Why haven't you covered the most popular and widely discussed argument against migration - safety? There are multiple examples of correlation between increased migration and generally lower safety in country.
06:40 It has always struck me as nonsensical to connect wars in Asia with migrations to Europe. Because migration can be stopped at the border - but they only exist with the Ukraine, apparently. - Adûnâi
As someone from a so called "3rd world country" from northern Africa, I moved to the Netherlands nearly 3 years ago to study a bachelor's degree, I used all my savings and made huge sacrifices to come here, I feel that I am well integrated, I respect the culture, I respect the Dutch traditions and am currently learning Dutch just to feel more part of society, I met a lot of Dutch people who have been very friendly with me and welcoming. But I have to say, I absolutely hate it when I meet a refugee from Syria or something and they start talking how they "hate" the west, how they see them as immoral etc.. yet benefiting greatly from everything, I pay a lot for tuition, I am limited to working only 16 hours a week and require a work permit for it (goodluck finding an employer willing to make it for you), yet these so called refugees just get everything given to them, but still complain and refuse to integrate. I must admit I did meet some Syrians who are well integrated and studied and are now successful, and we both realized that we both hate those type of refugees that I mentioned. And they are unfortunately the majority. Here is a worse one, I have met so many people from safe north African countries who apply for asylum and because the system is so full it takes up to 9 months to process their application which will be refused anyway and they know it, but during that time they're walking around major cities, stealing, harassing women, (In the city of Ter Apel for example where the biggest refugee center is, shop lifting has become a huge problem for them, I wonder why...) and on top of that they get free shelter, food and 70 euros per week! seriously! I met them and they literally told me that and they're proud of it, I even hear them sometimes on the train talking on the phone to their friends, telling them to come and do the same thing it's so easy here, they're basically guaranteed a free place to live and food plus money for atleast 9 months, later when they eventually get rejected they're told to leave, but there's nothing you can do about it, you can't deport them because their original countries won't take them, you can't keep them in prison for longer than 90 days I believe, as that is illegal in Dutch law. For me, I absolutely hate it, I am seen just like them, although I am here doing my absolute best to integrate, and be a benefit to society, the system must change, it must become much more strict with these kind of "refugees" while making it easier for people like me, why aren't I allowed to work freely as a student for example? why is it that someone from a safe country or someone who passed through 5/6 safe countries gets all of those benefits and I get none? If the EU as a whole becomes more strict and closes off all of these loopholes, while at the same time making it easier for the "good" immigrants, this won't be an issue anymore, people will be much more open to immigration and the far right won't have anything else to talk about, the only reason they're winning elections is due to poor immigration policies and the mainstream centrist parties refusing to admit the problem and actually doing anything about it.
Shouldn't paint everyone with the same brush. Everything in life is a trade/exchange. You're offering your skills and talents to the Netherlands in return for a better life. This is the kind of person every country wants but unfortunately some people have created a stereotype and other racists unfortunately apply it to you.
You are 100% correct. Let me ask you one question. Why are the politicians not only allowing but actively supporting and creating these problems? One answer would be they don't know they are causing harm. But can we really believe that? It doesn't take all that much intelligence to understand this creates harm. I believe even average IQ person can see this. And in order to get into politics, one probably needs more than average IQ. So they have the means to understand it and in fact it is their job to understand how to run a country without harming it's people. That means they know they cause harm and they do it anyway. Well then, why do they want to do this? Money? Do they just want more cheap workers? Brainwashed with white guilt? Do they want to hurt their own people for what their ancestors did? Hatred? Do they want to get even because they feel hurt? Virtue signaling? Do they want to look morally superior by "helping" the poor? Destruction of white people, culture and values? Do they want to dilute white nations into oblivion because of whatever reason? Maybe a combination of more or even all of these to a degree? Maybe. I am not certain. The conclusion is they know they cause harm and they do it anyway. The harder they push the more problems they create the more they polarize and the coming far right extremists are of their making. This got already out of hand but it will get even worse. I am not sure how far it will get however a bloodshed wouldn't surprise me at all. Better prepare yourselves for whatever is coming.
Man as an immigrant i feel you and i hope that governments take more actions against those types of immigrants. I appreciate your struggle and you are doing great.
@@AnothertakeonthisThe difference is Irishmen actually did something good for the places they went to, you have to be kidding me to compare a barely thinking Ngogo on a rejected residency permit to the EU to Irish migrants to New England. Judge them by their fruits they said...
@@Anothertakeonthis shut the fk up 😂 the irish built my country (australia) and now the desert people and somaliana are arriving here just like the rest of the west and are shanking grandmas in shopping centres.
@@Anothertakeonthis a HUGE portion of the union army in America was made up from fresh irish immigrants. They literally helped end slavery. The camel people coming to ireland now still practice this slavery.
I recently came to Germany for my master's degree in Computer Science. The bureaucracy is crazy that I've yet to get my residence permit appointment, many staff in the immigration office say they're short-staffed and Germany's immigration system was not meant to process this many application. A lot of the refugees I've met tend to be on the lower end of the economic ladder, while economic migrants who came to Germany legally either by a work visa, or have remained in Germany after completing their education, are doing quite well and on average earn more than German citizens. These legal economic migrants tend to dislike the refugees because they give bad reputation to foreigners as a whole including the legal migrants who are net contributors. I haven't been in Germany for more than 5 months, and its obvious to see that Germany just has way too many refugees for the country to absorb, such that the legal economic migrants are being pushed to the sidelines.
One other factor: In the Netherlands only 42 percent of adult refugees have a job after 5 years in the country. So the other 58 percent live on wellfare. That's just not sustainable.
You’re really using a lot of loaded terminology in your post. There’s no distinction between legal immigrants and refugees. Seeking refuge and asylum is legal. They have as much a right to be here as you do.
Canada seems to be replicating European mistakes regarding immigration. Canada recently introduced visas for hundreds of thousands of refugees from Ukraine, Sudan, and Palestine among others with no caps. That’s on top of the huge number of students- most of those who study in “diploma mills” and temporary foreign workers. The permanent resident targets of 500,000 people a year is massive. This has led to a big increase in the population growth and a bad housing crisis. Now, even legal economic immigrants who studied legitimate degrees in legitimate universities are starting to oppose the immigration in Canada.
Seriously? Not a fucking word about crime? Even after what happend in Italy last week and what has been happening in countries like Sweeden? Absolute joke
I'm generally quite pro-immigration. But I find it utterly bewildering that so many charities and activists are devoting their time to preventing the deportation of violent criminals. Like why?! Of all things, why is that the cause they're volunteering for?!
please stop using the term fertility when you mean birthrate. low birthrate is what you mean, because of the high costs of living people don't have the amount of children necessary to keep the population on the current level (or even have a growing population, and let the world burn even quicker) low fertility is when people can't conceive children. there's a big difference between the 2 and media (like usual) keeps using the wrong term because it sounds more dramatic.
Tbf, actual Western fertility rates are also not doing great. Sperm count is much, much lower than it used to be only several decades ago. But you're right, the two shouldn't be conflated.
@@_ata_3 to make our country strong we must weaken it. Media told me so and I believe it. Ignore issues of failure to integrate, the refugee is is a kind liberal. White people are guilty of oppressing all other races, who themselves are morally virtuous. Their countries are in such a terrible condition that they flee, this is the fault of the west. The transplant will water the tree that fruits.
@@AutismaMagnaeven if that was true sperm count would absolutely not be low enough for it to actually affect male fertility. Men have practically infinite sperm.
@@declanstewart5690 Lol that is _not_ how conception works. And its not just sperm count that's down, but also sperm motility. How active your swimmers are, whether they have defects that hinder their movement and effects their ability to conceive naturally. This information is just a Google search away btw.
You're spot on. I've been trying to relocate for 5 years to the eu. Ideally the Netherlands because of my ancestry but its been so hard unless i have resources or a company sponsor me. I met a Venezuelan boy studying abroad at my university in the US who's mom just took a flight to the Netherlands and never left. He has citizenship and was at a top university in amsterdam. It's so frustrating.
The problem with fertility rates is the fact that in a family both couples need to work to survive. They simply can't afford to have a family. If governments want to increase fertility rate they need to tax the rich more or in some way give the working class more of the pie so they can afford to live comfortably. Me and my wife ain't having children because we can't afford to pay our mortgage on one wage. It's totally the governments doing. They have allowed the rich to earn far too much and the poor not enough.
Historically speaking, poor economic situations correlates really well with the volume of children. Places with the highest fertility rates are usually some of the poorest where people do nothing but work. What is happening in many western countries is some entirely new phenomenon and not because of the worsened economic outlook.
This logic never made sense to me. Africa has the highest birth rates in the world. They have the poorest countries in the world as well. Same in Asia, the asaian countries that have low birth rates are the rich industrial ones. The poor ones still have above replacement levels. In America it's not the rich city people that are having kids. It's the poor rednecks that are the ones having 4, 5 kids.
@@MidWitPrideI think it has to do with people wanting a better quality of life for themselves (rising children is difficult and in a more liberal society they feel less obligated and also used to better quality of life) and for their children (no nice way to say it but care about children more invest in them more which in turn makes it more difficult to rise them, don't make children to have more working hands or religious reasons to life of poverty like in poorer and more reactionary societies)
People used to be much less able to afford kids and had many more of them. In almost every country people have less kids the richer they get and this is true across the world.
"We have a shortage of skilled workers here in the EU." "Okay, should we let American university graduates have the same unrestricted right to work as EU members?" "Nah. Let's just let Africans who migrate illegally via boats operated by human traffickers stay forever in some nebulous legal status."
The EU cannot offer this to American graduates. If the EU did this, Americans would retaliate with offering visas to Europeans. As much as we Europeans like to shit on America, none of us is stupid enough to say no when we can work in America for 3-5x of what we would make in Europe.
@@captainvanisher988 being an islamist and a muslim and someone coming from a muslim majority country are three different things. I think you have some sort of brain damage to not see the clear distinction.
I think this video slightly misrepresented the opinions of those opposed to "immigration". I'm Irish and most people here support immigration between EU countries, taking in Ukrainian refugees, and legal immigration. But most of the migrants in our country are illegal immigrants since over a third of our "asylum seekers" had their applications rejected yet they remain in the country on state funding and housing illegally and the government does nothing about it. Legal immigration isn't the problem, the problem is taking in illegal immigrants from third world countries who didn't follow the legal procedure for immigration, don't speak the language, don't work, and don't integrate.
From the Ukraine we have people who want to work,and the fit in our own culture. But refugees/gold diggers and religion idiots from north Africa? Hell no!!
If it has a good system it is. Then it is legitimately people who want to work and make a better life for themselves, integrating into the system from the start. Which means you have to be able to speak the language, usually already have a place of work and a place of residence. That's how my brother and I came to the UK to work for many years for example.@@nonradicalnationalist6608
@@nonradicalnationalist6608 in my town we had no radiology department in the hospital because there were no qualified doctors and nurses, a group of qualified doctors and nurses came over from India and created that department in the hospital. So yes legal immigration is a good thing.
Many European countries with awful demographics also have high youth unemployment combined with early retirement. Those countries also have relatively fewer STEM graduates. So this concept of "shortage of workers" doesn't seem very persuasive to me. It seems more like there is a distortion that drives creating jobs where it is expensive to live and there are a shortage of workers.
Which 1% owns the Media ? Who writes government Propaganda ? What entity controls the education system ? Who organizes standards of living, times of increasing prosperity, followed predictably by yet another 'Depression' ? Who controls prices of everything and rakes in profits ? There are 6 companies and they are all a related tribe
Whether intentionally or unintentionally you missed the biggest point , People don't want migrants who are culturally so different that they are changing the overall culture of the country , the essence of what makes a particular country
changing the culture can be both good and bad, depends how it changes it. nazi culture of exclusion and believing themselves to be uberman should be changed... the ability of woman to marry anyone they want should be kept and even forced on incoming muslims.
Or even worst Trojan horse assimilation, where they play along until they get voting share. In Canada this is a big problem. People supposedly all in on Canada, then it turns out btw we really really hate jews. It's one thing when it's poor migrants. When you realize your Cadillac driving pharmacist hates Jews it's a whole other can of worms. @@gideonmele1556
Why didn't you mention the crime rate? The anti immigration guys always use this as their main argument. Why is it that foreign criminal like seem to be always on the news? You should have talked about that given it is the most common argument fkr the anti immigration groups.
Probably because despite how common a talking point it is, it would be refuted in 5 seconds by showing that crime rates have been falling for decades now.
The moral argument against migration is rooted in the situation in f.e. Sweden. Do you believe that gang wars, criminal activities, and siphoning off social welfare, which is sustained by coercively obtained funds from European nations, are moral?
@@thomastakesatollforthedark2231 Well actually it is. In Poland we have only main imigration from Ukraine, but not from outside Europe. And no matter how polically uncorrect it is - we do not have such issues, as ghettos, gang wars etc., as well as other countries from former Eestern Block. Low fertality rate is actaullay argument aginst migration, since we do not want to becam minority in our own country in a few generations, as obivously Sweeds will become, even if they stop any immigration right now. So maybe some Sweeds shall come to live in Poland ;-). At least it would be good to have such an option. Standard of living in Poland will most likely be, in worsce scenario, in a few decades, not worse that in "old Europe" and meanwhile Sweeden might share of fate of Detroid. Which does not make me happy, since I prefer to have stabile neighbour byond Baltic see, especially since Russia will be alwayes a threat.
@@thomastakesatollforthedark2231 Look up the difference between pre- and post-refugee crisis Swedish crime rates. It was one of the most safe and peaceful places on Earth few years back. But then Swedes started to be much more afraid of being called a r*cist than of the future of their nation.
