As Flipchart Rick explained last year, the bulk of immigrants (who are all ultimately economic migrants*) to wealthier countries like the UK are from developing countries rather than the very poorest.
So as the poorest countries develop, more people will emigrate from those countries, not fewer and this will not reverse/stabilise until a country is close to Western living standards.
He does some good stuff on immigration, see also this more recent post. Makes you think.
* But what about refugees from Syria? Those who leave Syria are fleeing a war zone and can be considered refugees; those who cross the nearest safe country to get to the nearest wealthy countries (Europe) are economic migrants. End of. That is not a value judgment, I'm an economic migrant myself.
Wednesday, 30 March 2016
Economic Myths: A richer Africa means fewer migrants
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I did hear an Syrian refugee on the radio say that it was widely believed amongst refugees that the UK would not deport them back to their country of entry into the EU.
B,probably it's true that we don't, almost certainly they believe that. But they are still economic migrants (neither a good thing or a bad thing in itself, it's rational behaviour).
I’m an economic migrant too.
One month living in Seville over Christmas suggested to me that I should become an economic migrant, The more I reflect on it, the fewer are the real ties that bind me to Britain.
Mind you, you don't have to try very hard to think who might be propagating this particular economic myth.
DBCR. I'm not sure. OBL was a bit of a libertine/playboy in his youth wasn't he?
@L Poland and Hungary's policies come along with all sorts of other stuff like homophobia and general xenophobia... Not my cup of tea.
@mombers
"@L Poland and Hungary's policies come along with all sorts of other stuff like homophobia and general xenophobia... Not my cup of tea."
We don't have to copy everything they do. On the subject of homophobia have you never read why Pym Fortune started to get anti Islam?
DBCR, spot on , the danger is not Islam, it is puritanism and fundamantalism. It matters not to what religion the puritans and fundamentalists subscribe.
G, give it a try, if you don't get homesick, then stay there.
LF, me too.
After that we drifted off topic.
"I hope the Syrians are economic migrants. I fear that they also want to spread Islam one way or another."
I doubt that it is the economic migrants who would be doing that. After all our (Christian) economic migrants are usually not the same people as our missionaries. Thumpers (of bible or koran) are usually much more effective at "spreading the good news" than poor people driven from their homes by war or starvation.
Using one religion to explain another, is like using one sport to explain another. In Rugby forward passes are illegal therefore they should be in American Football.
"Using one religion to explain another, is like using one sport to explain another. In Rugby forward passes are illegal therefore they should be in American Football."
Or, in other words, no religion can bear any resemblance to another unless all forms of football are identical. Are you sure the crocodile isn't greener than it's wide?
Post a Comment