2014 November 02 Sunday
Angela Merkel to UK: No Migration Rule Change, Leave EU
Check this out: Germany 'would accept UK exit from EU' to protect migration rules.
British Prime Minister David Cameron wants to renegotiate the internal open borders of the European Union so that immigrants do not come in and get on welfare benefits. But the German PM wants Britain to keep going thru a radical change in British demographics including growth of the welfare state. Madness.
In the long run Britain would be better off to leave the EU and then negotiate with the EU for a labor migration deal as well as a trade deal.
By Randall Parker at 2014 November 02 10:41 PM
In order to keep the population constant, the total fertility rate (the number of children per woman) must be approximately 2.1. The "necessary" total fertility to maintain the population naturally depends on the average life expectancy, how soon people get married and have children, and similar factors, but currently it is estimated that in average, nations whose total fertility rate is below 2.1 would experience declining populations.
According to this article which lists the total fertility rate of all countries in descending order, UK has a fertility rate of 1.9 children per woman (below the maintenance level), but Germany and Japan are far worse with a total fertility rate of only 1.4. This means that Germany and Japan are even more desperate than UK to find a solution to their declining populations (especially of workers), but Japan chose to accelerate robotics programs in all industries instead of changing its strict immigration policy of rejecting newcomers, while Germany is still allowing a lot of immigrants from less educated countries.
When Danish conservatives convinced the majority that inviting uneducated immigrants with low productivity is more costly than a declining population, this resulted in recent strict controls on immigration from non-EU countries. However, it seems that the argument between UK and Germany is about the freedom of EU member nations to immigrate to other EU countries, not so much the immigration of non-EU members within the EU. The fact is that even before the current economic crisis, the populations of poorer southern European countries was declining severely, and it seems that there are very few young workers in these poorer EU countries who are leftover. Most old people don't have the might to move from one country to another unless they already have family members in the intended country of immigration.
Once consequence of the current high immigration waves from non-European countries, is the rise of far-right anti-immigration parties in Europe, but the other fact is that the so-called "anti-immigration" parties also attract a lot of racist and fascist power-hungry groups with their own ulterior motives. It is clear that the far-right fascist politicians in Europe are secretly very happy that the percentage of non-European immigrants is growing, as this will help them to come to power. But once again, it seems that the argument between Germany and UK is about the rights of the EU member citizens to freely move from one EU country to another, because the immigration of non-EU nationals to any EU member state is still mostly controlled by the local laws, not the global EU laws.
I must correct myself because despite the sharply declining populations of the poorer southern EU countries, due to the massive unemployment in Greece and Spain, there are still a lot of "leftover" young people who would consider immigrating to Germany and UK, but the latter group is also shrinking extremely fast. Many Lithuanians and Poles who would have immigrated to UK and Germany have already done so, and the populations of the latter countries is already shrinking fast. It's only a matter of time Greece and Spain also run out of young people that would want to emigrate to other EU countries. In any case, for richer EU countries, allowing unskilled immigrants from poorer EU nations might be more productive than continuing the immigration of unskilled non-EU nationals.
But Germany being possibly the most organized country in the world, it is able to integrate well educated (or educable) foreign workers from Spain, Greece, etc. Germany successfully turned the Spanish engineers into very productive workers.
This capability, combined with the fact that Germany has a much faster declining population than UK (mentioned above), must be the reason for Angela Merkel's insistence on the free movement of EU nationals. As we speak, Germany is attracting the best and the brightest immigrants from all over the world because its industries have the reputation of being able to re-educate young workers to make them productive.
Depopulation is primarily an "economic" problem in the minds of fools. In leaders such foolishness, when accompanied by solving the "economic" problem with immigration, is to be an accessory to genocide. Killing such leaders is entirely justified.
Good points, all...
"But once again, it seems that the argument between Germany and UK is about the rights of the EU member citizens to freely move from one EU country to another, because the immigration of non-EU nationals to any EU member state is still mostly controlled by the local laws, not the global EU laws."
The thing is, one EU country can give asylum to a bunch of third worlders and not see the consequences as they all flood to the UK.
Read the comments on this:
One hundred percent of the commenters are cheering. Has there ever been such a wide disconnect between the public and elected leaders?
James Bovery: "Depopulation is primarily an "economic" problem in the minds of fools. "
Excellent point. As I said above, Japan chose to use robotics to solve the declining worker population problem, instead of changing its restrictive immigration laws.
But other countries like Canada, New Zealand, etc, have an even better idea: in addition to high technology, they have a point system that selects only the best educated and most talented immigrants who will actually enhance the economy instead of being a burden.
Dan: "The thing is, one EU country can give asylum to a bunch of third worlders and not see the consequences as they all flood to the UK."
Very good point! This is something I failed to address in my comments above. Maybe the EU needs an amendment that has external jurisdiction on the type of non-EU immigrants each EU country can accept, in exchange for the rights of the individual citizens of any EU country to move freely within the EU.
Point systems for the best and brightest are fine if you can actually guarantee you that they aren't going to act as a group organisms and start taking over your society. Some people are willing to take that risk. Some aren't willing to take that risk. In particular those who are put out of work are not willing to take that risk. At present all of the evidence points toward wage minimization as the real motive for "hiring the best and the brightest" -- that is up until the hiring positions are, themselves, taken over by "the best and the brightest period", at which point you've lost the undeclared war to infiltrators. The US is toast.