@@borovik8714 Sweden has higher fertility rate than Poland it's not even close, Poland is at 1.3 while Sweeden is at 1.8, and also poland is not a wealthy country like Sweeden so it cant afford for it's economy to stagnate, so having a strong labour pool is key to their economic growth
@@firion666 that's more to do with the lack of integration which Sweeden did a poor job housing entire immigrat communities of one ethnicity in one area is bad they need to be dispersed and scattered as much as possible among the local population, that prevents places turning into ghetto's, many places took more migrants per capita than Sweeden and they are not facing such gang issues
As an American watching from the outside. If the EU wants/needs migrants to help with demographics there are countless Americans who would love to move to the EU. However the process is incredibly difficult. Also in countries like the Netherlands and Germany they don't allow dual citizenship.
Problem with being a duel citizen of the US and a European country is that the US government still charges taxes even if you live overseas (it is the only country in the world to do this) so if you are serious about moving overseas you would have to give up your US citizenship eventually anyway unless you want to continue paying US taxes as well as the taxes of the country you reside in. That's why you don't see as many Americans living overseas as Europeans.
No offense bro but americans get discriminated in europe too would be slightly better for the white ones but blsck americans are some of the most discriminsted even more than darker africans
Germany and the Netherlands do allow it under certain conditions (speaking as a dual Dutch and German citizen), but it _is_ pretty difficult to impossible to get for most people. But Germany is currently relaxing its restrictions, so...
The immigrants we are talking about here are slave labor. You can get on a boat from the US and work bellow minimum wage with no social security, no housing and no legal rights. This dream is accessible for any American, but somehow I think what you're actually talking about is working professionals moving to the EU with a top paying job lined up. Unfortunately, Europe does not need many of those types of people.
I know someone with dual Dutch and USAmerican citizenship, I know someone with dual Dutch and Australian citizenship, I know multiple people with dual Dutch and Turkish citizenship. You need to check your sources and stop spreading lies
The way we think about immigration has changed. People are tired of the demographic changes and just want a halt to it for a while. Of course, everyone wants the model immigrant who comes over, with the intention of integrating and integrates into the host country. We dont have this currently, we havent had this for nearly 20 years now in the UK. People just want their countries. Its about stopping the "we need it" conversation because thats just a lie to shut up the other sides legitimate concerns. Change is coming
And also falling birthrates are not justification enough to demographically replace the native people. It should mean we need to promote the births of the people who will continue our country instead of bringing people in who will be less tied to the country
@@jibster148immigrants haven’t raised crime rates. The association of immigrants to crime is non-existent has been proven time and time again. The reason you think there is because it’s more profitable for news to cover immigrant crime because it drives outrage and racism. You’ve been duped by your media.
@@jibster148 I still fail to understand the issue with falling birthrates. What do people expect, that human beings breed on the earth until we are packed like sardines? As it stands things are unsustainable, there are too many humans, that's the whole issue! "But the average citizen will be older 😢😢😢" So.What. ? Population decline ftw
I think both sides are missing the point. Most of the problems associated with migration are related to the policy of assimilation/integration, and not to the migrants themselves. If you have a well-thought-out and well-managed assimilation/integration policy, you can take advantage of the economic benefits of new people of working age, and their children will be your ordinary citizens, just with a slightly different background. But if migrants are held in their own cultural vacuum, you will had cultural enclaves that are not integrated into the rest of the society. And yea, demographics problems are not gonna fade away because of migration, second generation of migrants have the same demographic trends, as the rest of a society
Sweden and Finland had very well funded and well intended assimilation plans, no they’re some of the most anti immigration countries in the whole Europe I don’t think this is problem you can throw money at and hope it’ll fix itself
first Turkish immigrants came to Germany in the 1960s and 1970s. they haven't integrated at all. their Islamic background and also the region of Turkey they came from in which everyone was basically a peasant with zero education level. and yes, even immigrants basically stop having children, just like the native population. the whole system is built in order for people to not have children anymore in all Western development countries. and even in East Asia, like for example Japan and South Korea. Japan and South Korea are on steroids when it comes to demographics problems.
@@blacklighthologram5339 I actually think it's is the opposite, Sweden had bad assimilation policy. It isn't about money in the most cases, it's about attitude, and general policy. Throwing money, a specially in migrants, might be more harmful, then giving them opportunity, doing hard work own the right to be a citizen and a part of the nation (in the broad sense). Also, migration exposes some already president issues, like lack of police and security in the country. If you security holds on to the fact, that's your culture very egalitarian, and nobody gonna still things, you not prepared to the migration flow, and this system need reorganization.
@@LevisH21 well, Islam indeed have some cultural stubborn, but it can be delt with. Interesting European case, is Russia who has a major immigration flow from islamic countries, but they assimilate in a couple generations. Al those, it hard to guess why, maybe because of lack of social programs in Russia, or a huge experience with living side by side with Muslim population? When state does not care about native citizens, it doesn't care about migrants.
@@SaturnRingDust In my opinion, it is mostly the migrants integrating into already existing society, but society should be willing to accept the integration as well. If society not willing to accept migrants because of a background, to work, to marriage, to friendship, to community, to religion, even if migrants want to integrate them self into the rest of a country, they gonna fail, if not accept their efforts. This proses should be in the both way, the main culture should be willing to accept people, if they learn a main language, find a job, pay taxes, respected the local tradition and cultural values. But , the migrats also should be willing to do out their way, to learn all those things
Another important point to take into consideration isthe Value system Migrants have, as those coming from less developed countries hold values that can contradict and stand in opposition to our own. Like putting a square block in a round hole.
I don't see which values you're talking about. They have the same important values, like most normal and relatively morally good humans (killing is wrong, stealing is a no go, ect...). I just ask you to remember they're also people living in a society just as we do.
@@malogibeaux4946 You mean the values and customs like female genital mutilation, honor murders, forced marriages and death penalties for atheism, homosexuality and blasphemy? I know that most immigrants are not like that but some are. These issues are real problems in Europe's immigrant communities, the last one affecting the majority as well.
6:52 Hmm, Very interesting how you mentioned these very minor 'events' and not the actual major one the 2020 Evros Crisis in the Greek-Turkish border. Here is a summary to inform yourselves: In response to the dozens of Turkish soldiers killed in the attack by Syrian and Russian forces in the Idlib region, Turkey announced that it was unilaterally opening its borders to Europe to refugees and migrants, ordering the security forces located on the border with Greece to do not obstruct their passage. Within hours, large groups of migrants began arriving at the Greek-Turkish land border, with Turkey officially announcing the crossing of 80,000 migrants to Greece and the announcement of the two hundred thousand that follow. They were aided by the Turkish Armed Forces. A Turkish armored car attempted to break the border fence with no success. The Greek police forces, with the help of the citizens, managed with fire extinguishers, tear-gas, loudspeakers as well as by repairing the fence to prevent the invasion. The Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis finally closed the border for security reasons.
I migrated from Turkiye to Italy 4 years ago to study medicine. And it’s sad that in Italian government’s and most of the people’s eyes I’m same with the people who came here illegally and hanging around as they are at their home country. If you look at the topic from my perspective in order to come here I did every bureaucratic thing that I need to do and in couple years I will be a doctor which Italy needs bad, but in every government building and in some parts of social life I’m treated same with illegal non educated migrants which came from africa and middle east. So I think what EU and especially Italy needs to do is create a difference between educated high skilled migrants and other ones
EVERY European country needs to do that. I think politicians purposely conflate these 2 types of migrants. They use educated and beneficial people like you to cry "racism" when someone critizes the asylum seekers, as if they're all like you, but justify remaining in power to oppose a dangerous "far right" that they themselves create by importing illegals. It's absolutely rigged
@@okplay9446 i'm Ukrainian with university degree and independent income, Italy as a country and their migration system is a complete joke. 3rd world, some banana republic. once war settles, i'm going back with no regrets. even a post-war country would be better than this.
@@ririr2 If you're a man you need to be fighting. If you're a woman you need to be back home breeding. If you're 45+ either gender ignore this comment.
As an African Iv bever really understood migration being an issue. Rwanda is a tiny absurdly poor country, and we house 200,000 refugees and 500,000 migrants. Surely countries 20 times our size and 20 times our wealth could do MUCH more than us right? Why do we have an obligation to these foreigners but no one else does? I always assumed immigrants and refugees were a shared global burden AND benefit?
We need to be *far* more choosy when it comes to deciding who to take in and reduce the overall numbers. In the UK, few other than the usual cranks were particulary bothered when it was 30k-40k net per year (my own parents came over in the 1980s). It's now an incredible 700k, equal to the entire populations of Nottingham and Coventry combined. Which houses will those people live? Where will they see a doctor? Where will they send their kids to school? No wonder our housing market, healthcare system and schools are under such enormous strain. The other issue is the quality of migrants - the focus needs to be on high-skill migrants in high-wage jobs where there is a genuine shortage, so that they're filling a shortage and can contribute more than they take out, thereby pushing up wages overall. Instead we're importing a lot of unskilled migrants through dubious routes, so they wind up being a net drain on the state and push down wages. That's before we get to the broken asylum process, which is frankly being abused by far too many with exaggerated or false stories of repression so they can mooch off the state, because they know that Europe is a soft touch. And then there's the cultural issue where people with extremely regressive and illiberal views are being allowed in, who reject European social norms and have absolutely no intention of integrating with the host culture.
I guess we need migrations in some parts of EU. Saying that we need skilled / working independent migration. This is very different migration to the one that is coming illegally on boats without any plan and means to live here to start with.
As others have said most Europeans are not opposed to immigration per se, what they are opposed to is taking in large numbers of (mainly men) people from the 'global south' who come to mooch off the Welfare system and act like their owed a living (whilst failing to integrate). I'm an immigrant here in Norway and the better half actually forgot that I'm not ethnically Norwegian when she entered me in the last Census because I've assimilated so well. Anecdotally I've seen more Americans of Norwegian descent moving here in the past couple of years, and whilst they've picked up some *bad habits* (as my wife says) they've generally assimilated quite well. In fact (IMHO) the reality TV show "Alt For Norge" is a thinly disguised recruitment programme to attract young Norwegian Americans back home .
Living in a city with a very high immigration level, I’ve had the pleasure to work with refugees from Syria. They were hard working, honest people. I also had the displeasure of meeting a leech on society, the son of a refugee who wastes the time and money his father earned and had no prospects. This PoS threw a block of ice at the back of my head after I called him out on his BS. TLDR: With refugees, you really roll the dice on what sort of person you get.
@TLDRnewsEU in your video, starting at 1m 55s, you say "without a massive increase in productivity or the pension age... the obvious solution here is we need immigration". I disagree - what we need is a massive increase in productivity (regardless of how we tackle this, the pension age is going to be increased). If European countries import cheap labour, there is little incentive for European companies and organisations to improve productivity. Meanwhile, somewhere around the globe there is going to be some country that invests massively in automation, robotics, and AI (Artificial Intelligence) , and they will have both a higher productivity and all the "know how" relating to the automation/robotics/AI. What I am suggesting is also more humane - it does not rely on constantly exploiting less well off people from another country. Incidentally, AI is going to transform human labour in a way that very few have imagined. I suspect that twenty/thirty years from now we will be seeing vasts amount of redundancies - a level that we have never seen before. This is not something to be frightened of. At first there might be a reduction in everyone's hours, and hopefully we will develop societies where we all work a lot less, and less stress-fully, and hopefully improve quality of life, in particular family life - spending more time helping our elderly relatives, and spending quality time with our children. And taking care of people in general - regardless of there being a blood connection. Uncontrolled birth rates around the world will need to be reduced.
The data your showing is clearly only showing legal migrants that actually pay taxes like myself it is NOT showing the costs of illegal migrants. It cannot because the values you are showing we know the cost of these people to put them in hotels, feed them etc is eye watering.
For workers and skilled workers in Europe it seems no country in here has a proper system like Canada, Australia and NZ have. Even at EU level there should be much coherent policies. It's surprising that there are far more loose migrations while skilled workers and students have to wait such long times to get their visas and potentially even get rejected! Speaking of own family experience that went through the legal and proper process. Yet others are allowed to jump over fences and skip many countries to reach countries in the west.
The video should have evaluated the differnet kinds of migration separately. Generally: there are three ways how to categorize migration: refugees vs economic migrants, skilled migrants vs unskilled migrants and legal/regular migration vs illegal/irregular migration. When speaking about EU, there is fourth distinction: citizens of EU and non-EU citizens. These categories differ in its risks and benefits for the host country and in the legal and moral situation. The public view of these categories also differs.
As a European I want Europe to feel and look like Europe and not like some country outside of Europe. Immigration should be stopped and European politicians should only focus on helping out lower class to lower-middle class European families - help them find jobs, housing and help them have more kids.
We need to stop relying on the state, this whole mess its the result of the State growing more than it shoukd and meddling with everything. The welfare demographic problem its a problem of the state, not of civil society, we must return to church or find other forms to develop a civil society that can function without the state.
If the migration is by ethnic and cultural different groups and the cost of integration and increased crimiminality is not payed back by the migrants you will always see what happens now increase of nationalism and fascism
2:53 note that Denmark here is listed as having net positive financials from migration. It's well known that non-Western migrants cost the taxpayer more than they pay in, generally speaking. In other words, Western migrants more than outweigh the negative effects from non-Westerners here. I suspect this is true for some if not most countries in this chart. In any case, it was a stupid idea to value native cultures so little. We need to get back to a more collectivist system if we want to survive as a unique culture.
Here are two ways of looking at it: Taking in skilled migrants is good economically and taking in asylum seekers is good morally. or if you wanna be real about it and admit that in a capitalist system, the ruling class always benefits from cheap labour: Taking in skilled migrants is good economically and taking in asylum seekers is good economically.
