The necessity of immigration

Pure

Fiel a Verdad
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Posts
15,135
Behind the debate about mosques, non Xian (Muslim) or non Protestant (Catholic) values, "secure borders," and "illegals," is the basic reality. Immigration/migration must occur to avoid population decline and economic hardships.

The German journalist below (Klingholz) sets out the reality that most politicians ignore.

The problem is more general: According to the UN, below-replacement fertility is expected in 75% of the developed world by the year 2050.

The US is not in quite as problematic state as Germany, but the basic points apply. The old dominant groups are becoming less a proportion of the entire population.



US census report says
http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/natproj.html

By 2050, the proportional shares shift quite dramatically. Less than 53 percent would be non-Hispanic White; 16 percent would be Black; 23 percent would be Hispanic origin; 10 percent would be Asian and Pacific Islander; and about 1 percent would be American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut.


http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,714534,00.html
08/30/2010

Immigration Debate
Germany Needs More Foreigners

A Commentary by Reiner Klingholz



A new book by Thilo Sarrazin, a board member of Germany's central bank, accusing immigrants of dragging down the country, has unleashed a new immigration debate. Yet neither side is addressing the real issue: Germany's rapidly aging population.

We don't know if Thilo Sarrazin intended to stall the debate on immigration to Germany, but it's clear that his polemical book has had precisely that effect.
His work has split the debaters into two camps: an outraged faction that includes politicians from all the major parties and that can hardly be avoided by anyone in public life, and a semi-public forum and blogger scene, which generally applauds Sarrazin. Neither camp is actually helping to address the issues at hand.

The political correctness of one side prevents any rational reflection on the problems that Sarrazin has rightly brought up, although he is by no means the first critic to do so. At the same time, the opposing online community mixes half-truths with prejudices to cement such a negative, distorted image of immigrants that it precludes any balanced immigration policy. Both factions thwart a debate about what Germany urgently needs: significantly more immigration.

The majority of Germany's politicians -- and presumably also the German people - are of the opinion that the country has already had enough immigration. There may be minorities such as Economics Minister Rainer Brüderle, employers' associations, the German Chambers of Industry and Commerce (DIHK) and the German Engineering Federation who are calling for new immigrants, but no one appears to be listening to them.

Integration Shortcomings

Of course it's important to realize that the integration of immigrants here in Germany suffers from enormous shortcomings. Studies have confirmed that past immigration has become a cost factor for the economy. The OECD says that there is hardly any other country in which immigrants have such a low level of education as in Germany. Furthermore, no comparative study can hide the fact that people with roots in Turkey have the greatest problems with integration.

Nevertheless, such information causes us to lose sight of all the immigrants that lead perfectly normal average lives, or are even better qualified and earn more money and pay more taxes than the average members of the old established population. Negative experiences and the fear at the back of politicians' minds that the issue could cost them votes are all it takes to trigger a political and societal reflex: "More of the same? No, thanks."

The labor market triggers a second reflex, which could be summed up as follows: As long as there is even just one unemployed individual on Germany's streets, then we don't need any workers from other countries. Frank-Jürgen Weise, head of the Federal Employment Agency, tells us again and again that we have to mobilize our hidden reserves and better train our own people. It's certainly a good idea to sit down and do your homework before you look for outside help. Yet despite the billions of euros that have been pumped into qualification measures and employment-boosting initiatives, it's estimated that up to a million people with no prospects of getting work remain parked in apparently ineffective programs -- while job openings for skilled workers still remain unfilled.

Unfortunately, the immigration policy based on these reflexes is "effective": Germany's borders have been virtually sealed. Tougher asylum laws mean that Germany has practically stopped accepting refugees. In 2008, only 233 people were granted asylum.

After Germany stopped recruiting guest workers in 1973, the main way to emigrate was for family members abroad to join their relatives in Germany. However, because these family reunions primarily allowed women and children to move to Germany -- thereby causing the already low educational level of immigrants to drop even further -- they were later severely impeded. Since then, an ever-dwindling number of Turks have been emigrating to Germany. Their net immigration plunged from 10,130 in the year 2000 to 1,746 in 2005. In the meantime, the direction of emigration has even reversed itself. In 2008 -- the most recent year with available concrete figures -- there was a net emigration of 10,147 persons to Turkey.

