UN Migration Pact - Criticising Migration = Hate Crime

[Narj]

snip

I always think your posts on here are pretty well considered and rational so kudos for that.

I really don't think that we leave anything but a vacuum in the third world when we attract the likes of medical professionals though. We increase our own standard of living at the expense of others.

Not trying to virtue signal or anything, I'm grateful. Just saying that there's a consequence to every action and that throwing money at then isn't helpful when we are poaching the people that should be rebuilding.

Sorry, gone off topic and I'm tired and tipsy.

 

[Amp34]

Sorry - been busy but it's great that the UK government have replied to this petition. As expected, with the usual contempt that they usually treat the electorate and without any nuance and no addressing of the rather vague terms. The government says it's fine so don't worry! I'll put my hands up to being sucked in by the original post but the more I look into this, the more I'm confused. It's not legally binding so let's remember that for future cases....

I honestly don't see how this brings any benefit to our current arrangements, especially given that we are one of the leaders in improving living conditions elsewhere with foreign aid funding. Why sign an agreement that is not legally binding? It just doesn't make sense. This framework should be geared at countries that just don't know how to deal with a sudden influx of migrants but to be honest, I don't see why the UN are dictating to them what they should "voluntarily" do because they have their own democratic process.

Off on a tangent, this has always been a very difficult issue personally. Completely discarding those who have no skills from the argument, I worry about the impact that taking in scientists, surgeons and their ilk has on their country of origin. How would we feel if all our cancer consultants suddenly decided to up sticks and move to New Zealand? I'm happy that I can be treated by someone that knows what they are doing, but their home country has lost out by their emigration. We're actually screwing over the third world and even other civilised countries by nicking their best and brightest.

I honestly don't know how to feel about the situation apart from being a selfish dick and accepting it, saying thanks, doc! (which I've actually done through a 4 hour operation recently).

Jesus this kind of issue has become so toxic that I'm beginning to disengage completely with political debate.

Excuse my cynicism because I don't believe a word our politicians say these days.

It’s called Brain Drain and is something I always thought was an issue too, but it appears there’s no scientific evidence to suggest it is actually detrimental to countries. In fact the scientific evidence, contrary to what I always assumed, suggests it’s acually more beneficial for a number of reasons.

And why sign it? Because if you want other countries to do so you should lead by example. It’s non binding so anything the government does in the future is down to the UK government, not this, even if they use it as an excuse for something (see the use of the EU as a scapegoat for government policies as an example).

By signing it, it helps persuade/pressure other countries that would actually benefit from implementing similar legislation to the UK to do so, helping standardize a system and benefiting migrants in those countries.

 

[LabR@t]

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-c...ration-not-a-human-right-report-idUKKBN1O80QK

Chile refuses to sign

 

[Chris Wilson]

This so called pact has now brought political chaos to Belgium:

The Belgian prime minister, Charles Michel, is fighting for his political survival after the Flemish nationalist party quit the ruling coalition over his support for a UN migration agreement, leaving him in charge of a minority government.

After the resignation of ministers representing the New Flemish Alliance (N-VA), the largest of the coalition’s four parties, Michel was forced to present himself on Sunday to Belgium’s King Philippe.

Michel was given permission to form a minority administration but at a press conference later in the day he appealed to MPs in the federal parliament not to force an election.



Belgium is due to go to the polls in May, and with European elections also due that month, the prime minister insisted a change of government would drive the country to a standstill.

Michel said: “I want to enter into a dialogue with parliament: if there would be early elections, if it were the choice to push the government towards early elections, then we are in a situation that would block the country for a year.

“The personal relationships with the N-VA ministers will remain good, as far as I am concerned,” he added. “But there was a difference of opinion, and I regret that.”

The health minister, Maggie De Block, who will now also take on the migration portfolio, replacing the N-VA’s Theo Francken, said she had inherited a “mess” but that she would have a humane migration policy.


“I am taking on a department in crisis. It’s chaos,” De Block said in a statement.

Francken responded on Twitter that he had “no lessons to learn” in matters of humane treatment.

The N-VA’s leader, Bart De Wever, had warned Michel that his party would walk out on the coalition if the prime minister flew to a UN conference in Marrakesh on Sunday to endorse the UN migration pact.

“If we no longer have a voice in this government ... there is no point in continuing,” De Wever said.

The non-binding UN agreement, which would promote a common global approach to migrant flows, was initially supported by all four parties in Belgium’s coalition, only to be later rejected by the N-VA.

Michel said on Sunday that the pact provided “the opportunity for better European and international cooperation”.

The French far-right leader Marine Le Pen and Steve Bannon, a former adviser to the US president, Donald Trump, denounced the pact at an event hosted by the rightwing Flemish nationalist party, the Vlaams Belang, in Brussels on Saturday.