Borders exist for a reason. And controlled migration is a necessity. Actually having home countries fix or remedy their issues causing migration is key. Iran and Russia back assad regime in Syria, Europe is paying price with refugees.
That Russia and Belarus was deliberately importing middle eastern asylum seekers to shove them at gunpoint to the borders of Poland and Finland should tell you everything you need to know about how these authoritarian regimes see other countries most poor and desperate people. They are only a problem that could be weaponized against their enemies. That's why Iran deliberately funds terrorists all across the ME that overthrow their also poor governments.
6:04 This is a great way of saying that if 50% of the workers in your sector are migrants (ie: in agriculture), overal salaries will drop by 30%. Yeah, pretty minimal. I wonder why there are trucks burning in the highway.
That is an awful interpretation of data. First of all it is a 1% rise, not 1% total. So your "50% of the workers in your sector" is completely wrong. Secondly, it is logical that an increase in supply (job seekers) in a particular sector would lead to a decrease in demand (wages). The reality is many of the sector in the EU don't have enough job seekers, which is increasing overall inflation as the sector is forced to increase salaries and therefore becomes less competitive. It is basic economics. We absolutely want more immigrants applying to for instance your agricultural jobs - it keeps the end prices of goods lower for consumers. And it is the same for basically every other sector - nursing, manufacturing etc.
@@serebii666 You are right, I misinterpreted. It's even worse than I thought: by the time 50% of the workers are migrants, you've had a 100% rise, meaning you get 60% worse salaries. Obviously this is a linear progression and it will probably change at some point, but still. Not great news. As for the "keeping the prices low", it is done at the expense of the current people in the sector being paid less, which of course makes them mad. Making things cheaper is all well and good until it's you who has to take the cut for it. Shouldn't the route to cheaper products be, arguably, the improvement of the processes and technologies involved, and not at the expense of individuals?
@@DudeWatIsThis "it's even worse than I thought by the time 50% of the workers are " What sort of ridiculous strawman are you trying to create here? And by absurdist extrapolation no less. No you cannot do that, not least because there are many other variables missing - like the period of such change, to the growth of job availability in the sector, to knock on effects for other sectors, to replacement rates, etc. Please stop. The only thing the statistic proves is that the direct downward pressure of immigration in that sector is still less negative than the benefit of supplying the needed labour to that sector. "done at the expense of the current people in the sector being paid less, " That is also not true. You are forgetting to factor in for instance seniority and enterprise expansion. The fact of the matter is, immigration incentivizes these sectors to remain competitive, which means existing workers in that sector continue building skills to improve their overall productivity and output, therefore renumeration. Stagnancy is a very bad concept for an economy. "Shouldn't the route to cheaper products be" Congrats on identifying the economic concept of productivity. Yes the goal of economies is to increase their labour productivity. What they absolutely do not want to see is productivity staying the same, while costs increase (i.e. by the above chronic underemployment stimulating inflation)That is very VERY bad for an economy. Immigration, including the slight downward pressure on salaries from higher supply, therefore increase productivity here, not to mention the wider demand impacts on other economic sectors as this individuals also consume things. Governments generally encourage productivity growth by giving companies subsidies (for instance to buy better machinery or research and development) or encourage work immigration and mergers, to let companies grow to larger sizes, allowing them to take advantage of the concept of "economy of scale" and "economy of scope". "and not at the expense of individuals?" The individuals are the ones creating the expense. Europe has a huge shortage of workers everywhere, which means there are empty posts everywhere. In order to fill those posts, companies today need to raise wages to poach people from other jobs - which means they are increasing costs for no extra improvement. This is why countries fear unemployment figures falling below 3% - it means there is risk for this feedback loop to form - structural issues in the labour market appear - which will increase overall inflation without contributing to any economic growth. That is why immigration is wanted - to keep these growing economic sectors supplied by labour and not go under the NAIRU.
@@serebii666 Okay, so your main complaint is my tunnel vision when extrapolating figures and hyperfocusing on a single sector. Fair. HOWEVER, I'm not sure things are going to fall into place like you say. Yes, on paper we need more labour force. The problem is, we need a lot of experienced, highly educated workers in every sector. For instance, we need programmers, and they're in India, and they work from India. Nothing is as simple as "get migrants, pay for old people". As simplistic and dumb as my "I'm in my coffee break, let's troll the Internet" approach was, yours is still way too simple still. By the way, _"You are forgetting to factor in for instance seniority and enterprise expansion."_ Yep, I'm sure seniority is a huge factor when the job is picking strawberries, lmao.
the biggest problem, that also makes it more complicated and difficult, is wars and poverty.. can probably add equality, and/or jealousy (meaning jealousy, in the selfish and negative form, and not just as a normal feeling) but also how the countries population views it, and their own situation.. you can often hear the "unfair approach", that makes it a bit like you're doomed if you do, and doomed if you don't, like... "they come here and use our hospitality, and don't do right by themselves, to find jobs and work".. but when they do work, "they steel the jobs from the rest".. and that has grown over the years, so there's more resentment.. so it's the similarities but... "we can take care of others, but not our own".. and when they get things, better treatment, benefits and so on, that others don't, it often is directed towards those people who gets it, and not the ones that gives it.. I "learned" that it has something to do with human nature, and how that is and works, that might explain some of it..
1:31 -- Migration doesn't solve this issue of low births. Immigrants also age adding to the pool of people needing a pension. They also don't have that many kids. 2:52 - The data on this has always been debatable. especially in the past decade when the amount of immigrants arriving have been of low productivity and need billions spent on them to stay in hotels. 3:16 - This principle only works under the assumption that all immigrants are saints. They are not. A lot of immigrants actively make life worse for the residents of the host country. The states MAIN PRINCIPLE is to protect you, and letting in millions of random, poor fighting age men from objectively bad countries does not protect you. 3:53 - Letting in millions of low productive, low value people who don't want to assimilate and actively hate you and your country, does not seem lie a good trade deal just to make objectively bad countries lie you more.
I don't understand why my fellow leftists don't support this "Invest in the economies of African countries" approach. You win so much with this, on both sides. Most migrants want to stay in their countries, but because of shit conditions they leave in hopes of it getting better. If you give them a prospect, good jobs, chance to build a decent future, they will just stay. Besides that, we as EU get more influence in the world again, so we can compete with China and the US. And if we don't wanna bend over backwards anymore for natural resources, we better start doing that.
Agreed. I think using a dual approach is probably where the best solution lies. I'm willing to bet that most people wouldn't want leave their homeland and culture if they thought it had a stable future and opportunity.
Thats the "Give us your hard earned money or we will mismanage our country to such a degree that our poor starving citizens will flood into your country" strategy. Great for the tirants that rule the shitty country, really bad for everyone else involved.
How can you call yourself a leftist and completely ignore how corporations strip away lots of these people of their natural resources, while giving them nothing in exchange? 💀 Also, Europe acts like it does send aid to a lot of these areas but we still send weapons to these places both legally and illegally.
There is one point you are missing. Yes Europe needs workers but why does it need them? It is because a lot of companies settle there in order to export to countries outside of the EU instead of settling in those countries. As a result there is pressure on working hours and working participation of families. There is a push for both the man and the woman of the family to work 40 hour workweeks. But that results in fewer babies. In the past a family could function on 1 income, there is no reason why it should not nowadays. This has been a cultural shift influenced by liberal capitalist influencers and policy makers that care about short term gains only.
Not exactly. All though you are correct in that ,liberal capitalist influencers and policy makers, it was mostly due to the fact that progressive socialist influencers and policy makers were promoting tis type of culture/ lifestyle with less children in order to reach an equal level in participation in the workforce. Add on that the debasement of the currency which made governments print money to pay for the "free stuff" and inflation started becoming a problem like no other.
An important nuance left out of your video is integration. Migrants that by the 3rd generation fully integrate into the receiving country are a great boon. Even on the economic side where 1st generation migrants are net takers their kids and grandkids are actually more likely than average to become net contributors. A migrant population that assimilates can be a big piece in solving demographic problems (example: the US). An immigrant population that aggressively maintains its original culture and language is a different animal. Job prospects are poorer even 2 and 3 generations in, conflict with nativist elements is greater, and you can reach levels where the native culture starts to see the recent arrivals, who are now effectively a colony even often with their own government and quasi-legal system as a threat (example: France or, increasingly, Sweden). So a policy that encourages migration must be accompanied by policies that ease and encourage integration. This is particularly challenging for Europe because religious differences are a real hinderence to integration.
"Aggressively maintains the original culture" is a function of the aggressiveness by which the country prescribes (rather than describes) their own culture. To be French is to be French, there is an authority that decides what it means to be French, and no amount of assimilation will make someone who is not French, French (that is, in the eyes of the anti-migration crowd). If the country cannot integrate the migrants the migrants will not be integrated. Your example of the US is of course a very good one, because that's actual assimilation and it occurs essentially because anyone can be American. You don't need to be a particular thing to be an American, that's the whole point. If you don't fit the mold for what it means to be German you're never going to be a German (that is, in the eyes of the anti-migrationist) and there's no amount of molding that can make some poor Senegalese bloke fit for purpose in their eyes.
@@TheFanatical1 American example is a little bit flawed from European point of view, because almost every country here is ethnic nation-state, and ethnicity and culture is strongest glue for our societies. There is also rule of blood in almost every country, so if none of your parents have German, French or Polish citizenship, you will be born without one, even if you're born in hospital in Hamburg. Culture and language is also very important to fit in, and most of EU languages are much more difficult than English. Even if almost everyone who you meet will speak English, you won't be seen as a Pole if you don't speak Polish with flawless accent. US is country built upon optimism and immigration, Europe is many nations, each with different, but stable and respected very long history and strong culture. Every neighbour is in tension with each other, so even though French and Germans are doing good, there's still scent of atrocities of last thousand years or so. Tl;dr Europe is much harder to integrate to than US, because of history and culture
"Migrants that by the 3rd generation fully integrate into the receiving country are a great boon." It depends entirely on where they are from. Afro-Caribbeans often 3rd generation and fully integrated are certainly not a great boon. What makes this particularly ironic is that often their parents are net contributors.
The OECD data shows that migrants pay more in tax than they receive in direct payments from the government. This does not include education and healthcare. Primary and secondary education cost £5k and £7k per child respectively in the UK and substantially more if the child needs language support or a teaching assistant. Current estimates are that you need to earn £41k to be a net contributor in the UK. There is a strong economic argument for allowing migrants over £41k to migrate to the UK but the argument is more complicated for people earning under that threshold
This applies for migrants already within the Eurozone. Migrants front outside of Europe, mainly middle Eastern and North African have a net negative contribution. This makes sense as one is developed to developed the other is not
Someone who came from germany to london on a work visa, and someone who sailed from africa to the UK with an inflatable boat are both migrants. One contributes to the economy, the other takes from it.
@@tedhumphries6815 Tbh, when England was within the EU, I can't imagine most EU migrants earned more than £41k. Those that stayed and had children would probably also have a negative fiscal contribution
All of the westernized/ white population dominant nations are so appealing to migrants because we in most cases look after them even better than our own We offer them safety that is harder in other places to come by despite the fact we get loads of abuse & called racist or guilted/bullied into being looked at as bad people we tend to do more than most to help many non Europeanized/ Westernized people
In my perspective, the issue lies with the average voter or politician and their inabilities to differentiate migration on a micro and macro level. On a micro perspective, there is nothing wrong with a migrant who wants to come to Europe and live a better life, no matter his background. It’s on this level most people are only able to analyze and judge migration. On a macro level, however, with mass migration things manifest themselves way different. Suddenly group dynamics, in-group preferences within an ethnicity or religion, foreign cultural norms and an unwillingness to adapt to the host country’s norms, historical interethnical feuds, traumas, etc, manifest themselves and creates major tensions within a society. I’ve seen this first hand as an ethnic Swede who have lived many years in towns with large minorities from the Middle East/Africa.
I think an important aspect you left out is the demise of European culture and people living in parallel societys. I think the numbers are to high but the main issue for me in the UK is the quality of migrants and the culture they are bringing. Those who have been arriving from Hong Kong aren't blowing themselves up on buses or throwing acid is woman's faces, we never really talk about them or hear about them, same goes for all the Ukrainians that have come. If the UK insists we need such high numbers then reduce those coming from Afghanistan/Somalia etc and invite more from Hong Kong and Ukraine
Europe DOES NOT NEED any migration, we need actual comprehensive policies aimed at increasing the birth rate, taking all the lessons learned from failures and successes of these policies. For example the Czech birth rate went from 1.1 to 1.8 ish in the last 20 years, they clearly did something right, Hungary also saw increases however not to a level which would be considered successful. If aging populations are the problem, immigration is just a temporary patchwork solution, NOT a long term one, and it causes huge negative societal impacts as well, we need to tackle the root of the problem which is low birth rates and we need to do it now with everything we got.
My man, i don't think Russia and Belarussia sent those asylum seekers to Poland and Finland respectively. It definitely seemed like hybrid warfare, i don't know what you folks are doing in Europe but here in the US that's the opposite of respect.
Let's not forget brain drain that although is good for the individual is bad for the country that invested on those individuals and lost them for rich nations.
Maybe we could remove the sexist policies around divorce, so that for men it isn't signing a contract that benefits the other party to break. Having a child is such a risk for many young men, that they are terrified to doing it. Remove this and you will have people having kids, and won't need to bring in people from other parts of the world that have polar opposite culture to the one they are moving too. This change would increase your population and lower crime.