Germany Seals Itself Off

Sarrazin's argument that we are being infiltrated by Turks can thus hardly hold water today -- particularly since there is no longer anything close to a population explosion in Turkey, a country that is also not able to escape the demographics of the modern age. Turkish women currently have on average 2.1 children -- just enough to maintain a stable population. And the birth rate will almost certainly continue to fall there.

Nonetheless, it looks as if the politicians in Berlin have long since embraced Sarrazin's problem group definition and tailored their immigration policies accordingly. The numbers, in any case, support the assumption that Germany is sealing itself off. Neither unqualified nor qualified immigrants are apparently welcome. Only poor EU countries, from which the flow of immigration cannot be stopped, still provided significant numbers of new arrivals to Germany in 2008: 8,103 from Bulgaria and 10,447 from Romania. Statistics also reveal that over the past two years the number of people from majority Muslim countries who returned home significantly outstripped the number who immigrated to Germany.

And we are by no means being overrun by highly-qualified foreigners either: In 2008, a total of only 157 individuals from non-EU countries were granted permanent residency status -- 71 of whom came from the US. That is an impressively low number in view of the 40,000 to 80,000 vacant skilled worker positions upon which up to a quarter of a million jobs depend. One reason for the relatively low productivity of immigrants here in Germany is that we don't even allow qualified individuals into the country.

It is absurd that for years Germany has steadfastly ignored all the warning signals and refused to become a country of immigrants -- with the result that it is now de facto a country of net emigration. For many years, an annual average of 250,000 people came across the border. According to official statistics, however, since 2008 more people have been leaving the land of poets, thinkers and engineers than have been arriving. This puts Germany in a league apart -- along with Japan -- among the world's highly-developed rich industrialized nations.

Japan is a perfect example, though, of how not to do things: The birth rate there is even lower than in Germany, and foreigners make up only 1.7 percent of the population. The country resists immigration in a way that borders on xenophobia, and it is currently pursuing a repatriation program for the few immigrants that it has. All of this means that Japan is rushing toward a demographic hara-kiri. It's estimated that by the year 2050, the Japanese population will shrink from the current 127 million to 95 million and, at the same time, become extremely aged.

Shrinking and Aging Population
The future doesn't look quite so grim for Germany. But Sarrazin's visions -- slightly modified -- could come true. Even with an annual immigration rate of 100,000 to 200,000 people, Germany's Federal Statistical Office predicts that the population would decline by 12 million by the year 2050. This bloodletting, which numerically corresponds to completely emptying Germany's 12 largest cities, from Berlin to Leipzig, is optimistically calculated, however, because it is based on a level of immigration that is currently no longer taking place. [end verbatim excerpt]
 
Last edited:
It's not just the developed world. The entire planet is aging and most of it has no safety net for those ol' folks beyond the family. And when the family declines to have more than one or two children, those few young'n's will find themselves in an impossible situation. And the worst part is that to the best of my thinking, there is no solution! Somewhere between the years 2030 and 2050, the world's population will maximize and then go into sharp decline. By the end of the century, instead of a global population of the anxiously predicted nine billion, there will be no more than five billion and possibly as few as three billion. Within a couple of centuries the entirety of humanity will number no more than the current population of North America. The wildlife will thrive . . .
 
Use convict labor. Every day in the cotton fields is one less day in prison.

Our local sheriff operates a farm with greenhouses, dairy, and hogs.
 
You might know this, Pure, but some of us have asked for a moratorium on politics and economics, which more than anything serve to inflame the wingnuts into more hate speech.

The internet is a huge place, and this forum is very small, actually. I go to http://forums.craigslist.org if I want to scream about politics. If you look at the list of forums, you'll see a number to the right-- that's the number of visitors. Right now I see 2315 visitors to the politics usa forum. and 15388 on the world politics forum.

This forum averages 8-10 views per post. it's a small pond. And there aren't many forums in the interwebs that are dedicated to sex writing. Perhaps we could use it for topics that are more suited to a porn forum?
 
Hello, Pure, nice to see you again.

VM touched upon an idea I am working on; it deals with the left wing fanatic at the Discovery Channel building who was protesting babies being born and such, I will have a link to this idiots progressive manifesto.

VM projects a world with fewer humans and more earthworms; I have no idea why, perhaps she will explain.

