How has third-world immigration benefited Europe?

Every poll and statistic I've seen of third-world immigration and their second+ generation children shows an overwhelmingly negative impact on European society.

I wonder who benefits from third-world immigration as native/ethnic Europeans seem adversely affected.

Interestingly, some immigration from the Orient has had positive contributions to European society - but it isn't uniform/universal.

E.g., Chinese immigration to Denmark; Vietnamese immigration to France, etc.

 

The Socialist-leaning progressive parties have secured for themselves a future voting base.
Business interests have secured a cheap supply of labor.

 

communists

 

Post such polls and statistics please.

 

Malicious, but smart.

Italy is a country of passage for many immigrants from third world, overall from Africa, they tend to pass some time here and then they try and find a way to reach Germany, France or UK. This has limited the phenomenon here. And probably this has concentrated the remaining migrants into suitable productive processes.

Odd to say, we've got more troubles with immigrants coming from East Europe [organized criminality takes advantage from them, or they find it difficult to integrate, despite they come from former communist countries and 1/3 of Italians has been communist ...].

 

The problem in our society today is the decreasing population. In most developed countries we don't see families with more than two children anymore. Statistically it is even lower than that. Now this may not be a problem if our society wasn't set up the way it is. We retire at 65 (or even sometimes sooner) at which point the government has to finance our life. The improved medical system makes it possible for us to have an expectancy of life to become well over 80 years old, meaning the government finances on average the citizens for over 15 years, who tend to need more medical help than at any other time in their life. Also we spend now more and more time in school, and get children at a later time in life.

This developmental development just happens across the world in industrialized countries. There are two ways of how to approach that problem from the government standpoint.

1. You don't allow new citizens to come in and seal your country off in terms of immigration which results in huge debt for the national government and long term problems. The closest example to that world wide is Japan with strict immigration laws and a huge national debt the government owes (so far primarily to their own people). But Japan has a real problem. A young mother in Japan is under 30 years old and the population will decrease according to projections from the nearly 130 million which were reached to 80 million by the year 2050 if this trend continues. The national debt will therefore be even harder to repay.

2. You allow new citizens to come to your country and try to make them as quickly as possible into productive members of the society, in order to react to the lack of children.

This is a financially driven reaction, because the government (any government) has to react to that problem. Our capitalist societies work only with a steady population growth. No growth means the capitalist system is falling apart. The main issue is that the government cannot declare bankruptcy. I.e. that would mean nobody finances the courts and police anymore.

Either way, the main issue at this point would be to develop a new system which is different from the capitalist one to accommodate the changes in our societies. My grandfather was still one of 11 children, my father one of 4, I was one of 3, and I don't think I'll even have that many. And this is pretty normal throughout Europe.

And now think of it that way: Many don't work full time prior to the age of 25, because of a lack of jobs in some cases or still educating themselves in other cases. By the time they are 65 they retire and then they live up to 85. The government therefore invests into that individual 45 years while it receives money for 40 years. By getting immigrants at the age of 20 to 30 years of age, they get them right at the start of their working career, hence reducing the investment into an individual for the first 20 years or so, when another country had to pay for the individual. Our government can now receive 30 years of taxes without having had to invest prior. Not only that, but the individual is screened well prior to immigration also. If anybody thinks it is easy to immigrate into the EU/US they ought to look at the screening process.

In case it wasn't clear: We all benefit from the immigration because our system isn't collapsing...

 

See http://www.politicalforum.com/global-issues/313209-western-civilization-will-become-extinct.html

See http://www.politicalforum.com/economics-trade/387869-economic-bubble-immigration.html

 

[video=youtube;Gpua2feEUc8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpua2feEUc8[/video]

"What do you mean by "Electing a New People" ?"

"That's derived from the famous poem from the poet Bertolt Brecht, who wrote in 1963 after the East German rioting against the Soviet occupation. He said that maybe the government should dissolve the people and elect a new one, because the people weren't behaving properly according to what the Communist Party thought they ought to be doing. Now that's literally what the governments around the Western world are doing. They've set about "dissolving the people and electing a new one". It's closely tied up with Neo-socialism, because what it does is it creates problems, which the government is then called in, or feels called in to solve. It has to intermediate, it has to have all sorts of regulations."