The utilitarian argument dies out when you consider scale. You can maybe help a thousand migrants, but it will factually do nothing about the problem. You cannot help tens of millions of migrants because you will run out of resources, ending in the result that you cannot help your own population, or the migrants. Another issue is the criminality. Here in Finland certain ethnicities are as high as nine times more likely to rape, and five times as likely to commit robbery. Assault stats are pending. I do not want to turn my country into a criminal shithole. When you import an ethnicity, you import that ethnicity's values and problems. Mogadishu is Mogadishu because of the people living there, not because it's located in the Horn of Africa.
Their video on the UK housing crisis was such a massive gaslight. Not a peep about mass migration as a contributing factor even though that year we added a city the size of Glasgow to our population through new arrivals alone. Neutral and TLDR shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath.
I generally like your videos. But its a disgrace that you didnt even mention crime as a cause for being anti migration. Sweden, Italy and france are notably being hit very hard by crime, yet you make no mention of it? Disgraceful.
Accepting immigrants from outside Europe is not the correct answer to the demographic crisis, because in the long run it will lead to ethnic changes in countries and the entire continent, which will increase intercultural conflicts (especially when it comes to the Middle Easterners)
Both Europe and the USA, as well as Canada & Austrailia need a policy that welcomes people who want to integrate with the existing & successfull culture, not try to bring the culture they fled with them.
Immigration of skilled workers in a controlled manner from western countries, or those with similar cultures, is a positive thing and contributes a lot to the EU. However, the economic migration from Africa and the Middle east has been a catastrophe for the EU, especially for my country Sweden. Instead of taking in actual refugees from Ukraine, we let hundred of thousands of young men who didn't want to fight for their countries while leaving their families behind. Their culture goes against everything Sweden and the EU stands for, and now many parts of my country is basically a war zone. Everything is underfunded despite having some of the highest taxes in the world, and people are becoming even more anti-social and depressed while avoiding others when it gets dark outside.
You interpret the OECD statistic INCORRECTLY. The statistic shows the average contribution. What people seem to care about is whether the contribution from migrants > contribution from natives. The statistic does NOT support that claim. Migrant household contribute less than native ones for most countries. Mixed households contribute more than native ones for most countries. Get your stats right.
I think a country can benefit from a good implemented migration policy But it needs to have regulations and background checks Right now it's just too reckless People come in giant numbers with zero documentation and some of them are untraceable
Resolving the demographic gap requires importing cultural fit skilled labor. This is not the same as supporting unskilled, asocial and culturally unfit immigration.
That would have to be tightly controlled and only for MARRIED COUPLES. We did something similar to that here in the US. It created a generation of single mothers and disincentivized fathers in the home. That gave rise to crime and poverty.
@@ludicrousreality0governments get most of their money through taxes. By using taxes for UBI for children you're essentially having the whole population chipping in to foot the cost of raising children. Just in the same way the whole population foots the cost of state pensions.
@@MiguelDLewisit would be harsh on a child that is born to a single mother to receive no UBI whatsoever. A sliding scale with the UBI increasing based on circumstances might work. Higher UBI if married or able to show evidence of long term partnership. Higher UBI if in full time employment. Etc.
Ok for intra EU migration, the economic reasons to allow it make sense. Allow people to move where jobs are needed. For outside of Europe... well people talk about labor shortages but if someone who knows the local language can't get a job then getting importing extra workers isn't likely to solve the problem. If a company is trying to hire an Arab (usually some licensed professional like a doctor, but really it can be any job where there aren't enough locals who want to work for the company) and asks him to move to Europe, the economic reason for letting him makes perfect sense. Refugees aren't guaranteed to have companies that want to take them. As for what to do with refugees, why not just plop the ones that can't get immediate employment on some farm and have them serve 3 years as underpaid labor to compensate for the inevitable drain on social services? Maybe some countries don't have a use for extra farmhands at market rates, but I bet a lot of them can benefit from submarket underpaid labor.
"Turkey was a kew player in the Armenia and Azerbaijan conflict". WHAT??? A country that directly assisted Azerbaijan to make massacres, ethnic cleansing and to erase centenary historic sites? This channel need bether editing and more of a human rights aproach.
We need to do more to train the huge numbers of unemployed young people already here first. Where we do need immigration, it needs to be skilled migrants who integrate. For example, the unemployment level amongst Somali immigrants to the UK is 80%. Immigration of low skilled immigrants is not economically or socially beneficial whilst the UK has 800,000 young people not in education, employment or training
Comments section taking the massive W here. TLDR, please listen to people rather than parrot what elites and politicians say. That's what democracy is all about right?
I think that some reasones that are worth considering are: long time underinvestment has created lot of resentment and anger. E.g. with our without migrants, governments and private sector, are not prioritizing its citizens. Also, historic exploitation and destabilization of countres where migrants and refugees comes from, and exacerbated by climate change, simply makes the risk with upending your entire life worth it. You can observe a similar thing in the Americas, where a century long aggressive and "coupy" foreign policy, naturally, has resulted in a higher amount of refugees and migrants.
I don't think using migrants as a substitute for a lack of the 'native born' is sustainable for the country taking in, nor losing migrants, even if we were to completely ignore the issue of (an amount of) migrants being an economical net loss and/or causing/catalysing cultural friction, as far as the studies I've seen well adjusted migrant families end up with the same low birthrate as the natives, which entails the need for a pernament migration from less developed countries to western countries in order to lessen the blow of population collapse, migrants far more needed in their country of birth in order to develop it (if we believe this is possible); and increase the braindrain from said countries.
first of all...illegal migration should be completely not allowed....now when it comes to immigration...it depends on what kind of migrants you'll take in.......in the US, so many talented individuals from all over the world migrate there...this is the secret why the US is able to keep up with the competition....I think this is a good model that Europe should copy.....only those who can really be an asset to society should be taken in
In Netherlands, i say the main issue is the migrant commiting crime, Being Jobless, homeless. Id like to see more of skilled migrant, but mist migrant coming to europe are likw young people who commit crime, jobless, and take up tax money tk feed themselves. Thats the main problem, thats why I consider VVD is one of the way.
I don't think many people complain if migrants are high quality - i.e. migrants from France after Hollande's tax reforms or migrants from Hong Kong after the protests. The trouble is - we've been getting a lot of shitty migrants recently.
i really think that the best way 1st world countries can help poorer countries, is to just make it so that people who live there arent forced to flee. obviously you will have immigrants, if the place where they are born forces them to starve, fear prosecution, etc. PS: I really appreciate the attempts to stay neutral/objective
No, we don't need migration. My country is not accepting any of those, we have the right to choose who will we accept, and the right to defend our country and culture. So, none of those who are coming from those countries below. There are few rich Muslim countries, let them accept those.
The problem is not only the number of immigrants but the TYPE Europe is getting. Why not increase immigration from Latin American countries who are culturally more similar to Europe? The vast influx of Middle Eastern Muslims is what has caused the problems.
4:15 for the moral argument that turkey did better after accepting eastern european immigrants, i argue that it only works when you have a similar culture. turkey taking in people from eastern europe, especially people who want to move away, works because they come from a close region and share ideals for the most part. europe for the most part isn't taking in people who have attachments to european cultures, its arabic and north african people who are often muslim, and share no attachment or similarity to the culture of the country they arrive in. if anything some immigrants are almost hostile to the culture as muslim religious beliefs don't always meld with Christian cultural norms.
People need to study the Lebanon Civil War so that they can see what happens when Muslims take over your country. Lebanon used to be great when it was majority Christian while today after the civil war its a third world Islamic shit hole that's so far only barely avoided becoming a complete puppet to Iran
The answer: no. We need a new economic model that isn’t reliant on immigrants giving us tax and leaving to pay for an aging population. It’s so messed up and all these intellectual types think it’s just how things have to be.
also, even if we take that question from a purely humanitarian + left-wing perspective , that very mechanism, to continue working (having workers coming from abroad to work and pay for older gen of local people being able to retire) mean that for this system to continue working in the long run, there would be a necessity to keep some countries unliveable to keep the constant supply of human so, basically, it mean that the current way of dealing with EU's young people shortage is a way that inherently *need* human suffering to happen somewhere. also, from a purely economic and right-leaning point of view, this constant flow of lower cost worker ensure that companies to not need to put any effort into research and development of anything -robotic related nor into any form of automation (why bother taking the cost of developing way sof automating work if there is a constant supply of workers?) therefore, it hinder technological development. (while, on the contrary, a labor shortage and some regulation to prevent company from outsourcing production sites + some government subsidies for any effort to automate work, would make, trough the mechanism of offer, demand, and employee-employers negotiation, make human workers locally prohibitely expensive and , without the ability to go seek for cheaper workforce elsewhere, companies's only choice for survival would become to find ways to automate as much production process as they can to stay competitive) [a good exemple of how cheap labor hinder automatisation of work can be seen in the history of some ancient mediteranean civilisations like ancient greece and rome, where the fact that steam can be used to produce a mechanical push was already understood by some people, yet no widespread adoption of steam engine happened, as the constant supply of slaves made redundant to try to invent machines to do some work]
If 1% imigration in some sector devalues its wages by 0,6 that means if it is proportional (which I doubt) 10% devalues it by 6% which is significant margin. Nonetheless unfortunately that study forget to focus on makroeconomic impact - If wages in some field decrease that alleviates pressure to other fields to push wages up to not loose employees to that "easier" sector. Funny about this is Switzerland which has pretty strict migration politics and it shows on graph. Also one argument against is missing and that is the most important one and that is public order. Nobody ever came with good argument against cultural compatibility issues. As we can see problems i Sweden or France are nonexistent in Poland or Czech republic in regards to migration. Europe does not have middle eastern mentality and Europe does not want middle eastern mentality (or at least some of us). That is also reason why Czech republic and Poland are two most welcoming countries for Ukrainians, because they don't have that middle eastern mentality. Do we complain about Ukrainians and do we want mandatorial relocation mechanism to other countries like western europe wanted? No... why? Because we are reasonable and we know who can live here and who has mentality which does not belong to Europe. Look at who they are. What problems they do and then look what our values are and what we want.
💡 Got a Topic Suggestion, what should we be covering in videos going forward? Let us know! - forms.gle/mahEFmsW1yGTNEYXA
Why haven't you covered the most popular and widely discussed argument against migration - safety?
There are multiple examples of correlation between increased migration and generally lower safety in country.
06:40 It has always struck me as nonsensical to connect wars in Asia with migrations to Europe. Because migration can be stopped at the border - but they only exist with the Ukraine, apparently.
- Adûnâi
your Nord VPN AD has a visual error, when they click on Spain to change the location, it moves to Japan.
Scotland Wales and England are welcome to join the EU anytime ❤😂🎉. to improve their economy 😮😅😊
How would an EU look like, if major Governments went far right Orbánism. France, Germany etc
As someone from a so called "3rd world country" from northern Africa, I moved to the Netherlands nearly 3 years ago to study a bachelor's degree, I used all my savings and made huge sacrifices to come here, I feel that I am well integrated, I respect the culture, I respect the Dutch traditions and am currently learning Dutch just to feel more part of society, I met a lot of Dutch people who have been very friendly with me and welcoming.
But I have to say, I absolutely hate it when I meet a refugee from Syria or something and they start talking how they "hate" the west, how they see them as immoral etc.. yet benefiting greatly from everything, I pay a lot for tuition, I am limited to working only 16 hours a week and require a work permit for it (goodluck finding an employer willing to make it for you), yet these so called refugees just get everything given to them, but still complain and refuse to integrate. I must admit I did meet some Syrians who are well integrated and studied and are now successful, and we both realized that we both hate those type of refugees that I mentioned. And they are unfortunately the majority.
Here is a worse one, I have met so many people from safe north African countries who apply for asylum and because the system is so full it takes up to 9 months to process their application which will be refused anyway and they know it, but during that time they're walking around major cities, stealing, harassing women, (In the city of Ter Apel for example where the biggest refugee center is, shop lifting has become a huge problem for them, I wonder why...) and on top of that they get free shelter, food and 70 euros per week! seriously! I met them and they literally told me that and they're proud of it, I even hear them sometimes on the train talking on the phone to their friends, telling them to come and do the same thing it's so easy here, they're basically guaranteed a free place to live and food plus money for atleast 9 months, later when they eventually get rejected they're told to leave, but there's nothing you can do about it, you can't deport them because their original countries won't take them, you can't keep them in prison for longer than 90 days I believe, as that is illegal in Dutch law.
For me, I absolutely hate it, I am seen just like them, although I am here doing my absolute best to integrate, and be a benefit to society, the system must change, it must become much more strict with these kind of "refugees" while making it easier for people like me, why aren't I allowed to work freely as a student for example? why is it that someone from a safe country or someone who passed through 5/6 safe countries gets all of those benefits and I get none?
If the EU as a whole becomes more strict and closes off all of these loopholes, while at the same time making it easier for the "good" immigrants, this won't be an issue anymore, people will be much more open to immigration and the far right won't have anything else to talk about, the only reason they're winning elections is due to poor immigration policies and the mainstream centrist parties refusing to admit the problem and actually doing anything about it.
Shouldn't paint everyone with the same brush. Everything in life is a trade/exchange. You're offering your skills and talents to the Netherlands in return for a better life. This is the kind of person every country wants but unfortunately some people have created a stereotype and other racists unfortunately apply it to you.
You've taken a job that would've been filled by an european
You are 100% correct. Let me ask you one question. Why are the politicians not only allowing but actively supporting and creating these problems? One answer would be they don't know they are causing harm. But can we really believe that? It doesn't take all that much intelligence to understand this creates harm. I believe even average IQ person can see this. And in order to get into politics, one probably needs more than average IQ. So they have the means to understand it and in fact it is their job to understand how to run a country without harming it's people. That means they know they cause harm and they do it anyway.