Not questioning your motivation for sharing your thoughts, but I wonder if you would consider the larger question implied by the content and implications.

If Post Industrial societies are reproducing at less than replacement value, what is the impact of feminine liberation that seems to go hand in glove with women having fewer babies?

Societies, like everything else, evolve and constantly change, but in my mind, somehow, I doubt a society would knowingly sentence itself to extinction by lower birthrates.

What is the factor in the post industrial world that seems to limit population growth? Any speculation?

This is not to bypass your emphasis on immigration or lack of it, but an effort to expand your thesis and explore a little science fiction plot bunny for a continually decreasing population. Usually it is some sort of industry caused plague or cosmic event the sterilizes humanity.

Amicus
 
Last edited:
Hello, Pure, nice to see you again.

VM touched upon an idea I am working on; it deals with the left wing fanatic at the Discovery Channel building who was protesting babies being born and such, I will have a link to this idiots progressive manifesto.

VM projects a world with fewer humans and more earthworms; I have no idea why, perhaps she will explain.

Not questioning your motivation for sharing your thoughts, but I wonder if you would consider the larger question implied by the content and implications.

If Post Industrial societies are reproducing at less than replacement value, what is the impact of feminine liberation that seems to go hand in glove with women having fewer babies?

Societies, like everything else, evolve and constantly change, but in my mind, somehow, I doubt a society would knowingly sentence itself to extinction by lower birthrates.

What is the factor in the post industrial world that seems to limit population growth? Any speculation?

This is not to bypass your emphasis on immigration or lack of it, but an effort to expand your thesis and explore a little science fiction plot bunny for a continually decreasing population. Usually it is some sort of industry caused plague or cosmic event the sterilizes humanity.

Amicus

Using spellcheck only magnifies your lack of understanding....or perhaps you play the 'naive one' on purpose......whatever.....you are neither as 'naive' as you pretend to be nor as erudite as you pretend.....whatever lies in the middle is just that: lies.......
Engage me in a meaningful debate (wherein you will have to PROVE your ASSertions and not just Beckvent in a meaningless tirade) at your peril.....I challenge you with the knowledge that you have no bonafides to back you nor do you have any intellectual acumen to substantiate your nonsense......................
So fuck off...........dummy
 
It's not just the developed world. The entire planet is aging and most of it has no safety net for those ol' folks beyond the family. And when the family declines to have more than one or two children, those few young'n's will find themselves in an impossible situation. And the worst part is that to the best of my thinking, there is no solution! Somewhere between the years 2030 and 2050, the world's population will maximize and then go into sharp decline. By the end of the century, instead of a global population of the anxiously predicted nine billion, there will be no more than five billion and possibly as few as three billion. Within a couple of centuries the entirety of humanity will number no more than the current population of North America. The wildlife will thrive . . .

~~~

Just a curious thought, VM, as we appear to have little in common...take it as a 'thought piece' that just appeared out of the blue if you prefer.

My understanding of nature and evolution is that life thrives where-ever it can and naturally multiplies. On the evolution side, life progresses from simple to complex and seldom devolves. Although the miniturization of species, humanoid and Mammoth, has been documented, it remains an exception to the rule.

"The Foundation Trilogy" as I recall, was science fiction 3,000 years in the future when man had populated the galaxy and was continuing outwards into deep stellar space. I had to nudge memory, but, Isaac Asimov, was the author and I recall several stories by Robert Heinlein that foresaw human expansion into space as a common future of man.

I read the History of Man, as much as I can, and never cease to be amazed at the journey from the caves of France to the desolate surface of the Moon and Mars. Man is heroic in his efforts to survive and flourish; all of history illustrates that, yet you forecast a decline.

Why?

Amicus
 
I'll admit that I fail to grasp the point of the OP, so maybe I am way off here. But it seems to ignore the enormous difference between immigration and illegal immigration. One is a great goodness; the other an abomination.

If that is too difficult to comprehend, just think about the difference between drugs (aspirin, penicillin, Lipitor) and illegal drugs (heroin, cocaine, crack). The small but crucial adjective makes all the difference.
 
You might know this, Pure, but some of us have asked for a moratorium on politics and economics, which more than anything serve to inflame the wingnuts into more hate speech.......

I would endorse that moratorium. It would make my life sooo much easier to not have to constantly re-educate all you pinheads.
 
Carnevil9;[I said:
35171608]I'll admit that I fail to grasp the point of the OP, so maybe I am way off here. But it seems to ignore the enormous difference between immigration and illegal immigration. One is a great goodness; the other an abomination.

If that is too difficult to comprehend, just think about the difference between drugs (aspirin, penicillin, Lipitor) and illegal drugs (heroin, cocaine, crack). The small but crucial adjective makes all the difference.[/[/I]QUOTE]

