Should there be international agreements between nations that would allow open immigration? To narrow the scope of the debate, I would suggest that such an arrangement include only those nations that have similar economies and standards of living. This is because the issue of immigration can be very contentious, especially in the U.S. where many people see South American or Asian immigrants as a “burden”. I’d rather this not turn into a “racist vs. non-racist” thread.
There are plenty of Canadians, English, Germans, Australians, Italians, and so forth who wish to live in the United States. Many Americans might wish to live in any of those nations. Similarly, a Japanese might want to live in France, and a French person may want to move to New Zealand. I think that open migration would more or less “come out in the wash”, population-wise. I think that more foreign nationals taking up residence in whatever countries promotes better international understanding and exposure to different cultures.
Note: I’m not talking about emmigration for economic reasons. When I mentioned “similar economies” the implication is that the prospective immigrant currently makes his livelihood in his own country and could do similar work in his target country.
I know a couple of Irish guys who own a helicopter FBO in California. They came over to earn their ratings, were hired by the FBO that trained them, and finally bought the business. These are certainly not “economic refugees”. They came with a desire, got their training here, and are productive members of the community. So I’m not talking about immigrants who are unable to find employment in their own countries. I’m talking about people who don’t need to move, but wish to ply their trades in a different climate or culture.
For the reasons I mentioned earlier, I think open migration would be a good thing. I work with immigrants from South America, Asia and Southeast Asia, Japan, Russia, Africa, the Middle East – all over the world. They certainly make contributions to the company, and so to the community. It’s good to work in a multi-national environment. (I should point out that most of the employees are U.S. nationals. But there are many foreign nationals.)
I see one or two problems in terms of adminstration and enforceability. How would you decide who’s moving for “economic reasons”, for example. If someone is taking up a job offer that pays more, surely that could be considered partially for economic reasons, even if he’s picked that job over a similar offer in his home country, and the location was the deciding factor.
Would we be able to fairly apply these rules even down to low-paid workers? If someone’s moving to, say, Italy from Japan because property prices are lower and they can get $13,000 per annum rather than $12,500, surely they’re economic migrants too?
In short, I think you’ve sold yourself short a little by concentrating so hard on this “economic migrancy” thing: you’re not really suggesting anything new. In fact, people in the EEA (European Economic Area) already enjoy all this and more. A Frenchman can go across the border and get a job in Italy already, even if it is for “economic reasons”.
If you are already limiting these agreements to “countries of similar economies,” then concentrating so hard on economic migration is a bit paranoid, because it’s as likely to be a wash in this area as any other. Last time I checked, Germany’s unemployment rate was higher than the UK’s but I still know more Brits working in Germany than Germans working in the UK. A real reformist attitude would be to expand trade blocs outwards and allow unlimited freedom of movement between countries. Less paperwork means a greater ability to move between countries as the situation demands it (the “hidden cost” of doing such a thing often pops up later for the individual in the tax forms you have to fill out for all the different Revenue Services, but common agreements tend to include facilities for dealing with this.)
So, nice idea, but it’s not really suggesting anything going much beyond what we already have in place.
I see your point. What I was really getting at (in my rather imperfect way) was to try to stop racial rants. There are a lot of people who oppose Mexican immigration to the U.S. because “They take our jobs!” So I was trying to get away from the “They take our jobs!” angle. I understand that the U.S. is one of the more difficult countries to immigrate to. There are a few Dopers who have first-hand experience that I don’t have. I think it would be great if someone in Germany, say, could save enough money for a “grubstake” – i.e., enough to get by on until he or she could find employment – hop on a plane and say, “Here I am! Here’s my résumé.” Similarly, I wouldn’t mind the option (although I don’t know if I’d take advantage of it) to fly over to England, rent a flat, and make a new life.
I suppose I was wrong to put in the bit about “similar standards of living”. The illegal immigrants I hear about are more likely to take jobs that many Americans wouldn’t want. One legal Mexican immigrant I work with probably did not “take a job” from an American, but was hired for his ability (and he has been an invaluable asset to the Programming department).