Well then, why do they want to do this? Money? Do they just want more cheap workers? Brainwashed with white guilt? Do they want to hurt their own people for what their ancestors did? Hatred? Do they want to get even because they feel hurt? Virtue signaling? Do they want to look morally superior by "helping" the poor? Destruction of white people, culture and values? Do they want to dilute white nations into oblivion because of whatever reason? Maybe a combination of more or even all of these to a degree?
Maybe. I am not certain. The conclusion is they know they cause harm and they do it anyway. The harder they push the more problems they create the more they polarize and the coming far right extremists are of their making. This got already out of hand but it will get even worse. I am not sure how far it will get however a bloodshed wouldn't surprise me at all. Better prepare yourselves for whatever is coming.
Man as an immigrant i feel you and i hope that governments take more actions against those types of immigrants.
I appreciate your struggle and you are doing great.
@Colby_0-3_IRL_and_title_fights I agree, but don't you think irresponsible immigration policy has led to more stereotyping? And racism?
The question should rather be: What kind of immigration does Europe need. Not the one we got now for certain.
I dunno
Maybe we should focus on our youth, to fill the gap on the labour market.
No the original question is alright
No migration, period.
Oh yeah that's what Europe needs more young Muslims to replace their native population🤦@@BlueTigerReal
3% of all people in Ireland arrived last year...
@@AnothertakeonthisThe difference is Irishmen actually did something good for the places they went to, you have to be kidding me to compare a barely thinking Ngogo on a rejected residency permit to the EU to Irish migrants to New England. Judge them by their fruits they said...
@@Anothertakeonthis The irish living in ireland arent the ones that immigrated out, Im not sure how its ironic
@@Anothertakeonthis shut the fk up 😂 the irish built my country (australia) and now the desert people and somaliana are arriving here just like the rest of the west and are shanking grandmas in shopping centres.
@@soooslaaal8204 "barely thinking Ngogo"
tell us how you really feel
@@Anothertakeonthis a HUGE portion of the union army in America was made up from fresh irish immigrants. They literally helped end slavery. The camel people coming to ireland now still practice this slavery.
I recently came to Germany for my master's degree in Computer Science. The bureaucracy is crazy that I've yet to get my residence permit appointment, many staff in the immigration office say they're short-staffed and Germany's immigration system was not meant to process this many application. A lot of the refugees I've met tend to be on the lower end of the economic ladder, while economic migrants who came to Germany legally either by a work visa, or have remained in Germany after completing their education, are doing quite well and on average earn more than German citizens. These legal economic migrants tend to dislike the refugees because they give bad reputation to foreigners as a whole including the legal migrants who are net contributors. I haven't been in Germany for more than 5 months, and its obvious to see that Germany just has way too many refugees for the country to absorb, such that the legal economic migrants are being pushed to the sidelines.
One other factor: In the Netherlands only 42 percent of adult refugees have a job after 5 years in the country. So the other 58 percent live on wellfare. That's just not sustainable.
Interesting
You’re really using a lot of loaded terminology in your post. There’s no distinction between legal immigrants and refugees. Seeking refuge and asylum is legal. They have as much a right to be here as you do.
Immigrant complaining about other immigrants.
Canada seems to be replicating European mistakes regarding immigration. Canada recently introduced visas for hundreds of thousands of refugees from Ukraine, Sudan, and Palestine among others with no caps. That’s on top of the huge number of students- most of those who study in “diploma mills” and temporary foreign workers. The permanent resident targets of 500,000 people a year is massive. This has led to a big increase in the population growth and a bad housing crisis. Now, even legal economic immigrants who studied legitimate degrees in legitimate universities are starting to oppose the immigration in Canada.
Seriously? Not a fucking word about crime? Even after what happend in Italy last week and what has been happening in countries like Sweeden? Absolute joke
What did you expect there leftist who support mass migration
I'm generally quite pro-immigration. But I find it utterly bewildering that so many charities and activists are devoting their time to preventing the deportation of violent criminals. Like why?! Of all things, why is that the cause they're volunteering for?!
Do they just think anything which upsets right-wingers must be good?
Is it being funded by geopolitical adversaries as a destabilization tactic?
@@andybrice2711Because that's who they personally identify with, the dregs of society, the farthest outgroups possible and the spiteful mutants.
@@andybrice2711 The white saviour complex.
please stop using the term fertility when you mean birthrate.
low birthrate is what you mean, because of the high costs of living people don't have the amount of children necessary to keep the population on the current level (or even have a growing population, and let the world burn even quicker)
low fertility is when people can't conceive children.
there's a big difference between the 2 and media (like usual) keeps using the wrong term because it sounds more dramatic.
Tbf, actual Western fertility rates are also not doing great. Sperm count is much, much lower than it used to be only several decades ago.
But you're right, the two shouldn't be conflated.
True, anyways recovering the population by increasing birthrate will take so much time it would not arrive on time. Its quicker to let migrants in.
@@_ata_3 to make our country strong we must weaken it. Media told me so and I believe it. Ignore issues of failure to integrate, the refugee is is a kind liberal. White people are guilty of oppressing all other races, who themselves are morally virtuous. Their countries are in such a terrible condition that they flee, this is the fault of the west. The transplant will water the tree that fruits.
@@AutismaMagnaeven if that was true sperm count would absolutely not be low enough for it to actually affect male fertility. Men have practically infinite sperm.
@@declanstewart5690 Lol that is _not_ how conception works.
And its not just sperm count that's down, but also sperm motility. How active your swimmers are, whether they have defects that hinder their movement and effects their ability to conceive naturally.
This information is just a Google search away btw.
EU countries make me laugh
Its so difficult to legally get in and stay, come illegally though and you're all good?
You're spot on. I've been trying to relocate for 5 years to the eu. Ideally the Netherlands because of my ancestry but its been so hard unless i have resources or a company sponsor me. I met a Venezuelan boy studying abroad at my university in the US who's mom just took a flight to the Netherlands and never left. He has citizenship and was at a top university in amsterdam. It's so frustrating.
It is not a Disneyland where you can do whatever you want .
@@lefthand4943might aswell be bcos if you can just go and not have to got through the legal process of migration why would you?
@@chrisj-zk1tgare you south African?
@@NuzayhEbrahim I'm american
The problem with fertility rates is the fact that in a family both couples need to work to survive. They simply can't afford to have a family. If governments want to increase fertility rate they need to tax the rich more or in some way give the working class more of the pie so they can afford to live comfortably. Me and my wife ain't having children because we can't afford to pay our mortgage on one wage. It's totally the governments doing. They have allowed the rich to earn far too much and the poor not enough.
Historically speaking, poor economic situations correlates really well with the volume of children. Places with the highest fertility rates are usually some of the poorest where people do nothing but work. What is happening in many western countries is some entirely new phenomenon and not because of the worsened economic outlook.
100 percent agree, to much is focused on both partners to work.
This logic never made sense to me. Africa has the highest birth rates in the world. They have the poorest countries in the world as well. Same in Asia, the asaian countries that have low birth rates are the rich industrial ones. The poor ones still have above replacement levels. In America it's not the rich city people that are having kids. It's the poor rednecks that are the ones having 4, 5 kids.
@@MidWitPrideI think it has to do with people wanting a better quality of life for themselves (rising children is difficult and in a more liberal society they feel less obligated and also used to better quality of life) and for their children (no nice way to say it but care about children more invest in them more which in turn makes it more difficult to rise them, don't make children to have more working hands or religious reasons to life of poverty like in poorer and more reactionary societies)
People used to be much less able to afford kids and had many more of them. In almost every country people have less kids the richer they get and this is true across the world.
"We have a shortage of skilled workers here in the EU."
"Okay, should we let American university graduates have the same unrestricted right to work as EU members?"
"Nah. Let's just let Africans who migrate illegally via boats operated by human traffickers stay forever in some nebulous legal status."
You saw the chart in video where irregular migration is 5% of all the migration?
Wouldn't be surprised if American schooling is worse lol
The EU cannot offer this to American graduates. If the EU did this, Americans would retaliate with offering visas to Europeans. As much as we Europeans like to shit on America, none of us is stupid enough to say no when we can work in America for 3-5x of what we would make in Europe.
@@mcboat3467 ?? Germany has a population of 6-8 million islamists. Sweden's 15% of the population is islamist. I can go on and on btw.
@@captainvanisher988 being an islamist and a muslim and someone coming from a muslim majority country are three different things. I think you have some sort of brain damage to not see the clear distinction.
I think this video slightly misrepresented the opinions of those opposed to "immigration". I'm Irish and most people here support immigration between EU countries, taking in Ukrainian refugees, and legal immigration. But most of the migrants in our country are illegal immigrants since over a third of our "asylum seekers" had their applications rejected yet they remain in the country on state funding and housing illegally and the government does nothing about it. Legal immigration isn't the problem, the problem is taking in illegal immigrants from third world countries who didn't follow the legal procedure for immigration, don't speak the language, don't work, and don't integrate.
couldn't have said it better. thank god there are people who actually understand the issue!
Legal immigration is no better
From the Ukraine we have people who want to work,and the fit in our own culture.
But refugees/gold diggers and religion idiots from north Africa?
Hell no!!
If it has a good system it is. Then it is legitimately people who want to work and make a better life for themselves, integrating into the system from the start. Which means you have to be able to speak the language, usually already have a place of work and a place of residence. That's how my brother and I came to the UK to work for many years for example.@@nonradicalnationalist6608
@@nonradicalnationalist6608 in my town we had no radiology department in the hospital because there were no qualified doctors and nurses, a group of qualified doctors and nurses came over from India and created that department in the hospital. So yes legal immigration is a good thing.
Many European countries with awful demographics also have high youth unemployment combined with early retirement. Those countries also have relatively fewer STEM graduates. So this concept of "shortage of workers" doesn't seem very persuasive to me. It seems more like there is a distortion that drives creating jobs where it is expensive to live and there are a shortage of workers.
Turkey has also blackmailed migration many times.
Where was the cultural argument? And the crime argument?
Which 1% owns the Media ? Who writes government Propaganda ?
What entity controls the education system ?
Who organizes standards of living, times of increasing prosperity,
followed predictably by yet another 'Depression' ?
Who controls prices of everything and rakes in profits ?
There are 6 companies and they are all a related tribe
They always ignore crime its the strongest argument
@@deeznutz8320 it's because it's a bullshit argument, crime statistics can be very unreliable and used to push an agenda
These are left leaning liberals. What do you expect?
@@deeznutz8320It's actually one of the weakest, as multiple studies have shown immigrants have significantly lower crime rates than citizens.
At least everyone here agrees that it can’t go on like it does right now.
it's fine right now.
@Anothertakeonthis we break record after record of immigrants every other year
@@daxtynminn3415are you for real? Wake up man to the threat Islam poses to our way of life.
@@davidevans916 bro stop being racist to muslims.
Putin is the first to agree. And then all the far right euroskeptick parties he funds. In front of all, russian shills and trolls on internet.
Whether intentionally or unintentionally you missed the biggest point ,
People don't want migrants who are culturally so different that they are changing the overall culture of the country , the essence of what makes a particular country
changing the culture can be both good and bad, depends how it changes it. nazi culture of exclusion and believing themselves to be uberman should be changed... the ability of woman to marry anyone they want should be kept and even forced on incoming muslims.
And who tend to be hostile to assimilating
Or even worst Trojan horse assimilation, where they play along until they get voting share. In Canada this is a big problem. People supposedly all in on Canada, then it turns out btw we really really hate jews. It's one thing when it's poor migrants. When you realize your Cadillac driving pharmacist hates Jews it's a whole other can of worms. @@gideonmele1556
Why didn't you mention the crime rate? The anti immigration guys always use this as their main argument. Why is it that foreign criminal like seem to be always on the news? You should have talked about that given it is the most common argument fkr the anti immigration groups.
It's reasonable that people don't want their prison systems filled up with guest criminals being payed for by their host country
Can't parse your second sentence.
Probably because despite how common a talking point it is, it would be refuted in 5 seconds by showing that crime rates have been falling for decades now.
It is a good argument, taking into account how many such cases are there and their nature.
@@MalloonTarka bullshit, look at Sweden.
The moral argument against migration is rooted in the situation in f.e. Sweden. Do you believe that gang wars, criminal activities, and siphoning off social welfare, which is sustained by coercively obtained funds from European nations, are moral?
That isn't inherent to the presence of refugees or migrants
@@thomastakesatollforthedark2231 Well actually it is. In Poland we have only main imigration from Ukraine, but not from outside Europe. And no matter how polically uncorrect it is - we do not have such issues, as ghettos, gang wars etc., as well as other countries from former Eestern Block. Low fertality rate is actaullay argument aginst migration, since we do not want to becam minority in our own country in a few generations, as obivously Sweeds will become, even if they stop any immigration right now. So maybe some Sweeds shall come to live in Poland ;-). At least it would be good to have such an option. Standard of living in Poland will most likely be, in worsce scenario, in a few decades, not worse that in "old Europe" and meanwhile Sweeden might share of fate of Detroid. Which does not make me happy, since I prefer to have stabile neighbour byond Baltic see, especially since Russia will be alwayes a threat.
@@thomastakesatollforthedark2231 Look up the difference between pre- and post-refugee crisis Swedish crime rates.
It was one of the most safe and peaceful places on Earth few years back. But then Swedes started to be much more afraid of being called a r*cist than of the future of their nation.