~~~

Don't blame yourself, Carne, Pure is at best obscure and usually obtuse. His topic is Mexican illegal immigrants that he justifies by asserting that immigrants are necessary to maintain population.

I think there is an overriding question concerning population growth in almost all industrialized societies; one that I cannot really get a grasp of.

Once upon a time this was a legitimate forum for such questions; perhaps one day it will be again.

Amicus
 
I would endorse that moratorium. It would make my life sooo much easier to not have to constantly re-educate all you pinheads.
Yes, wouldn't that be nice?

You could write about sex instead. You remember-- the reason you came here in the first place...
 
note to carnevil

I'll admit that I fail to grasp the point of the OP, so maybe I am way off here. But it seems to ignore the enormous difference between immigration and illegal immigration. One is a great goodness; the other an abomination.

If that is too difficult to comprehend, just think about the difference between drugs (aspirin, penicillin, Lipitor) and illegal drugs (heroin, cocaine, crack). The small but crucial adjective makes all the difference.



Well, in theory, letting the host country choose, could be to its advantage. But as the original article suggests, politicians in Germany and elsewhere seems to be simply trying to reduce the flow. "Secure the borders!"

Taking the US case, i don't see that your analogy applies. But perhaps this variation does: If you have chemotherapy and are in a anti marijuana crazed area, you buy the stuff produced illegally in your own state. AND it works just as well. And there are few true social costs of illegal groves of MJ out in the forests, since law enforcement would incur little expense by ignoring them.

On the plus side, "illegals' " labour comes VERY cheap, likely 2-4 dollars an hour in the US. If there are indeed 12 million of them, that's a LOT of cheap labor to keep prices down for everything from lettuce to hotel rooms. One might say, this is simply the workings of the 'free market' in relation to artificially set 'minimum wage.' For after all, NO ONE wants to pay minimum wages to a lettuce picker if the lettuce will cost 6$ per head.

There is the little matter of income taxes. Like those with hereditary wealth, the "illegals" often don't pay it. (They do, when using false SS numbers, i.e those that belong to others.) This matter could be easily solved. Register them [no penalties] and tax them. So the 'no tax' objection is not really in good faith, just as the objections "prostitutes pay no taxes."

As to crime, my impression is that the rate is the same as for the general population, perhaps lower. Got any stats that show otherwise? Certainly it makes sense that if you're illegal, to keep your nose clean. If you don't, you're in great danger of being deported: i certainly support rapid deportation of the newly arrived "undocumented" who commit criminal acts.

===
As to declining birthrates. The phenom seems very general; it's bad in Japan, which is hardly known for its feminism. I doubt feminism is a key causal factor, rather than a *consequence* of advanced industrial arrangements.

There is a good survey of 'sub replacment fertility' and map of rates at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility


As to reasons, I think commonsense gives a few, esp. when one looks at the general failure of programs to raise the birth rate. The subsidies simply are paltry. The costs of daycare are a matter, in the US. The economic factors dictate the woman's work outside the home; that's a GIVEN, esp. in these recessionary times. Her decision not to have children then, is directly connected to her wish to maintain her income *for herself, and the one or two existing kids.* One can huff and puff all one wants, and try to influence her mind to bear babies, stay at home and love it; make the US white anglo woman think like a muslim!. But it won't work. Her IDEAS are not the issue.



---

To wrap up, the point of the OP was that Germany and other 'advanced countries' had better change their ways. Canada and Australia are examples of reasonable success. Germans like Americans need to think in terms of a MUCH LARGER proportion of their population being immigrant (foreign born). More mosques and Catholic churches!

The US percentage for 1970 was 5% foreign born, whereas in 1910 it was closer to 15%.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab12.html

It's risen again, after 1970, to about 15%. See the graph at
http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/charts/final.fb.shtml



Perhaps at least 20% should again be the target.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top