“The country that signs the pact obviously signs a pact with the devil,” Le Pen said.

The draft UN accord lays down 23 objectives to open up legal migration and better manage a global flow of 250 million people, 3% of the world population.

The US dropped out of talks on the pact last year and countries including Italy, Hungary, Austria, Poland, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Australia have rejected it. The deal is expected to be ratified at the UN headquarters in New York on 19 December.

 

[Hades]

This so called pact has now brought political chaos to Belgium:

The Belgian prime minister, Charles Michel, is fighting for his political survival after the Flemish nationalist party quit the ruling coalition over his support for a UN migration agreement, leaving him in charge of a minority government.

After the resignation of ministers representing the New Flemish Alliance (N-VA), the largest of the coalition’s four parties, Michel was forced to present himself on Sunday to Belgium’s King Philippe.

Michel was given permission to form a minority administration but at a press conference later in the day he appealed to MPs in the federal parliament not to force an election.

Get woke. Go broke

 

[Irish_Tom]

I always think your posts on here are pretty well considered and rational so kudos for that.

Thanks.

I really don't think that we leave anything but a vacuum in the third world when we attract the likes of medical professionals though. We increase our own standard of living at the expense of others.

Not trying to virtue signal or anything, I'm grateful. Just saying that there's a consequence to every action and that throwing money at them isn't helpful when we are poaching the people that should be rebuilding.

Sorry, gone off topic and I'm tired and tipsy.

Apologies for the rather brief reply on Saturday night, I was also rather tired and tipsy. I should know better than to go near a keyboard when I get to that point!

I also realised I misread your earlier post. I was focusing on the New Zealand bit rather than the third world countries, which you rightly identify as an issue.

As @Amp34 said; it can often, counterintuitively, work out as a net benefit for both countries in the long run. However, it's heavily dependent on the socioeconomic situation in the 'original' country. There's a great Wiki article on the subject titled 'Human Capital Flight'.

Migration (of all kinds) is always going to come with inherent issues, and it's also an emotional subject (as we can see in this thread). Controlled migration can lead to benefits, but it's a tricky path to navigate. I fear that automation of jobs and climate change are going to make it even harder over the coming century.

 

[wesimmo]

I think climate change is the big issue.

When (you could argue if, but i believe it's when) migration is being driven by huge parts of the world being impacted by climate change, then the developed world has a moral obligation to help solve that problem, either by accepting migrants or spending money and changing our habits to reverse the impacts.

We cannot sit here with a clear conscience having used 3rd world countries for their resources to support our own advancement and comfortable lives but having ruined the climate in the process and then just pull the ladder up and say "Well, we're kinda ok, Jack, fend for yourselves."

 

[Chris Wilson]

"You recently signed the petition “The UK should not agree the UN's Global Compact for Migration”:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/232698

The Petitions Committee (the group of MPs who oversee the petitions system) met recently and considered the Government’s response to this petition. They felt that the response did not directly address the request of petition and have therefore written back to the Government to ask them to provide a revised response.

When the Committee have received a revised response from the Government, this will be published on the website and you will receive an email. If you would not like to receive further updates about this petition, you can unsubscribe below."

Seems our government has deflected on its answer to the petition....

 

[StriderX]

Oh noes, Cry those tears, where's the safespace when you need it ;(

 

[h4rm0ny]

So you want to uplift 6 billion people from poverty? You realise that the more you share Wealth across the world the worse it gets for advanced economies right?

Lifting people out of poverty seems a noble goal to me, yes. Though I'd point out your figures are around 80% of the world population. But the second part is rubbish. Wealth is not a fixed thing. Wealth is something we create. Uplifting other countries out of poverty and modernising isn't stretching some finite amount of wealth ever thinner - it's increasing the total amount of wealth. You have a negative mindset. It's also increasing the number of trading partners we can have. Low-skill migration is one form of trade. But as technology and society advance, it's not the most productive form of trade. Trade with other advanced economies is.

Yes over the very long generational term, but right now? It's irrelevant and the backlash isn't going to stop.

Increasing female education and opportunities for women has an IMMEDIATE effect on birth rate. You can see that throughout the Western world even in heavily Catholic countries like Italy. It's not some pie in the sky idealism. It's practical, measured and works. Advance societies, birth rate drops

Would you prefer your small coastal town to start having a decline in population and prosperity, creating gradual abandonment and quite possibly a reduced flow of money and increasingly suppressed economy, or

Would you prefer your town to prosper, but change character slightly due to an influx of people with different heritage and culture.