@@borovik8714 Sweden has higher fertility rate than Poland it's not even close, Poland is at 1.3 while Sweeden is at 1.8, and also poland is not a wealthy country like Sweeden so it cant afford for it's economy to stagnate, so having a strong labour pool is key to their economic growth
@@firion666 that's more to do with the lack of integration which Sweeden did a poor job housing entire immigrat communities of one ethnicity in one area is bad they need to be dispersed and scattered as much as possible among the local population, that prevents places turning into ghetto's, many places took more migrants per capita than Sweeden and they are not facing such gang issues
As an American watching from the outside. If the EU wants/needs migrants to help with demographics there are countless Americans who would love to move to the EU. However the process is incredibly difficult. Also in countries like the Netherlands and Germany they don't allow dual citizenship.
Problem with being a duel citizen of the US and a European country is that the US government still charges taxes even if you live overseas (it is the only country in the world to do this) so if you are serious about moving overseas you would have to give up your US citizenship eventually anyway unless you want to continue paying US taxes as well as the taxes of the country you reside in. That's why you don't see as many Americans living overseas as Europeans.
No offense bro but americans get discriminated in europe too would be slightly better for the white ones but blsck americans are some of the most discriminsted even more than darker africans
Germany and the Netherlands do allow it under certain conditions (speaking as a dual Dutch and German citizen), but it _is_ pretty difficult to impossible to get for most people. But Germany is currently relaxing its restrictions, so...
The immigrants we are talking about here are slave labor. You can get on a boat from the US and work bellow minimum wage with no social security, no housing and no legal rights. This dream is accessible for any American, but somehow I think what you're actually talking about is working professionals moving to the EU with a top paying job lined up. Unfortunately, Europe does not need many of those types of people.
I know someone with dual Dutch and USAmerican citizenship, I know someone with dual Dutch and Australian citizenship, I know multiple people with dual Dutch and Turkish citizenship.
You need to check your sources and stop spreading lies
The way we think about immigration has changed. People are tired of the demographic changes and just want a halt to it for a while. Of course, everyone wants the model immigrant who comes over, with the intention of integrating and integrates into the host country. We dont have this currently, we havent had this for nearly 20 years now in the UK. People just want their countries. Its about stopping the "we need it" conversation because thats just a lie to shut up the other sides legitimate concerns. Change is coming
And also falling birthrates are not justification enough to demographically replace the native people. It should mean we need to promote the births of the people who will continue our country instead of bringing people in who will be less tied to the country
Plus, nobody is complaining about western European or westernised Asian migration. For obvious reasons. Less machete attacks and acid attacks
@@jibster148immigrants haven’t raised crime rates. The association of immigrants to crime is non-existent has been proven time and time again. The reason you think there is because it’s more profitable for news to cover immigrant crime because it drives outrage and racism.
You’ve been duped by your media.
@@jibster148 I still fail to understand the issue with falling birthrates. What do people expect, that human beings breed on the earth until we are packed like sardines? As it stands things are unsustainable, there are too many humans, that's the whole issue!
"But the average citizen will be older 😢😢😢" So.What. ?
Population decline ftw
@@kingartifex Tell that to that bunch that wants in.
I think both sides are missing the point. Most of the problems associated with migration are related to the policy of assimilation/integration, and not to the migrants themselves. If you have a well-thought-out and well-managed assimilation/integration policy, you can take advantage of the economic benefits of new people of working age, and their children will be your ordinary citizens, just with a slightly different background. But if migrants are held in their own cultural vacuum, you will had cultural enclaves that are not integrated into the rest of the society.
And yea, demographics problems are not gonna fade away because of migration, second generation of migrants have the same demographic trends, as the rest of a society
Sweden and Finland had very well funded and well intended assimilation plans, no they’re some of the most anti immigration countries in the whole Europe I don’t think this is problem you can throw money at and hope it’ll fix itself
first Turkish immigrants came to Germany in the 1960s and 1970s.
they haven't integrated at all.
their Islamic background and also the region of Turkey they came from in which everyone was basically a peasant with zero education level.
and yes, even immigrants basically stop having children, just like the native population.
the whole system is built in order for people to not have children anymore in all Western development countries.
and even in East Asia, like for example Japan and South Korea.
Japan and South Korea are on steroids when it comes to demographics problems.
@@blacklighthologram5339 I actually think it's is the opposite, Sweden had bad assimilation policy. It isn't about money in the most cases, it's about attitude, and general policy. Throwing money, a specially in migrants, might be more harmful, then giving them opportunity, doing hard work own the right to be a citizen and a part of the nation (in the broad sense).
Also, migration exposes some already president issues, like lack of police and security in the country. If you security holds on to the fact, that's your culture very egalitarian, and nobody gonna still things, you not prepared to the migration flow, and this system need reorganization.
@@LevisH21 well, Islam indeed have some cultural stubborn, but it can be delt with. Interesting European case, is Russia who has a major immigration flow from islamic countries, but they assimilate in a couple generations. Al those, it hard to guess why, maybe because of lack of social programs in Russia, or a huge experience with living side by side with Muslim population? When state does not care about native citizens, it doesn't care about migrants.
@@SaturnRingDust In my opinion, it is mostly the migrants integrating into already existing society, but society should be willing to accept the integration as well.
If society not willing to accept migrants because of a background, to work, to marriage, to friendship, to community, to religion, even if migrants want to integrate them self into the rest of a country, they gonna fail, if not accept their efforts.
This proses should be in the both way, the main culture should be willing to accept people, if they learn a main language, find a job, pay taxes, respected the local tradition and cultural values. But , the migrats also should be willing to do out their way, to learn all those things
Another important point to take into consideration isthe Value system Migrants have, as those coming from less developed countries hold values that can contradict and stand in opposition to our own. Like putting a square block in a round hole.
Most immigrants i know that got naturalized tend to be conservative and support right leaning political parties
I don't see which values you're talking about. They have the same important values, like most normal and relatively morally good humans (killing is wrong, stealing is a no go, ect...). I just ask you to remember they're also people living in a society just as we do.
@@malogibeaux4946 Killing is wrong unless you draw a picture of Muhammad(PBUH) then its fair game
@@malogibeaux4946my god how naive are you.
Have you been to Afghanistan? If you have like me you would not want these people anywhere near Europe.
@@malogibeaux4946 You mean the values and customs like female genital mutilation, honor murders, forced marriages and death penalties for atheism, homosexuality and blasphemy? I know that most immigrants are not like that but some are. These issues are real problems in Europe's immigrant communities, the last one affecting the majority as well.
6:52 Hmm, Very interesting how you mentioned these very minor 'events' and not the actual major one the 2020 Evros Crisis in the Greek-Turkish border. Here is a summary to inform yourselves:
In response to the dozens of Turkish soldiers killed in the attack by Syrian and Russian forces in the Idlib region, Turkey announced that it was unilaterally opening its borders to Europe to refugees and migrants, ordering the security forces located on the border with Greece to do not obstruct their passage. Within hours, large groups of migrants began arriving at the Greek-Turkish land border, with Turkey officially announcing the crossing of 80,000 migrants to Greece and the announcement of the two hundred thousand that follow. They were aided by the Turkish Armed Forces. A Turkish armored car attempted to break the border fence with no success. The Greek police forces, with the help of the citizens, managed with fire extinguishers, tear-gas, loudspeakers as well as by repairing the fence to prevent the invasion. The Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis finally closed the border for security reasons.
I migrated from Turkiye to Italy 4 years ago to study medicine. And it’s sad that in Italian government’s and most of the people’s eyes I’m same with the people who came here illegally and hanging around as they are at their home country. If you look at the topic from my perspective in order to come here I did every bureaucratic thing that I need to do and in couple years I will be a doctor which Italy needs bad, but in every government building and in some parts of social life I’m treated same with illegal non educated migrants which came from africa and middle east. So I think what EU and especially Italy needs to do is create a difference between educated high skilled migrants and other ones
EVERY European country needs to do that. I think politicians purposely conflate these 2 types of migrants. They use educated and beneficial people like you to cry "racism" when someone critizes the asylum seekers, as if they're all like you, but justify remaining in power to oppose a dangerous "far right" that they themselves create by importing illegals. It's absolutely rigged
@@okplay9446 i'm Ukrainian with university degree and independent income, Italy as a country and their migration system is a complete joke. 3rd world, some banana republic. once war settles, i'm going back with no regrets. even a post-war country would be better than this.
@@ririr2 If you're a man you need to be fighting. If you're a woman you need to be back home breeding. If you're 45+ either gender ignore this comment.
@@ririr2 best of luck
@@okplay9446 thank you! in fact, just waiting for this to happen.
As an African Iv bever really understood migration being an issue. Rwanda is a tiny absurdly poor country, and we house 200,000 refugees and 500,000 migrants. Surely countries 20 times our size and 20 times our wealth could do MUCH more than us right? Why do we have an obligation to these foreigners but no one else does? I always assumed immigrants and refugees were a shared global burden AND benefit?
We need to be *far* more choosy when it comes to deciding who to take in and reduce the overall numbers. In the UK, few other than the usual cranks were particulary bothered when it was 30k-40k net per year (my own parents came over in the 1980s). It's now an incredible 700k, equal to the entire populations of Nottingham and Coventry combined. Which houses will those people live? Where will they see a doctor? Where will they send their kids to school? No wonder our housing market, healthcare system and schools are under such enormous strain.
The other issue is the quality of migrants - the focus needs to be on high-skill migrants in high-wage jobs where there is a genuine shortage, so that they're filling a shortage and can contribute more than they take out, thereby pushing up wages overall. Instead we're importing a lot of unskilled migrants through dubious routes, so they wind up being a net drain on the state and push down wages.
That's before we get to the broken asylum process, which is frankly being abused by far too many with exaggerated or false stories of repression so they can mooch off the state, because they know that Europe is a soft touch. And then there's the cultural issue where people with extremely regressive and illiberal views are being allowed in, who reject European social norms and have absolutely no intention of integrating with the host culture.
Incentives for older people to retire overseas, like Thailand etc.
I got an uncle who is moving to Spain for retirement cause it’s cheap hope this helps 👍
thailand has some good incentives ..
I think a lot people don’t really understand that kids in developed economies change from free labor to one of most expensive things ever
I guess we need migrations in some parts of EU. Saying that we need skilled / working independent migration. This is very different migration to the one that is coming illegally on boats without any plan and means to live here to start with.
We don't really need immigration. But some special itnerests benefit from immigration strangling down wages and increasing inequality.
As others have said most Europeans are not opposed to immigration per se, what they are opposed to is taking in large numbers of (mainly men) people from the 'global south' who come to mooch off the Welfare system and act like their owed a living (whilst failing to integrate). I'm an immigrant here in Norway and the better half actually forgot that I'm not ethnically Norwegian when she entered me in the last Census because I've assimilated so well.
Anecdotally I've seen more Americans of Norwegian descent moving here in the past couple of years, and whilst they've picked up some *bad habits* (as my wife says) they've generally assimilated quite well. In fact (IMHO) the reality TV show "Alt For Norge" is a thinly disguised recruitment programme to attract young Norwegian Americans back home .
Living in a city with a very high immigration level, I’ve had the pleasure to work with refugees from Syria. They were hard working, honest people.
I also had the displeasure of meeting a leech on society, the son of a refugee who wastes the time and money his father earned and had no prospects. This PoS threw a block of ice at the back of my head after I called him out on his BS.
TLDR: With refugees, you really roll the dice on what sort of person you get.
@@Anothertakeonthis have you talked to a psychiatrist about your paranoia?
@@Anothertakeonthis Why don't you elaborate on that "certain section of the population"?
@TLDRnewsEU in your video, starting at 1m 55s, you say "without a massive increase in productivity or the pension age... the obvious solution here is we need immigration".
I disagree - what we need is a massive increase in productivity (regardless of how we tackle this, the pension age is going to be increased).
If European countries import cheap labour, there is little incentive for European companies and organisations to improve productivity. Meanwhile, somewhere around the globe there is going to be some country that invests massively in automation, robotics, and AI (Artificial Intelligence) , and they will have both a higher productivity and all the "know how" relating to the automation/robotics/AI.
What I am suggesting is also more humane - it does not rely on constantly exploiting less well off people from another country.
Incidentally, AI is going to transform human labour in a way that very few have imagined. I suspect that twenty/thirty years from now we will be seeing vasts amount of redundancies - a level that we have never seen before. This is not something to be frightened of.
At first there might be a reduction in everyone's hours, and hopefully we will develop societies where we all work a lot less, and less stress-fully, and hopefully improve quality of life, in particular family life - spending more time helping our elderly relatives, and spending quality time with our children. And taking care of people in general - regardless of there being a blood connection.
Uncontrolled birth rates around the world will need to be reduced.
The data your showing is clearly only showing legal migrants that actually pay taxes like myself it is NOT showing the costs of illegal migrants. It cannot because the values you are showing we know the cost of these people to put them in hotels, feed them etc is eye watering.
For workers and skilled workers in Europe it seems no country in here has a proper system like Canada, Australia and NZ have. Even at EU level there should be much coherent policies.
It's surprising that there are far more loose migrations while skilled workers and students have to wait such long times to get their visas and potentially even get rejected! Speaking of own family experience that went through the legal and proper process. Yet others are allowed to jump over fences and skip many countries to reach countries in the west.
The video should have evaluated the differnet kinds of migration separately. Generally: there are three ways how to categorize migration: refugees vs economic migrants, skilled migrants vs unskilled migrants and legal/regular migration vs illegal/irregular migration. When speaking about EU, there is fourth distinction: citizens of EU and non-EU citizens. These categories differ in its risks and benefits for the host country and in the legal and moral situation. The public view of these categories also differs.
The short answer is no. The long answer is HELL NO!
1. irregular migration bad
2. regular migration good
As a European I want Europe to feel and look like Europe and not like some country outside of Europe. Immigration should be stopped and European politicians should only focus on helping out lower class to lower-middle class European families - help them find jobs, housing and help them have more kids.
