but has already started paying and that these people have a right to appeal and sue in front of national and international courts with a high chance of success the number of people actually deported longterm would likely be minimal.

Now, 150.874 pounds for five years is cheaper than 50.933 pounds per year, I hear you say (30.175 pounds per annum vs 50.933 pounds per annum). But is a saving of 20.758 pounds per person per year worth breaking international law and potentially setting people up for abuse, torture and murder? Oh, and while the 50.933 pounds go to British businesses (housing, food, etc) the 30.175 pounds would go to, well, Rwanda. And according to international regulations money spend on refugees internally (for, say, housing them in Dover) can be counted towards a country's ODA quota (i.e. development aid). So with every pound the UK spends on refugees in their own country they not only support their own economy, they also effectively reduce their developement aid spending. Even if refugees should send a part of the welfare received into their home country (and they don't get much money in the UK to begin with, the current cash allowance is £49.18 per week --> 2,557.36 pounds a year), every pound sent to Rwanda is a pound lost to the UK.

Safety
That leaves us with the only remaining talking point I can think of off the top of my head: that breaching the law and spending all that money is worth it to keep dangerous people out of the UK. Well...

As at 31 December 2023, there were 10,423 foreign nationals in prison.[1] This was 12% of the total prison population of 87,489. The most common nationalities after British nationals in prisons were Albanian (13% of the FNO prison population), Polish (9%), Romanian (7%), Irish (6%) and Jamaican (4%).

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/...jEyzQy9LV5JHVkTnepwMk-1724410005-0.0.1.1-5674
(Note how the nationalities listed here - with the exception of Albania - are not the typical countries of origin of refugees). 16% of the UK population have been born abroad, so 12% foreign nationals in UK prisons suggests a below-average criminality for foreign nationals and no significant role whatsoever of refugees.

I probably forgot something but those seem to be the main issues that keep coming up in debates on this issue.

 

[PineappleDuckCurry]

I just dug into some numbers in preparation to a possible later post and got some interesting results.

Anti-immigrant sentiment seems to be a common denominator among the right in much of the Western world. But the individual situations can differ considerably.

In the US some 14% of the population are foreign-born and half of those are naturalized, meaning that 7% of the US population are foreign citizens.

In Germany some 18% of the population are foreign-born and 15% of the population are foreign citizens. If you include locally-born children of migrant parents the share of the population that can be considered migrant rises to 30%. Among children and teenagers 40% are either migrants or children of migrants.

In the US the main country of origin of migrants is Mexico (23%), followed by India (6%), China (5%), the Philippines (4%) and El Salvador (3%).

In Germany the main country of origin is currently Ukraine (a quarter of a million people in 2023 alone) followed by other Eastern European countries. If you look at everybody with a migratory background, the main countries of origin are Turkey (11.9 %), Poland (9.2%), Russia (5.7%), Kasachstan (5.6%) and Syria (5.1%). However, among foreign citizens living in Germany the list goes: Turkey (11.1%), Ukraine (8.7%), Syria (6.9), Romania and Poland (6.6% each), some more European countries and Afghanistan at 2.8%.

In the US about 3/4 of all migration is legal migration and most of the illegal migration seems to happen across the Mexican border.

In Germany, which is surounded by fellow EU member states things are a bit more complicated. The main problem here revolves around people from outside Europe who come to Germany to apply for asylum. If they put a foot in a "safe" country (which is basically every other European country including all neighboring countries) that safe country is legally responsible for them but de facto many enter Europe elsewhere and then make their way to Germany. If their country of origin is considered safe chances of them getting asylum are very low but they can usually stay while their paperwork is being processed which can take months or even years during which they are not allowed to work and often live on welfare in crowded make-shift housing. If they come from countries like Syria or Afghanistan they might not be considered persecuted, so no asylum as such, but enjoy "secondary protection" meaning it is considered inhumane to send them home. If they belong to a persecuted minority in their home country (like gays in Uganda or atheists in Pakistan, etc) or if they are politically persecuted activists or journalists, etc, they get actual asylum. But that is rarely the case. The vast majority of asylum seekers do not have a legal right to asylum. The are either sent home after years of staying here and waiting for their application to be processed or they are granted secondary protection only. The main countries of origin of asylum seekers are Syria, Afghanistan, Turkey, Iraq, Somalia and Iran.

In the US there are a few more male asylum seekers than female ones but the numbers are roughly comparable.
About 2/3 of asylum seekers in Germany are men. Among the 16 to 25 year old (the largest age group) more than 80% of them are men.