Argument by analogy is dangerous. What you say sounds sensible but it presumes a very specific context. Here's an alternate way of looking at it. The world population is at 7.7bn. Far, far higher than it was even just a hundred years ago. It's a crazy high figure. Some parts of the world are not hitting replacement as you observe - meaning that if that were universal we'd start rebalancing the population to something sustainable. (We can debate exactly what standard of living is acceptable in order to decide what global population counts as sustainable, but I'm sure you agree the principle is valid). What we actually have, though, are some parts of the world continuing to accelerate at terrifying rates. far and above the rest. In practice, your "seaside town" is a somewhat crowded place, being squeezed out of existence by even more rapid expansion from elsewhere. This is where I think your analogy is wrong - we're not talking about some fixed populations and a shortfall in one area being offset by a move of population from another. We're talking about a rapidly growing global population, filling up more and more of less and less free space, adjusting living standards and opportunities accordingly, and some groups vanishing through not eating up as many resources as others. Like it or not, we're in a room full of expanding balloons (there's my argument by analogy ) and some balloons are going to go pop because other balloons are inflating much faster. If the world population wasn't far, far higher than at any point in history, I would agree with your declining seaside town analogy. But it isn't. It's crazy high.

Tangentially, I don't really give a damn about your analogy in terms of race. Whilst it's plausible there may be some very minor statistical differences between races they're plainly swamped by environmental factors such as education. Race doesn't interest me. Culture, however, is very important to me. So I mainly consider your analogy in terms of that, to be clear.

 

[h4rm0ny]

I grew up in a small town (8k), I currently live in a village of about 150. I like living int he countryside like this, but it is not efficient in the slightest and has numerous drawbacks. Everyone has to commute a long way to work, drive a car to go shopping, drive anywhere to do anything in fact. There are numerous additional costs in supplying utilities, infrastructure and roads.

Working from home is becoming much more pervasive. Home delivery already is. That's two of the major factors. I think villages and towns are becoming much more viable again. I think self-driving cars as a form of public transport are also going to have a large effect on travel costs and infrastructure.

 

[h4rm0ny]

It’s called Brain Drain and is something I always thought was an issue too, but it appears there’s no scientific evidence to suggest it is actually detrimental to countries. In fact the scientific evidence, contrary to what I always assumed, suggests it’s acually more beneficial for a number of reasons.

Seems odd to start talking about the "Scientific Evidence" about whether or not it's detrimental. I recall reading something by a Bulgarian complaining about a shortage of nurses in the country because so many of them were going abroad to the UK an other better off countries to earn higher wages. What is the rational for thinking that a large exodus of professional classes such as nurses wouldn't be detrimental to the originating country? When a company or a country can't afford to compete with the salaries from a wealthier competitor, that's a negative for that company / country.

 

[StriderX]

Seems odd to start talking about the "Scientific Evidence" about whether or not it's detrimental. I recall reading something by a Bulgarian complaining about a shortage of nurses in the country because so many of them were going abroad to the UK an other better off countries to earn higher wages. What is the rational for thinking that a large exodus of professional classes such as nurses wouldn't be detrimental to the originating country? When a company or a country can't afford to compete with the salaries from a wealthier competitor, that's a negative for that company / country.

Because their own personal lives would be better in comparison to living a pitiful existence in the middle-of-no-where Europe, It's that nurses choice to seek out better employment, **** countries that believe they have sole ownership of their citizens.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Because their own personal lives would be better in comparison to living a pitiful existence in the middle-of-no-where Europe, It's that nurses choice to seek out better employment, **** countries that believe they have sole ownership of their citizens.

Amp34 claimed there was no evidence of it being detrimental to the originating countries. Your reading comprehension is terrible.

 

[Orionaut]

Because their own personal lives would be better in comparison to living a pitiful existence in the middle-of-no-where Europe, It's that nurses choice to seek out better employment, **** countries that believe they have sole ownership of their citizens.

Most (All?) developed countries have some sort of state provision for education paid for out of general taxation.

Seems a bit of a cheek to just bugger off abroad as soon as you have got your qualifications.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Most (All?) developed countries have some sort of state provision for education paid for out of general taxation.

Seems a bit of a cheek to just bugger off abroad as soon as you have got your qualifications.

Even where they're loan-based, it's usually a subsidised, below market loan. It's a valid point.

 

[Amp34]

Seems odd to start talking about the "Scientific Evidence" about whether or not it's detrimental. I recall reading something by a Bulgarian complaining about a shortage of nurses in the country because so many of them were going abroad to the UK an other better off countries to earn higher wages. What is the rational for thinking that a large exodus of professional classes such as nurses wouldn't be detrimental to the originating country? When a company or a country can't afford to compete with the salaries from a wealthier competitor, that's a negative for that company / country.

Ok, I'll rephrase the point. It's generally not considered a detriment to most countries in the scientific literature. There will obviously be exceptions, but it seems remittances, experience from working abroad and then coming back and the increased chance of education (educating both those that leave and stay) are generally a greater benefit than the negatives caused by those that leave.