We need to stop relying on the state, this whole mess its the result of the State growing more than it shoukd and meddling with everything. The welfare demographic problem its a problem of the state, not of civil society, we must return to church or find other forms to develop a civil society that can function without the state.
If the migration is by ethnic and cultural different groups and the cost of integration and increased crimiminality is not payed back by the migrants you will always see what happens now increase of nationalism and fascism
2:53 note that Denmark here is listed as having net positive financials from migration. It's well known that non-Western migrants cost the taxpayer more than they pay in, generally speaking. In other words, Western migrants more than outweigh the negative effects from non-Westerners here.
I suspect this is true for some if not most countries in this chart.
In any case, it was a stupid idea to value native cultures so little. We need to get back to a more collectivist system if we want to survive as a unique culture.
Here are two ways of looking at it:
Taking in skilled migrants is good economically and taking in asylum seekers is good morally.
or if you wanna be real about it and admit that in a capitalist system, the ruling class always benefits from cheap labour:
Taking in skilled migrants is good economically and taking in asylum seekers is good economically.
Borders exist for a reason. And controlled migration is a necessity. Actually having home countries fix or remedy their issues causing migration is key. Iran and Russia back assad regime in Syria, Europe is paying price with refugees.
The USA and its closest NATO minions are backing those who are against legally chosen President Assad. So, who is to be blamed more? I say, the USA.
That Russia and Belarus was deliberately importing middle eastern asylum seekers to shove them at gunpoint to the borders of Poland and Finland should tell you everything you need to know about how these authoritarian regimes see other countries most poor and desperate people. They are only a problem that could be weaponized against their enemies. That's why Iran deliberately funds terrorists all across the ME that overthrow their also poor governments.
Europe also pays for all the US wars.
@@BlueTigerRealhow so, and if anything it’s a coalition force like what happened in Iraq and even then the US had the highest number of soldiers there
@@RNKel1 because the US are warmongers.
6:04 This is a great way of saying that if 50% of the workers in your sector are migrants (ie: in agriculture), overal salaries will drop by 30%.
Yeah, pretty minimal. I wonder why there are trucks burning in the highway.
That is an awful interpretation of data. First of all it is a 1% rise, not 1% total. So your "50% of the workers in your sector" is completely wrong. Secondly, it is logical that an increase in supply (job seekers) in a particular sector would lead to a decrease in demand (wages). The reality is many of the sector in the EU don't have enough job seekers, which is increasing overall inflation as the sector is forced to increase salaries and therefore becomes less competitive. It is basic economics. We absolutely want more immigrants applying to for instance your agricultural jobs - it keeps the end prices of goods lower for consumers. And it is the same for basically every other sector - nursing, manufacturing etc.
@@serebii666 You are right, I misinterpreted. It's even worse than I thought: by the time 50% of the workers are migrants, you've had a 100% rise, meaning you get 60% worse salaries. Obviously this is a linear progression and it will probably change at some point, but still. Not great news.
As for the "keeping the prices low", it is done at the expense of the current people in the sector being paid less, which of course makes them mad. Making things cheaper is all well and good until it's you who has to take the cut for it. Shouldn't the route to cheaper products be, arguably, the improvement of the processes and technologies involved, and not at the expense of individuals?
@@DudeWatIsThis "it's even worse than I thought by the time 50% of the workers are " What sort of ridiculous strawman are you trying to create here? And by absurdist extrapolation no less. No you cannot do that, not least because there are many other variables missing - like the period of such change, to the growth of job availability in the sector, to knock on effects for other sectors, to replacement rates, etc. Please stop. The only thing the statistic proves is that the direct downward pressure of immigration in that sector is still less negative than the benefit of supplying the needed labour to that sector.
"done at the expense of the current people in the sector being paid less, " That is also not true. You are forgetting to factor in for instance seniority and enterprise expansion. The fact of the matter is, immigration incentivizes these sectors to remain competitive, which means existing workers in that sector continue building skills to improve their overall productivity and output, therefore renumeration. Stagnancy is a very bad concept for an economy.
"Shouldn't the route to cheaper products be" Congrats on identifying the economic concept of productivity. Yes the goal of economies is to increase their labour productivity. What they absolutely do not want to see is productivity staying the same, while costs increase (i.e. by the above chronic underemployment stimulating inflation)That is very VERY bad for an economy. Immigration, including the slight downward pressure on salaries from higher supply, therefore increase productivity here, not to mention the wider demand impacts on other economic sectors as this individuals also consume things. Governments generally encourage productivity growth by giving companies subsidies (for instance to buy better machinery or research and development) or encourage work immigration and mergers, to let companies grow to larger sizes, allowing them to take advantage of the concept of "economy of scale" and "economy of scope".
"and not at the expense of individuals?" The individuals are the ones creating the expense. Europe has a huge shortage of workers everywhere, which means there are empty posts everywhere. In order to fill those posts, companies today need to raise wages to poach people from other jobs - which means they are increasing costs for no extra improvement. This is why countries fear unemployment figures falling below 3% - it means there is risk for this feedback loop to form - structural issues in the labour market appear - which will increase overall inflation without contributing to any economic growth. That is why immigration is wanted - to keep these growing economic sectors supplied by labour and not go under the NAIRU.
@@serebii666 Okay, so your main complaint is my tunnel vision when extrapolating figures and hyperfocusing on a single sector. Fair.
HOWEVER, I'm not sure things are going to fall into place like you say. Yes, on paper we need more labour force. The problem is, we need a lot of experienced, highly educated workers in every sector.
For instance, we need programmers, and they're in India, and they work from India. Nothing is as simple as "get migrants, pay for old people". As simplistic and dumb as my "I'm in my coffee break, let's troll the Internet" approach was, yours is still way too simple still.
By the way,
_"You are forgetting to factor in for instance seniority and enterprise expansion."_
Yep, I'm sure seniority is a huge factor when the job is picking strawberries, lmao.
No, we don´t and we are fed up stop pushing it, and if you think otherwise then go visit those who are seeing their borders being literally assaulted.
How "neutral" of you to omit the most obvious reason that people have soured on immigration - terrorism and the brewing "London Intifadah".
Why are all the comments bots
they're all butts
Legit
"It's a figure of speech Morty. They're bureaucrats. I don't respect them."
the biggest problem, that also makes it more complicated and difficult, is wars and poverty..
can probably add equality, and/or jealousy (meaning jealousy, in the selfish and negative form, and not just as a normal feeling)
but also how the countries population views it, and their own situation..
you can often hear the "unfair approach", that makes it a bit like you're doomed if you do, and doomed if you don't, like... "they come here and use our hospitality, and don't do right by themselves, to find jobs and work".. but when they do work, "they steel the jobs from the rest"..
and that has grown over the years, so there's more resentment.. so it's the similarities but... "we can take care of others, but not our own".. and when they get things, better treatment, benefits and so on, that others don't, it often is directed towards those people who gets it, and not the ones that gives it..
I "learned" that it has something to do with human nature, and how that is and works, that might explain some of it..
1:31 -- Migration doesn't solve this issue of low births. Immigrants also age adding to the pool of people needing a pension. They also don't have that many kids.
2:52 - The data on this has always been debatable. especially in the past decade when the amount of immigrants arriving have been of low productivity and need billions spent on them to stay in hotels.
3:16 - This principle only works under the assumption that all immigrants are saints. They are not. A lot of immigrants actively make life worse for the residents of the host country.
The states MAIN PRINCIPLE is to protect you, and letting in millions of random, poor fighting age men from objectively bad countries does not protect you.
3:53 - Letting in millions of low productive, low value people who don't want to assimilate and actively hate you and your country, does not seem lie a good trade deal just to make objectively bad countries lie you more.
I don't understand why my fellow leftists don't support this "Invest in the economies of African countries" approach. You win so much with this, on both sides. Most migrants want to stay in their countries, but because of shit conditions they leave in hopes of it getting better. If you give them a prospect, good jobs, chance to build a decent future, they will just stay. Besides that, we as EU get more influence in the world again, so we can compete with China and the US. And if we don't wanna bend over backwards anymore for natural resources, we better start doing that.
Because they don't want to solve the problem, they want to cause trouble.
Agreed. I think using a dual approach is probably where the best solution lies. I'm willing to bet that most people wouldn't want leave their homeland and culture if they thought it had a stable future and opportunity.
Thats the "Give us your hard earned money or we will mismanage our country to such a degree that our poor starving citizens will flood into your country" strategy. Great for the tirants that rule the shitty country, really bad for everyone else involved.
How can you call yourself a leftist and completely ignore how corporations strip away lots of these people of their natural resources, while giving them nothing in exchange? 💀
Also, Europe acts like it does send aid to a lot of these areas but we still send weapons to these places both legally and illegally.
You approach is literally called performative activism and unfortunately most Europeans have this issue imo..
There is one point you are missing. Yes Europe needs workers but why does it need them? It is because a lot of companies settle there in order to export to countries outside of the EU instead of settling in those countries.
As a result there is pressure on working hours and working participation of families. There is a push for both the man and the woman of the family to work 40 hour workweeks. But that results in fewer babies.
In the past a family could function on 1 income, there is no reason why it should not nowadays. This has been a cultural shift influenced by liberal capitalist influencers and policy makers that care about short term gains only.
Not exactly. All though you are correct in that ,liberal capitalist influencers and policy makers, it was mostly due to the fact that progressive socialist influencers and policy makers were promoting tis type of culture/ lifestyle with less children in order to reach an equal level in participation in the workforce. Add on that the debasement of the currency which made governments print money to pay for the "free stuff" and inflation started becoming a problem like no other.
Most people dispute that developed countries should take refugees, wy we should take third world refugees we have culturally nothing in common ?
My country (Germany) is at breaking point. Thanks to Angela Merkel we feel we are a minority in our own country now.
An important nuance left out of your video is integration. Migrants that by the 3rd generation fully integrate into the receiving country are a great boon. Even on the economic side where 1st generation migrants are net takers their kids and grandkids are actually more likely than average to become net contributors. A migrant population that assimilates can be a big piece in solving demographic problems (example: the US). An immigrant population that aggressively maintains its original culture and language is a different animal. Job prospects are poorer even 2 and 3 generations in, conflict with nativist elements is greater, and you can reach levels where the native culture starts to see the recent arrivals, who are now effectively a colony even often with their own government and quasi-legal system as a threat (example: France or, increasingly, Sweden).
So a policy that encourages migration must be accompanied by policies that ease and encourage integration. This is particularly challenging for Europe because religious differences are a real hinderence to integration.
"Aggressively maintains the original culture" is a function of the aggressiveness by which the country prescribes (rather than describes) their own culture. To be French is to be French, there is an authority that decides what it means to be French, and no amount of assimilation will make someone who is not French, French (that is, in the eyes of the anti-migration crowd). If the country cannot integrate the migrants the migrants will not be integrated. Your example of the US is of course a very good one, because that's actual assimilation and it occurs essentially because anyone can be American. You don't need to be a particular thing to be an American, that's the whole point. If you don't fit the mold for what it means to be German you're never going to be a German (that is, in the eyes of the anti-migrationist) and there's no amount of molding that can make some poor Senegalese bloke fit for purpose in their eyes.
@@TheFanatical1 American example is a little bit flawed from European point of view, because almost every country here is ethnic nation-state, and ethnicity and culture is strongest glue for our societies. There is also rule of blood in almost every country, so if none of your parents have German, French or Polish citizenship, you will be born without one, even if you're born in hospital in Hamburg.
Culture and language is also very important to fit in, and most of EU languages are much more difficult than English. Even if almost everyone who you meet will speak English, you won't be seen as a Pole if you don't speak Polish with flawless accent.
US is country built upon optimism and immigration, Europe is many nations, each with different, but stable and respected very long history and strong culture. Every neighbour is in tension with each other, so even though French and Germans are doing good, there's still scent of atrocities of last thousand years or so.
Tl;dr Europe is much harder to integrate to than US, because of history and culture
"Migrants that by the 3rd generation fully integrate into the receiving country are a great boon."
It depends entirely on where they are from. Afro-Caribbeans often 3rd generation and fully integrated are certainly not a great boon. What makes this particularly ironic is that often their parents are net contributors.
The OECD data shows that migrants pay more in tax than they receive in direct payments from the government.
This does not include education and healthcare.
Primary and secondary education cost £5k and £7k per child respectively in the UK and substantially more if the child needs language support or a teaching assistant.
Current estimates are that you need to earn £41k to be a net contributor in the UK.
There is a strong economic argument for allowing migrants over £41k to migrate to the UK but the argument is more complicated for people earning under that threshold
This applies for migrants already within the Eurozone. Migrants front outside of Europe, mainly middle Eastern and North African have a net negative contribution. This makes sense as one is developed to developed the other is not
Someone who came from germany to london on a work visa, and someone who sailed from africa to the UK with an inflatable boat are both migrants. One contributes to the economy, the other takes from it.
@@tedhumphries6815 Tbh, when England was within the EU, I can't imagine most EU migrants earned more than £41k. Those that stayed and had children would probably also have a negative fiscal contribution
@@RFXZ67966 most natives (especially the women) are also net losses. I don’t think the Poles are any worse than the native Brits.
Also it doesn't differentiate between European migrants and ones from outside and illegal migrants.
All of the westernized/ white population dominant nations are so appealing to migrants because we in most cases look after them even better than our own We offer them safety that is harder in other places to come by despite the fact we get loads of abuse & called racist or guilted/bullied into being looked at as bad people we tend to do more than most to help many non Europeanized/ Westernized people
In my perspective, the issue lies with the average voter or politician and their inabilities to differentiate migration on a micro and macro level. On a micro perspective, there is nothing wrong with a migrant who wants to come to Europe and live a better life, no matter his background. It’s on this level most people are only able to analyze and judge migration. On a macro level, however, with mass migration things manifest themselves way different. Suddenly group dynamics, in-group preferences within an ethnicity or religion, foreign cultural norms and an unwillingness to adapt to the host country’s norms, historical interethnical feuds, traumas, etc, manifest themselves and creates major tensions within a society.