In the US the unemployment rate among the "native population" (4.3%) and the foreign-born population (4.2%) were basically equal.
In Germany the unemployment rate among the "native" population is 2.6%, among Germans "with a migratory background" it is 6.2% and for foreign citizens it is 15.3%.

In the US studies consistently find immigrants to be significantly less likely to commit crimes than "natives". The overall trend is for crime to go down. The crime rate for violent crime is 370 cases per 100.000 inhabitants. The murder rate is a little over 6 in 100.000.
In Germany foreign citizens are more than twice as likely to commit crimes compared to "natives", especially in the case of violent crime. The overall trend is also for crime to go down but it is currently at a 15 year high. With that in mind, the crime rate for violent crime is 265 cases per 100.000 inhabitants. The murder rate is about 1 in 100.000.

In the US about 1% of the population are Muslim, their household income resembles that of the general population average. They tend to have a very diverse ethnic background. 65% of them say religion is very important to them. That is in line with 68% of overall Americans saying religion is very important to them.
In Germany about 5-6% of the population are Muslim, their household income tends to be significantly lower than average. Their education level and employment level tends to be significantly lower than average. They tend to be significantly younger and slightly more male than the average population (in line with immigration trends). Almost half of them have Turkish roots (many of them second or third generation), the rest is mostly Middle Eastern or North African. About 70% of them follow religious rules and 40% report praying daily. However, only 33% of the overall population in Germany report thinking that religion is important or very important. A little over 60% of Germans thinks religion has little or no importance.

In the US 55% say immigration strengthens society while 40% consider it a threat. I could not find reliable data on the fear of polarization.
In Germany about 53% of the population consider immigration to bring more good than bad. Support for the immigration if skilled labor is higher, at 63%. Thise are older numbers from 2019 though. According to the survey I found, 86% fear rightwing-extremism and rightwing violence, 81% fear increased social polarization and 73% fear increased crime and terrorism. Only 30% fear competition on the job market.

What else? GDP growth in the USA: 1.9% per year. Germany: 1.8% per year. Fertility rate USA: 1.66 children per woman Fertility rate Germany: 1.58 children per woman. Average age of the US population: 38.3 years. Average age of the German population: 44.6 years.

Where did you get these stats?

 

[The Cat]

I reckon we're gonna get to see if RFKjr really cares about the environment, or is just a Lindsay Bluthe style activist. depending on whether he decides to back Trump or Harris.

 

[SensEye]

@Red Herring - just wanted to comment that legal data will do nothing to convince me about aspects of immigration. The courts do their job but the immigration laws they enforce should simply be changed. In my opinion, the whole notion of sticking your toe across a border should not entitle you to claim asylum. I know that's the law, and that law should simply be eliminated.

So stats about legitimate asylum seekers vs bogus ones carry little weight. They should all have to shelter in place and apply remotely. Anybody who shows up without proper documentation should be rejected out of hand. And the outright illegal border jumpers should be deported out of hand and barred from ever applying through legal channels in the future.

It's any easy problem to fix, it's just the political will that doesn't exist. And probably never will, especially as immigrant numbers rise and they exert more political influence.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Isn't the argument that you're fine with it as long as they come here legally?

 

[Virtual ghost]

@Red Herring - just wanted to comment that legal data will do nothing to convince me about aspects of immigration. The courts do their job but the immigration laws they enforce should simply be changed. In my opinion, the whole notion of sticking your toe across a border should not entitle you to claim asylum. I know that's the law, and that law should simply be eliminated.

So stats about legitimate asylum seekers vs bogus ones carry little weight. They should all have to shelter in place and apply remotely. Anybody who shows up without proper documentation should be rejected out of hand. And the outright illegal border jumpers should be deported out of hand and barred from ever applying through legal channels in the future.

It's any easy problem to fix, it's just the political will that doesn't exist. And probably never will, especially as immigrant numbers rise and they exert more political influence.

I think that you don't rally understand what is actually going on here (since you live too far away). That wall of text is almost surely just a coping strategy over the fact that next week far right in Germany is expected to have it largest electoral victory since ww2. In other words I don't think I have to explain to you into what German far right believes. Also most of the immigrants into Germany are people from around Europe since the country is some sort of central economic hub of the entire continent. Therefore most of those immigrants can fully vote as "native Germans" in these kinds of issues. In the more conservative European countries local politics is even pushing their people who emigrated that they vote for anti-immigration parties in Germany. What is in order to try to swing Germany so that we can "get to keep our continent".


So as I told you I think that you are completely underestimating the situation that there is no will. Since the current system of paradigms is evidently braking all across the continent. What is shock for a German that is used to have it steady an linear. Things are going so far that some centrist and left wing parties probably wouldn't even get any seats at all in regional parliaments that are on the ballot.