I'm not going to argue this much as I broadly hold a similar position to you in this, it's just that there's little evidence to actually support the general premise of the notion.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Ok, I'll rephrase the point. It's generally not considered a detriment to most countries in the scientific literature. There will obviously be exceptions, but it seems remittances, experience from working abroad and then coming back and the increased chance of education (educating both those that leave and stay) are generally a greater benefit than the negatives caused by those that leave.

I'm not going to argue this much as I broadly hold a similar position to you in this, it's just that there's little evidence to actually support the general premise of the notion.

And similarly, I'm not holding a wildly opposed position to you. The main thing that I was replying to was your use of the term "Scientific literature". Whilst Sociology, demographics, et al. apply (if done properly) rigorous practices and peer review, they're not widely considered "Scientific literature", I thought. Perhaps because of cultural weight or perhaps because they so often deal in unfalsifiable hypotheses by their very nature. Either way, it was the phrasing that struck me. I've certainly no desire to dispute with you over in one of those interminable "must have the last word" arguments we see so many of here.

I do think it's the case that there are immediate negatives. I don't have a solid view on whether or not long-term gains (e.g. sending wages back home, returning with greater experience) offset this in the long run or provide a benefit. You may be right. But then what sort of time span do we want to take in all these conversations we're having? I mean, take a long enough view and the Roman Empire was a positive for Europe from the POV of all us descendants and inheritors of their civilisation improvements. But that doesn't mean it's a positive from the point of view of the cultures living there at the time or the descendants who don't exist because Roman soldiers slaughtered native peoples. Perhaps we disagree simply because we consider different time scales. Will someone die in a hospital in Bulgaria today that wouldn't have. Will Bulgaria see an extra 1.2m in taxes in 2022 that it wouldn't have. And which perspective should we take? I think it's justifiable to lean towards the former, but other viewpoints are arguable.

 

[Amp34]

And similarly, I'm not holding a wildly opposed position to you. The main thing that I was replying to was your use of the term "Scientific literature". Whilst Sociology, demographics, et al. apply (if done properly) rigorous practices and peer review, they're not widely considered "Scientific literature", I thought. Perhaps because of cultural weight or perhaps because they so often deal in unfalsifiable hypotheses by their very nature. Either way, it was the phrasing that struck me. I've certainly no desire to dispute with you over in one of those interminable "must have the last word" arguments we see so many of here.

I do think it's the case that there are immediate negatives. I don't have a solid view on whether or not long-term gains (e.g. sending wages back home, returning with greater experience) offset this in the long run or provide a benefit. You may be right. But then what sort of time span do we want to take in all these conversations we're having? I mean, take a long enough view and the Roman Empire was a positive for Europe from the POV of all us descendants and inheritors of their civilisation improvements. But that doesn't mean it's a positive from the point of view of the cultures living there at the time or the descendants who don't exist because Roman soldiers slaughtered native peoples. Perhaps we disagree simply because we consider different time scales. Will someone die in a hospital in Bulgaria today that wouldn't have. Will Bulgaria see an extra 1.2m in taxes in 2022 that it wouldn't have. And which perspective should we take? I think it's justifiable to lean towards the former, but other viewpoints are arguable.

Ah ok.

I take the long term gains to mean within a generation. To take Bulgaria as an example the tenant is that many of the doctors/nurses that qualified in Bulgaria, then travelled to western Europe to work, would then go back to Bulgaria 20 years later, taking their experience and skills back with them to help train the next generation. I'm guessing most of the studies have concentrated on Africa and similar locations rather than Eastern Europe however.

I'd also hypothesise that the first wave is probably the hardest on the economy of the home country, because those people will take a while to get back and show most of those benefits. In more established locations, were this has been going on for decades perhaps the negative drop from the people leaving is smoothed over by the people coming back in previous waves.

Could be totally wrong though!

 

[h4rm0ny]

Ah ok.

I take the long term gains to mean within a generation. To take Bulgaria as an example the tenant is that many of the doctors/nurses that qualified in Bulgaria, then travelled to western Europe to work, would then go back to Bulgaria 20 years later, taking their experience and skills back with them to help train the next generation. I'm guessing most of the studies have concentrated on Africa and similar locations rather than Eastern Europe however.

I'd also hypothesise that the first wave is probably the hardest on the economy of the home country, because those people will take a while to get back and show most of those benefits. In more established locations, were this has been going on for decades perhaps the negative drop from the people leaving is smoothed over by the people coming back in previous waves.

Could be totally wrong though!

Or I might be! But I don't think we're actually in disagreement any more. What you say makes sense to me and isn't at odds with what I wrote.

Related, I know of cases of villages in India pooling their resources to send someone to the UK to study to become a doctor so they can return and be a doctor for the village. It can be quite hard for the person who gets that task (an honour by the way) because they may adapt to life in the UK but at the end of it, they suddenly feel obliged to return to some little village and be a doctor there for the rest of their life.