I’ve seen this first hand as an ethnic Swede who have lived many years in towns with large minorities from the Middle East/Africa.
Because they are all parked in the same place, if you scatters migrants everywhere it doesn't happens
Was migration weaponised because of its negativeness?
I think an important aspect you left out is the demise of European culture and people living in parallel societys.
I think the numbers are to high but the main issue for me in the UK is the quality of migrants and the culture they are bringing. Those who have been arriving from Hong Kong aren't blowing themselves up on buses or throwing acid is woman's faces, we never really talk about them or hear about them, same goes for all the Ukrainians that have come. If the UK insists we need such high numbers then reduce those coming from Afghanistan/Somalia etc and invite more from Hong Kong and Ukraine
Europe DOES NOT NEED any migration, we need actual comprehensive policies aimed at increasing the birth rate, taking all the lessons learned from failures and successes of these policies. For example the Czech birth rate went from 1.1 to 1.8 ish in the last 20 years, they clearly did something right, Hungary also saw increases however not to a level which would be considered successful. If aging populations are the problem, immigration is just a temporary patchwork solution, NOT a long term one, and it causes huge negative societal impacts as well, we need to tackle the root of the problem which is low birth rates and we need to do it now with everything we got.
My man, i don't think Russia and Belarussia sent those asylum seekers to Poland and Finland respectively. It definitely seemed like hybrid warfare, i don't know what you folks are doing in Europe but here in the US that's the opposite of respect.
Let's not forget brain drain that although is good for the individual is bad for the country that invested on those individuals and lost them for rich nations.
Maybe we could remove the sexist policies around divorce, so that for men it isn't signing a contract that benefits the other party to break. Having a child is such a risk for many young men, that they are terrified to doing it. Remove this and you will have people having kids, and won't need to bring in people from other parts of the world that have polar opposite culture to the one they are moving too. This change would increase your population and lower crime.
The utilitarian argument dies out when you consider scale. You can maybe help a thousand migrants, but it will factually do nothing about the problem. You cannot help tens of millions of migrants because you will run out of resources, ending in the result that you cannot help your own population, or the migrants.
Another issue is the criminality. Here in Finland certain ethnicities are as high as nine times more likely to rape, and five times as likely to commit robbery. Assault stats are pending.
I do not want to turn my country into a criminal shithole. When you import an ethnicity, you import that ethnicity's values and problems. Mogadishu is Mogadishu because of the people living there, not because it's located in the Horn of Africa.
1:12 “we’re not actually going to take a side”..then follows 8 mins of great replacement “data”
Their video on the UK housing crisis was such a massive gaslight.
Not a peep about mass migration as a contributing factor even though that year we added a city the size of Glasgow to our population through new arrivals alone.
Neutral and TLDR shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath.
I generally like your videos. But its a disgrace that you didnt even mention crime as a cause for being anti migration. Sweden, Italy and france are notably being hit very hard by crime, yet you make no mention of it? Disgraceful.
Accepting immigrants from outside Europe is not the correct answer to the demographic crisis, because in the long run it will lead to ethnic changes in countries and the entire continent, which will increase intercultural conflicts (especially when it comes to the Middle Easterners)
Both Europe and the USA, as well as Canada & Austrailia need a policy that welcomes people who want to integrate with the existing & successfull culture, not try to bring the culture they fled with them.
Immigration of skilled workers in a controlled manner from western countries, or those with similar cultures, is a positive thing and contributes a lot to the EU. However, the economic migration from Africa and the Middle east has been a catastrophe for the EU, especially for my country Sweden. Instead of taking in actual refugees from Ukraine, we let hundred of thousands of young men who didn't want to fight for their countries while leaving their families behind. Their culture goes against everything Sweden and the EU stands for, and now many parts of my country is basically a war zone. Everything is underfunded despite having some of the highest taxes in the world, and people are becoming even more anti-social and depressed while avoiding others when it gets dark outside.
You interpret the OECD statistic INCORRECTLY.
The statistic shows the average contribution. What people seem to care about is whether the contribution from migrants > contribution from natives.
The statistic does NOT support that claim.
Migrant household contribute less than native ones for most countries.
Mixed households contribute more than native ones for most countries.
Get your stats right.
the map at 05:00 is wrong. russia is missing a big chunk to the south (not crimea)
Very true. Donbas and that big landbridge Between Donbas and Crimea.
It's easy to upset you guys, isn't it.
@@wamingo No, the reality is different, that is all.
@@ozymandiasultor9480 Let's see what the reality is after russia plunges into civil war.
@@ozymandiasultor9480 no, I mean on the map to the South of Russia, East of Ukraine. Ukraine is Ukraine 💛💙
I think a country can benefit from a good implemented migration policy
But it needs to have regulations and background checks
Right now it's just too reckless
People come in giant numbers with zero documentation and some of them are untraceable
Resolving the demographic gap requires importing cultural fit skilled labor. This is not the same as supporting unskilled, asocial and culturally unfit immigration.
Its colonization not migration
If the holy corporations need it, the faithful do not question!
It seems that the problem might be that it is difficult to plan a family living in
I suspect that cloning will be the answer to this...
Not saying it is the right answer..
EU politicians have the ethnostate Israel to fall back on, which is the big difference
Increasing fertility rate would be easy with universal basic income. Just make it so you get more money the more children you have.
That would have to be tightly controlled and only for MARRIED COUPLES. We did something similar to that here in the US. It created a generation of single mothers and disincentivized fathers in the home. That gave rise to crime and poverty.
where you getting the money from?
@@ludicrousreality0governments get most of their money through taxes. By using taxes for UBI for children you're essentially having the whole population chipping in to foot the cost of raising children. Just in the same way the whole population foots the cost of state pensions.
@@MiguelDLewisit would be harsh on a child that is born to a single mother to receive no UBI whatsoever. A sliding scale with the UBI increasing based on circumstances might work. Higher UBI if married or able to show evidence of long term partnership. Higher UBI if in full time employment. Etc.
Ok for intra EU migration, the economic reasons to allow it make sense. Allow people to move where jobs are needed. For outside of Europe... well people talk about labor shortages but if someone who knows the local language can't get a job then getting importing extra workers isn't likely to solve the problem. If a company is trying to hire an Arab (usually some licensed professional like a doctor, but really it can be any job where there aren't enough locals who want to work for the company) and asks him to move to Europe, the economic reason for letting him makes perfect sense. Refugees aren't guaranteed to have companies that want to take them. As for what to do with refugees, why not just plop the ones that can't get immediate employment on some farm and have them serve 3 years as underpaid labor to compensate for the inevitable drain on social services? Maybe some countries don't have a use for extra farmhands at market rates, but I bet a lot of them can benefit from submarket underpaid labor.
If the government serves companies and CEOs, Europe needs migration. If the government serves the people, Europe needs less companies and CEOs.
As a first generation teen immigrant, I really despise the behaviour of other immigrants. They lack discipline and respect. I try to not be like them
"Turkey was a kew player in the Armenia and Azerbaijan conflict". WHAT??? A country that directly assisted Azerbaijan to make massacres, ethnic cleansing and to erase centenary historic sites? This channel need bether editing and more of a human rights aproach.
We need to do more to train the huge numbers of unemployed young people already here first. Where we do need immigration, it needs to be skilled migrants who integrate. For example, the unemployment level amongst Somali immigrants to the UK is 80%. Immigration of low skilled immigrants is not economically or socially beneficial whilst the UK has 800,000 young people not in education, employment or training
Comments section taking the massive W here. TLDR, please listen to people rather than parrot what elites and politicians say. That's what democracy is all about right?
Look into what happened to Hungary after wars a lot of slaves migrated to the country.
Easy answer is NO!!!!
In a simple, straight, direct, honest and true factual answer: ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Yes. EU population drops more than 1 million every year.
I think that some reasones that are worth considering are: long time underinvestment has created lot of resentment and anger. E.g. with our without migrants, governments and private sector, are not prioritizing its citizens. Also, historic exploitation and destabilization of countres where migrants and refugees comes from, and exacerbated by climate change, simply makes the risk with upending your entire life worth it. You can observe a similar thing in the Americas, where a century long aggressive and "coupy" foreign policy, naturally, has resulted in a higher amount of refugees and migrants.
I don't think using migrants as a substitute for a lack of the 'native born' is sustainable for the country taking in, nor losing migrants, even if we were to completely ignore the issue of (an amount of) migrants being an economical net loss and/or causing/catalysing cultural friction, as far as the studies I've seen well adjusted migrant families end up with the same low birthrate as the natives, which entails the need for a pernament migration from less developed countries to western countries in order to lessen the blow of population collapse, migrants far more needed in their country of birth in order to develop it (if we believe this is possible); and increase the braindrain from said countries.
first of all...illegal migration should be completely not allowed....now when it comes to immigration...it depends on what kind of migrants you'll take in.......in the US, so many talented individuals from all over the world migrate there...this is the secret why the US is able to keep up with the competition....I think this is a good model that Europe should copy.....only those who can really be an asset to society should be taken in
In Netherlands, i say the main issue is the migrant commiting crime, Being Jobless, homeless. Id like to see more of skilled migrant, but mist migrant coming to europe are likw young people who commit crime, jobless, and take up tax money tk feed themselves. Thats the main problem, thats why I consider VVD is one of the way.
Anser: *NO*
I don't think many people complain if migrants are high quality - i.e. migrants from France after Hollande's tax reforms or migrants from Hong Kong after the protests.
The trouble is - we've been getting a lot of shitty migrants recently.
i really think that the best way 1st world countries can help poorer countries, is to just make it so that people who live there arent forced to flee. obviously you will have immigrants, if the place where they are born forces them to starve, fear prosecution, etc.
PS: I really appreciate the attempts to stay neutral/objective
No, we don't need migration. My country is not accepting any of those, we have the right to choose who will we accept, and the right to defend our country and culture. So, none of those who are coming from those countries below. There are few rich Muslim countries, let them accept those.
The problem is not only the number of immigrants but the TYPE Europe is getting. Why not increase immigration from Latin American countries who are culturally more similar to Europe? The vast influx of Middle Eastern Muslims is what has caused the problems.
4:15 for the moral argument that turkey did better after accepting eastern european immigrants, i argue that it only works when you have a similar culture. turkey taking in people from eastern europe, especially people who want to move away, works because they come from a close region and share ideals for the most part. europe for the most part isn't taking in people who have attachments to european cultures, its arabic and north african people who are often muslim, and share no attachment or similarity to the culture of the country they arrive in.
if anything some immigrants are almost hostile to the culture as muslim religious beliefs don't always meld with Christian cultural norms.
People need to study the Lebanon Civil War so that they can see what happens when Muslims take over your country. Lebanon used to be great when it was majority Christian while today after the civil war its a third world Islamic shit hole that's so far only barely avoided becoming a complete puppet to Iran
Actually Ben, you DIDN'T make a million videos about fertility rates in Europe, not even 10.🤓
The answer: no.
We need a new economic model that isn’t reliant on immigrants giving us tax and leaving to pay for an aging population. It’s so messed up and all these intellectual types think it’s just how things have to be.
also, even if we take that question from a purely humanitarian + left-wing perspective , that very mechanism, to continue working (having workers coming from abroad to work and pay for older gen of local people being able to retire) mean that for this system to continue working in the long run, there would be a necessity to keep some countries unliveable to keep the constant supply of human
so, basically, it mean that the current way of dealing with EU's young people shortage is a way that inherently *need* human suffering to happen somewhere.
also, from a purely economic and right-leaning point of view, this constant flow of lower cost worker ensure that companies to not need to put any effort into research and development of anything -robotic related nor into any form of automation (why bother taking the cost of developing way sof automating work if there is a constant supply of workers?) therefore, it hinder technological development. (while, on the contrary, a labor shortage and some regulation to prevent company from outsourcing production sites + some government subsidies for any effort to automate work, would make, trough the mechanism of offer, demand, and employee-employers negotiation, make human workers locally prohibitely expensive and , without the ability to go seek for cheaper workforce elsewhere, companies's only choice for survival would become to find ways to automate as much production process as they can to stay competitive)
[a good exemple of how cheap labor hinder automatisation of work can be seen in the history of some ancient mediteranean civilisations like ancient greece and rome, where the fact that steam can be used to produce a mechanical push was already understood by some people, yet no widespread adoption of steam engine happened, as the constant supply of slaves made redundant to try to invent machines to do some work]
If 1% imigration in some sector devalues its wages by 0,6 that means if it is proportional (which I doubt) 10% devalues it by 6% which is significant margin. Nonetheless unfortunately that study forget to focus on makroeconomic impact - If wages in some field decrease that alleviates pressure to other fields to push wages up to not loose employees to that "easier" sector. Funny about this is Switzerland which has pretty strict migration politics and it shows on graph.
Also one argument against is missing and that is the most important one and that is public order. Nobody ever came with good argument against cultural compatibility issues. As we can see problems i Sweden or France are nonexistent in Poland or Czech republic in regards to migration. Europe does not have middle eastern mentality and Europe does not want middle eastern mentality (or at least some of us). That is also reason why Czech republic and Poland are two most welcoming countries for Ukrainians, because they don't have that middle eastern mentality. Do we complain about Ukrainians and do we want mandatorial relocation mechanism to other countries like western europe wanted? No... why? Because we are reasonable and we know who can live here and who has mentality which does not belong to Europe.
Look at who they are. What problems they do and then look what our values are and what we want.