Plus since we already got into this:

Austria — National parliament voting intention

In 5 weeks Austria has it's election for the parliament. The first party in the polling average is far right and the second is center right. The two parties that have a history of making coalition governments. What in current climate means that big changes are almost surely coming when it comes to this topic.



However these aren't exactly the news you will see on the typical North American TV news. Since all of this is just too "hairy" for them. But in Europe it is seriously boiling over this topic.

 

[The Cat]

oh fuck.

 

[Red Herring]

Actually, I was just trying to make a rational and data based contribution to a complex topic and invested almost an entire day in reading up on this. The reactions so far are a bit disappointing, but then, as you keep saying, I am a bit naive.

 

[Virtual ghost]

oh fuck.

And "the best" part is that there is more, but I didn't want to go that far.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Actually, I was just trying to make a rational and data based contribution to a complex topic and invested almost an entire day in reading up on this. The reactions so far are a bit disappointing, but then, as you keep saying, I am a bit naive.

To be honest I think you lost plenty of people in the volume of text and numbers. What in the end allows people to see what they want to see.

 

[The Cat]

Actually, I was just trying to make a rational and data based contribution to a complex topic and invested almost an entire day in reading up on this. The reactions so far are a bit disappointing, but then, as you keep saying, I am a bit naive.

I found it helpful and I appreciate all the work you put into it.

 

[SensEye]

Isn't the argument that you're fine with it as long as they come here legally?

That's my position. Once you have legal only, the government (and therefore the people) can set the levels of immigration as they see fit.

@VG - I'll believe in this right wing surge when I see it. It's been on the brink and then fades away as the middle panics and goes left too often for me to believe it (outside of Trumpism).

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Actually, I was just trying to make a rational and data based contribution to a complex topic and invested almost an entire day in reading up on this. The reactions so far are a bit disappointing, but then, as you keep saying, I am a bit naive.

I appreciated the effort. I already agree with you, though, more or less.

It's always seemed to me like politicians talk about immigration to distract from other problems. I think politicians know it is the best way to pander to the worst instincts of the crowd. It seems to have worked out very well for Trump; I doubt he would have been President without him making that his big issue.

 

[Coriolis]

I reckon we're gonna get to see if RFKjr really cares about the environment, or is just a Lindsay Bluthe style activist. depending on whether he decides to back Trump or Harris.

Looks like he just cares about getting a prominent government position, and will suck up to whoever gives him one. "Watch out what you ask for - you just might get it" applies here.

There is a reason that plan was abandoned.

I get that you do not particularly care about the human suffering it would have caused but there are national and international laws as well as practical aspects to be considered as well. Sunak's plan was for everybody arriving in the UK without documents to be flown to Rwanda. People were to then claim asylum there. The UK already paid and was to pay Rwanda hundreds of millions of pounds for them to host them.

Let's look at a little more data first to know what we are talking about.

I don't have time to reply to this in any detail, but wanted to make one initial observation. This sort of strategy looks like simply dumping the problem on someone else, specifically on a poorer, less stable, dare I say "3rd world" nation. It is not much different from siting garbage dumps or chemical plants in poor neighborhoods, because the rich and powerful don't want them in theirs.

There are many legitimate and often urgent reasons to leave one's homeland for another country. War, natural disaster, and persecution are just a few. I know my opinion is far from universal, but I see helping people in these situations to be a burden that needs to be shared by all the nations of the world, as each is able. Relocating asylum seekers from the place where they claim asylum to some third country is a legitimate approach when the host country is truly unable to accommodate them AND the third country is truly willing. There are more than enough resources in the world to care for displaced persons, if those of means are not stingy.

 

[Red Herring]

Where did you get these stats?

If no link is provided they are usually official government stats from the respective office of statistics. In this case my source is mostly the UK government websites

I personally usually just google and then look at results from serious sources. By force of habit I often end up on statista.com when researching stuff.

 

[Red Herring]

oh fuck.

Things might have just gotten worse.

We have regional elections in several right-leaning Eastern states next weekend (which is what VG was alluding to before).

There was a knife attack at a summer festival in the city of Solingen with several dead and injured. The perpetrator could escape and ran at large in the city for a while. Naturally the rumor mill started immediately regarding the possible motive and identity. It's still a bit early but less than an hour ago the Islamic State claimed to be behind the attack.

The far-right is portraying itself as the only party able to protect the country from dangerous criminal Muslim migrants and this Attack just a week before the elections is pretty much the best thing that could have happened to them. *Sigh*