So you can forget that part if you want. I just don’t want to hear people talking about people immigrating “just so they can take advantage of our resources”. I want to talk about the “middle class”, if you will, who simply want to live within a different culture, and who would be perfectly able to do that were it not for immigration restrictions.
I understand that it’s easier for Europeans to move about within Europe. I’d like to see more freedom of movement both into and out of America, Australia, etc.
Australia and NZ have such a policy. As the NZ PM said, Kiwis emmigrating to Oz helps raise the average IQ of both countries.
I still think you’d get an overwhelming majority of people coming into the US rather than the other way around. There is just no tradition of emmigration FROM the USA. How about some sort of balancing policy. No country has to take more than 3x the immigrants than it loses in emmigrants, or some such formula.
You are truly delusional. The United States are one of the easiest countries to immigrate into. I don’t have a cite now, but I’ll get one later. Isn’t around 10% of our current population foreign born?
Americans used to do those jobs, but they couldn’t compete with illegal aliens who would do the job for half the rate.
You live in Southern California, Johnny. Surely you remember when Americans did construction work and other jobs?
Now, y’see… This is why I tried to put limits on this thread at the beginning. I’m not talking about day labourers, but about your average joe. I can’t believe that Country X is going to be invaded by hoards of foreign data processors.
Some countries are poor, and there is an economic incentive for thier people to emmigrate to a more prosperous country. I’d like to limit the discussion to people who want to emmigrate for reasons other than economic ones. For example, someone might like nice beaches and want to move to Australia. Someone might be an Anglophile or a Francophile and want to move to England or France. A German might be a fan of American Western movies and want to move to Germany. I know a German who is an IT guy for a large multinational corporation who wants to come to the U.S., but is unable to get a “green card”. In the U.S. he would probably have a lower salary and fewer benefits; but he wants to immigrate anyway.
So I hope you can see the direction I want to take this thread.
This is completely untrue. The US doesn’t even have a points-based migration system, unlike Canada, Australia, or New Zealand.
It is also extremely difficult to get a work permit in the US. Unlike here, for example, where it’s no problem at all.
Not saying the US is the worst (I am not sure where that would be) but it is far from an easy country to migrate to.
I think open migration would work extremely well, on the following provisos:
1. No social welfare benefits for five years
2. Emergency health treatment only, for conditions resulting after arrival, again for five years
3. Committing crime in the new country results in instant deportation (I would not advocate imprisonment because that is an economic drain on the host country)
4. Migrants must have some post-highschool qualification, or have worked for at least two years continuously previous to migrating (eg sixteen year old school leaver working as mechanic)
For this system, passport number-based visa system would be appropriate, backed up by something like iris recognition on arrival, so as to block reentry of deported offenders. (Because in many parts of the world it’s extremely easy to get a new passport and identity. Some other method would be needed to verify these people).
Speaking as one that just recently immigrated from Denmark to the US: It’s not as easy as you make it out to be, as long as you’re talking legal immigration. Actually, it’s pretty darn hard.
The relevant authorities are, OTOH, famously inept at upholding the rules and I’d wager that there’s more illegal than legal immigration to the US.
That aside: I think it might be beneficial in many ways (and really cool, to boot) to have free movement (like in the EEA) over a larger area, but without some economical parity, there will be all sorts of problems. State-sponsored benefits vary quite a bit from place to place, for instance. Will taxpayers in country A be happy to sponsor healthcare for citizens from country B ?
Frankly, I say if the person doesn’t have a criminal background (except for ex-political prisoners), we should let them in. If they don’t speak English, or have a high school education, then they should be required to take courses on those things as a condition of their being allowed to stay in the country. In the short term there might be some economic shocks from doing this, but immigrants have been a massive force in driving not only the economy of the US, but also technological development, so, in theory, things should pick up rather quickly.
Of course, I realize that there’s no way in hell that this could happen.