 

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/per...French-prisons-sparks-integration-debate.html

 

Europe will not fall by the curved sword but by the Islamic womb.

 

Well lets us see now, I asked for polls and statistics and you give me a link to just another web site that echoes much of what you stated . .fail, furthermore that article is about ONE European country, so please link to the actual polls and actual statistics that adhere to your comment of "Every poll and statistic I've seen of third-world immigration and their second+ generation children shows an overwhelmingly negative impact on European society"

 

I figured you'd have to be pretty dense to expect someone to somehow recall every article they read - over a five year period - about the adverse impact of third world immigration?

Why would I bother doing it, and what would it prove?

Why don't you counter with articles showing third-world immigrants and their children do not have higher unemployment, welfare and crime rates than the ethnic European populations?

 

That's only if immigrants are as productive as your model assumes.

We see from third-world immigrants that they are of lower quality than ethnic Europeans - be it religion (Islam), culture or ethnicity - or some combination(s) of the previous.

What's depressing is the West needs a perpetual influx of third-world masses to keep the ship afloat. But these immigrants change the identity and national character of White Christian society to something resembling the garbage dump from which they emigrated.

It's like pouring water into your parent's liquor bottle after taking a sip to replace the loss in volume. You continue doing this and the alcohol beverage is now mostly water. It's a great scheme until your parents have booze for the holidays and the jig is up.

 

Then don't make statements you cannot defend, you are the one making the assertion that "Every poll and statistic I've seen of third-world immigration and their second+ generation children shows an overwhelmingly negative impact on European society" and yet when challenged come up with the lame excuse above.

You bother because you are the one making the assertion .. do you know anything about debating?
It would prove you are not full of crap.

You have provided one article about one country pertaining to the subject .. still waiting for the data covering the other European countries, and of course you ignore the following from your own link;

Other analysts pointed to economic factors. “Muslim prisoners in France are usually unemployed and living in the most poverty-stricken suburbs,” Raphaël Liogier, a French sociologist and political scientist, told Al Arabiya News.

No doubt you will attempt to portray Raphaël Liogier as some sort of bleeding heart liberal, you do know there is a very strong correlation between poverty and crime don't you? - http://cjr.sagepub.com/content/18/2/182.short

 

If by defend, you mean I need to bookmark every article on the negative impact of third-world immigrants I've read in the last five years, I imagine you're short on gray matter.

You're not familiar with debate. I would need to provide evidence if I made a specific claim that can be factually checked.

Claiming 'every poll I've read' is not a claim that I've read every poll. Therefore, I could provide one poll, as that could be all the polls I read; I could provide multiple polls; or I could produce none, and would not need to.

Why should I bother? Provide countervailing evidence and get back to me. If I provide ten polls, would you suddenly believe third-world immigrants are deleterious to European society, or would you ignore the evidence until you can provide a counter-response?

Unemployed Muslims? Why does France need more of those?

Is that why there are more Blacks in prison than Whites even though there are more poor Whites than poor Blacks?

 

Yet more lame excuses to not have to back up your own assertions.

What has that to do with your assertion as to why there are more Muslims in French jails ... nothing.

Yet another assertion with nothing to substantiate it.

 

I didn't actually give a reason why more French Muslims are in prison; I said the reason was immaterial. You should try reading.

Do you have any evidence against my claims regarding higher crime and unemployment rates for third-world immigrants and their descendants?

 

I think some of your arguments might be a bit contradictory. You say Europe needs new workers from other countries since "native" Europeans are not replacing themselves in sufficient numbers to maintain the extensive social welfare and retirement systems, while you also say that there are just not enough jobs to keep 25 year olds and under employed.

It seems to me that you should look to altering your system now rather than wait until your new imported workers, who have no familial or cultural connection to the native European oldsters spending their golden years with fat pensions, alter the system for you and toss you guys out on the street. I imagine a nation that is separated by age is going to have no problem putting the pampered aged infidels on the financial chopping block. Or you need to give them a very good reason to keep you guys in a modicum of comfort rather than spending tax money on what the voters really want, new mosques.