Thanks to the point system, countries like Canada and New Zealand have a much smaller percentage of unemployable and culturally unassimilable immigrants. The kind of immigrants favored by the point system (if it is competitive enough) would be more individualistic, much better informed and far more objective than the religious fundamentalist masses, and they would in fact be far less religious or brainwashed by any ideology to act as "group organisms" to start taking over the society. For the record, Canada also has some religious fundamentalist immigrants but they have immigrated most likely due to the family reunification loopholes that still exist there in parallel with the highly successful point system (the latter system is for people who don't have relatives there.)
The US still has the immigration policy of "family reunification", where a lot of immigrants who became US citizens can ultimately bring a significant number of far less qualified relatives. But this system can be further tamed and it can still be made more like Canada and New Zealand. The beneficiaries of the point system have significantly higher IQ scores and salaries than average citizens in Canada, and they are a net benefit to society.
The problem for UK and Germany is many immigrant in Germany then want relocate, few years later, in the UK, because of the generous welfare system.
Then UK is in trouble because they have subscribed the Schengen Treaty about freedom of circulation for the EU nationals in the EU.
I do not remember Romania or Bulgaria having problem with this.
The outcry of Italy because all criminals in Romania moved to Italy and other Western Europe countries were replied by Romania's Prime Minister in this way: "You treat them too well".
The UK should rethink its welfare state but, without it, a large part of the political establishment would go out of the windows (literally in many cases) because they would have nothing to justify their position.
While the public facing human resources people may be clueless, the hiring process is anything but clueless. The hiring process select for candidates that are con artists. At a fundamental level this is because the people who are creating the hiring process are con artists.
Nemo the Magnificent writes:
Is there an IT talent shortage? Or is there a clue shortage on the hiring side? Hiring managers put on their perfection goggles and write elaborate job descriptions laying out mandatory experience and know-how that the "purple squirrel" candidate must have. They define job openings to be entry-level, automatically excluding those in mid-career. Candidates suspect that the only real shortage is one of willingness to pay what they are worth. Job seekers bend over backwards to make it through HR's keyword filters, only to be frustrated by phone screens seemingly administered by those who know only buzzwords.
Meanwhile, hiring managers feel the pressure to fill openings instantly with exactly the right person, and when they can't, the team and the company suffer. InformationWeek lays out a number of ways the two sides can start listening to each other. For example, some of the most successful companies find their talent through engagement with the technical community, participating in hackathons or offering seminars on hot topics such as Scala and Hadoop. These companies play a long game in order to lodge in the consciousness of the candidates they hope will apply next time they're ready to make a move.
Relevant quote from Bat Yeor --
Immigrants can enrich a nation. But there is a difference between immigrants and colonists. The former are eager to learn the ways of their adopted home, to integrate and perhaps assimilate — which does not require relinquishing their heritage or forgetting their roots. Colonists, by contrast, bring their culture with them and live under their own laws. Their loyalties lie elsewhere.
The West invites colonists, who then -- no surprise -- act like colonists (e.g. Rotherham).
"which does not require relinquishing their heritage or forgetting their roots"
Yes it does. It most emphatically does and we should stop lying about this and sugarcoating this. It's the old yes you can eat your cake and have it too. You can't. All those Italians and Poles and Swedes who immigrated to the US made a concerted and fully conscious effort to precisely relinquish their heritage and forget their roots, and that's what made them succeed in assimilating.
Why can't anyone talk straight anymore? Why do we have to sugarcoat and pretend about everything?
Assimilation vs colonization? Screw that. People shouldn't have to justify defending their sovereignty, self-determination and heritage against millions of immigrant invaders even if they were all highly educated and willing to assimilate. James is right that fools see this in economic terms. And there are way too many fools commenting on this post.
As for those in power pushing migration. It's partly political and partly economic. There's a desire by elitists to consolidate power and rule an economic empire. But the other half is to destroy national sovereignty and create one large country/empire. I figure it's motivated in part by having two world wars in less than 30 years. They're trying to destroy the ethnicity of the largest countries through a flood of immigrants who have no loyalty to their host. Not only would they not be loyal to the host they'd actively work to undermine their host's sovereignty. Canada did this back when Quebec was trying to secede. They kept immigration just high enough that Quebec would never have the votes. One of the Canadian prime ministers (don't remember which) later admitted that was a deliberate strategy.
Not that anyone cares about genocide when it comes to whites but:
You Have Been Misled As to the Meaning of the Word
You have been taught that nationalism is the primary source of "genocide" -- that nationalists perpetrate "genocide" and that ridding the world of nationalism is an important, perhaps the most important step in eradicating the threat of "genocide".
You have been taught, and are now a believer in, the exact opposite of the truth.
Rafael Lemkin and his work with the Geneva Conventions led the term "genocide" to be incorporated into the Geneva Conventions.
Here is Lemkin's definition:
"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity but as members of a national group."
Cited in "Beyond the 1948 Convention -- Emerging principles of Genocide in Customary International Law," Maryland Journal of International Law and Trade, vol. 17, no. 2, Fall 1993, ppp. 193-226.
The conclusion is inescapable:
Those who have taught you that "genocide can be eradicated by eradicating nationalism" are actually perpetrators of genocide under its proper definition within the Geneva Conventions.
Furthermore, since the pervasive teaching of this ideology has been the primary moral force for the distintigraton of, not one, but most national identities during the last half of the 20th century, its teachers have been and are by definition the primary perpetrators of genocide over the last half century.