Within the EEA, you are allowed to claim benefits from the country that you are resident in, but at the rate provided by the country you are a citizen of, and I believe (although I am not absolutely certain) that there are various mechanisms in place for making sure that the costs are shared equally. There are one or two problems with this, but in general the cost of living is reasonably equal, and it prevents people saying “Hey, they get more unemployment benefit in Germany than France, I’ll move there.”
Relative to this, I’m curious about the “British subject” rule of pre-Statute of Westminster days – to what extent do the various nations which are officially constitutional monarchies with allegiance to Queen Elizabeth of the House of Windsor allow intermigration? At one time any Briton, Canadian, Australian, etc., could exercise an affirmative right to live in any other of His or Her Majesty’s realms, with no legal red tape involved. Has that changed? If so, what’s the new standard?
There are no special preferences between England and Canada, or England and Australia. In fact, Canada even has a working holiday visa arrangement with Australia that England doesn’t have (with Canada). It is just as hard to migrate from England to Australia as it is from any other country.
The USA could reciprocally allow citizens of the EU, Canada, Japan, Australia to reside in their countries and the result would be extremely benecificial for all parties concerned. People who move tend to be the better educated and better off which is great for business and cultural exchange and understanding. Those who think it would result in massive migration of the poor are totally wrong.
When the EU was discussing the same thing they had the same fears. Germany and the UK feared they would be flooded with the jobless of Spain and Greece but it did not happen at all. people, unless they are starving and desperate will prefer to stay within their culture and familiar surroundings. It has been the better educated who speak languages and have a much broader view, who have travelled to get jobs elsewhere.
A french corporation can now much more easily set up business in Spain because they can sent their management without hassle. This results in better business for the French company and more jobs created in Spain.
Countries which are above a certain standard of living could mutually open up their borders and the effects would be very beneficial. Or does anyone think a Greek beggar is going to jump on an airplane to go to the USA? BTW, social benefits on the whole are higher in the EU so it may be the EU who should be afraid of getting the American underclass.
I love the idea of open immigration. Personally I would like to work and live abroad (with the option of moving back after 5-10 years) just to broaden my horizon, but due to the beaurocratic hurdles involved, this might not come to be, sadly.
sailor - thanks for that link, however it’s not quite the same. The US does have employment based migration, but (like the UK I think) it doesn’t have a points-based system where people can move there on spec, based on qualification/education.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand all have a points-based system where you can migrate there as a skilled individual without family relations, or employment already sorted out, etc.
Being from the UK and never having to worry about it(!) I have very little knowledge of UK migration law as it affects foreigners. I do know that it is illegal to enter the UK without a work permit, intending to seek work. A young Australian woman was once deported from the UK for arriving with a CV in her suitcase. I cannot find a cite for this but do clearly remember the story. (Associates and I at the time were thinking “if only she’d just kept an electronic copy in her hotmail account instead”).
I am also fairly certain that it is illegal to seek work in Australia without a valid work permit (except via the internet, from overseas, of course).
I don’t know what the law on this is in America. Are you allowed to come over and jobhunt? How difficult it is, if a US employer does want to hire you, for them to get you your green card? I understood it was extremely difficult. In Australia, it is an extremely difficult and lengthy process - except for certain special professions such as medical, IT - for an employer to get a work permit for an overseas applicant.
As I understand it, New Zealand (at least until recently) made it much easier for someone to get a work permit/migration in the above scenario. You would get extra points on a skilled migration application if you already had an offer of employment. This suggest to me that they may be more relaxed about people seeking employment there before they have their work permit. Or it may just refer to overseas/internet recruitment.
Anyway I agree with you about having more reciprocal arrangements. It is extremely absurd, in an increasingly globalised, connected world, to have immigration laws becoming increasingly tighter and stricter.
sailor - yes - I DID read it - as I mentioned in my post above it’s employment based migration. You have to have a job first.
It specifically says “Immigration Through Employment.”
No offense, but either I am misunderstanding something badly, or you are misunderstanding my post. Migrating when you already have a job offer is not the same as migrating on spec. The American system would be the equivalent to Australia’s Work Sponsored Temporary Migration/Work Sponsored Permanent Migration, NOT it’s Permanent Skilled Migration.