As for Japan, if current trends continue, over the next two or three centuries, than the Japanese may be facing extinction, but right now they live on an extremely overcrowded island. Letting the population decline to what it was when, say, decades ago they nearly conquered all of South East Asia isn't a bad thing. They can afford to drop their population quite a bit without it impacting negatively their standard of living, or retiring.

 

The problem with employment I mentioned, were focused on the fact that many are in their 20s still in some form of education. The lack of jobs are a result of the fact that few like to employ new workers without experience. I don't know if that is different in the US, but usually they are looking for people with college degrees and years of experience who are preferably 21 years old.

So the problem isn't really the fact that there is a lack of jobs, but the high criteria often wished for by the employer. Either way it doesn't change the fact that a too high percentage of our society isn't working and paying taxes at age 25 and younger.

I really believe that the solution to our problem is a retirement system closer to Australia's model. I know of too many people who payed in a lot of money in their working years and now receive a near 6 figure retirement from the government, because we have a government run social security and retirement plan. Don't get me wrong. I still prefer the one we have now to the US's 401k-system were you can loose your retirement.

The trend of the population decreasing in industrialized countries ins't necessarily bad for anything else but the financial well being of the country. In a capitalist system it doesn't work, because it is build on growth. No growth in the population, and the capitalist system fails. You see that because our countries are more and more in dept.

 

I did, where in your comment of "Unemployed Muslims? Why does France need more of those? " does it give a reason?

When you provide the evidence for your assertion of "Every poll and statistic I've seen of third-world immigration and their second+ generation children shows an overwhelmingly negative impact on European society" then perhaps the debate can move on .. remember your assertion, onus on you to provide the evidence to support it, so far very little of that has been forthcoming from you, instead all you have done is produce lame excuses.

Burden of proof - Holder of the burden; When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning.

The issue being debated is that "third-world immigration and their second+ generation children shows an overwhelmingly negative impact on European society", that is your claim, burden of proof is on you.

to ask me for evidence against the claim that has not been given any proof as yet is an attempt to shift the burden of proof to me, which is a fallacy - https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

 

I doubt that every job in the Austrian economy in particular, and the European economy in general, requires such high skills as you imply, otherwise, what are your new immigrants doing? Do they arrive with post graduate degrees and ample work experience?

As for Australia's retirement plan, it's odd that you consider that in conflict with the American style 401k system, since they are actually similar. The difference is that Australia's system is run by the government and requires a 9% deduction from worker pay. But that amount is invested, just like with a 401k. That's why it has pretty spectacular returns. Over decades of working life that turns into a pretty hefty sum to retire on, and it requires no taxes from a new generation of workers. The 401k system is a company retirement plan, and workers are free to not contribute or contribute very little, so the returns over time are far lower than with Australia's plan. But in the US converting our government retirement, Social Security, into something along Australia's plan is extremely controversial and isn't politically possible. We'll probably have to wait until Social Security goes broke in 2033.

 

Well my aunt lives in Australia and is an Australian citizen. She is entitled to retirement money because her property is quite low, although she hasn't put money into the system. She's been a housewife and henceforth not spend much time in the working sector as such. As I am informed, every Australian citizen is entitled to retirement money if they are older than a certain age and doesn't own to much property. I think, you can own a car, a house under a certain value and a certain amount of money is allowed to be owned. If you have more than that, you don't receive money, until you reach those numbers.

In our system you receive depending to what you pay in, so a wealthy business-men receives more than the factory worker, which is fair, but I don't think sustainable.

I didn't imply that all the jobs in the Austrian economy need high skills, but stated that most companies want workers with experience. And I pointed out that they are all looking for the 21 year old with years of experience and a few college degrees. Few companies are prepared to hire in order to educate their new worker how to do their job. They just prefer people with experience. That fact has nothing to do with either the Austrian or the European economy in general, and everything to do with the preferences of employers looking to hire.

 

Well then, are you saying that employers can only find good experienced workers that meet their criteria from among the immigrants?

 

In Austria it seems to be the case, because the employer is required to handle all the paperwork for immigration for the worker. An exception are obviously those who came to Austria to seek political asylum.

 

I gave an example of a foreign element disproportionately involved in crime, and the article also mentions higher unemployment. If you feel there's countervailing evidence or I'm cherry-picking one European country, feel free with a response.