Immigration in Europe

[rabbitx]

Hi, Everyone.

As some of you know, I used to post at these forums quite a bit before, making a few rather unimpressive patches. I've come back to ask a question to the general population. I recently did a research paper on the hotly debated issue tearing at Europe currently, which is whether immigration is a positive sign for Europe. I would like to hear your opinions on this debate, especially those of you who live in Europe currently. There are several arguements for this debate. Those who are pro-immigration often argue that it strengthens the economy, and lowers the unemployment rates by significant percentages; it also diversifies Europe, and repays the debts of the Europeans from the colonization eras. Others argue that it actually harms the economy, raises crime levels, and that Europe has no need for immigrants, and is satisfactory as it is.

Essay removed by User

[el badman]

That's a good paper you got there AmoAttack, on a very interesting topic.
I can't speak for other countries, but being French, I can certainly confirm and refute some points you made about this country.

Immigrants have also had a difficult time assimilating themselves into European culture.

A bit off-topic, but that might be one misconception I wanna mention: outside Europe (and I hear that a lot here in the US), people tend to think that the whole process of developing an actual European Union in the past decades has really altered Europeans' way of thinking, so that they actually feel they belong to Europe first, then to their country. But really, in France (and I'm pretty sure it's that way in the other countries), people will never tell you that they're European before being French. If you mention that they belong to Europe, they'll say "hmm yeah, I guess we do, but it doesn't really matter...". Even with the Euro and the virtual disappearance of borders, it'll take much much longer for this nationalistic feeling to weaken.

On one side is the culture of their parent’s countries and on the other is that of their new nation. They are often at a loss, and do not know what to do. Many European citizens add to this sense of distress, and pain, amongst the immigrants. They do not consider the immigrants to be true Europeans, despite the fact that many have been born and raised in Europe. They often complain about the burden the immigrants put on the economy of the nations, and other such reasons.

I believe this is very true. Wherever they live in Europe, it's very much a challenge to be accepted by the local population as one of them, even if you were born there and speak the same language without any accent. At least, all of that fits the situation in France, no doubt.

Immigration greatly strengthens the European economy, for several reasons, such as decreasing the unemployment rates, and stabilizing the population. Many jobs that are not taken by natural European citizens are taken by immigrants, which is beneficial for the economy, in that the immigrants have jobs while the national unemployment rates go lower.

Again I can only speak for France, but unfortunately this is not the case at all there. Because each country has its own economic system, what might be true in the US for example (which would obviously be badly affected if all the immigrants decided to leave all of sudden) doesn't necessarily apply somewhere else. In France, the unemployment rate started increasing in the late 70's but mostly in the 80's because of unfit immigration policies that allowed large waves of immigrants to come to France unchecked and settle there without any potential work opportunities. In France, you can't really say that "they're filling the positions that the citizens do not want to take". Unemployment has become so bad for 25-30 years because France has welcomed more and more immigrants without offering them any professional prospects, while at the same time offering them a comprehensive social coverage. In France, you can almost afford to never work at all, especially if you have children, because the government showers you with social allowances, unemployment benefits and family support funds. Of course, you can't live like a millionaire with that, but you certainly survive and "exploit" the system (and I'm not talking about the immigrants only here, many French citizens live this way). While that might sound ideal to some, it really messes up the whole system, because you have a country with high unemployment, a high level of welfare payments and sickness benefits, less and less retirement funds for workers about to retire (the retirement system is sorta based on "solidarity" withdrawals from every active worker's paycheck), growing animosity between French people and immigrants, political instability...Well, you get the picture.
I know that unemployment is pretty bad in Germany too, and that immigration has always been a controversial topic there as well, but as far as France is concerned, what should be the positive effects of immigration have always been hindered by bad politics, leading to unemployment and cultural conflicts.
I dunno if that helps, these are just some thoughts...

[shadowgrin]

Please do not plagiarize my work in any way. Aside from it being in the process of being published, I have put hours of my time and a good amount of work into this, and I would not appreciate for someone to steal parts of this and claim it as their own. Just a friendly request.

TRY AND STOP ME!!!

EDIT: My reaction.

Since the US had never colonized nations as the Europeans did

Seems like you need some more research there.
On second thought, don't bother. Your essay is about immigration in Europe and not imperialist history.

Many jobs that are not taken by natural European citizens are taken by immigrants, which is beneficial for the economy, in that the immigrants have jobs while the national unemployment rates go lower.

In Germany, approximately 600,000 Germans leave the nation every year, while another 600,000 foreigners migrate to the country (CNN). Another example of how immigration provides insurance for the economy. The high birth rates among immigrants stabilize the population, while also insuring the safety of the economy, by taking otherwise unwanted jobs.

Though immigration can weaken European economy, it also greatly strengthens it by adding security to the job market and preventing high unemployment rates

I don't really believe that the influx of immigrants makes the unemployment rates go lower. By taking the example of Germany, we might say hooray for the immigration because it stabilizes the economy by providing a supply of workers thereby also decreasing unemployment statistics.

But you have to wonder, what are the reasons that 600,000 Germans leave the nation every year? If one of those reasons is because they can't find a suitable job, then the unemployment problem still exists. The immigrants are just filling a hole temporarily for the constant problem of unemployment.

This is where one must read between the lines of stats. 600,000 immigrants getting jobs will make unemployment stats go down, but 600,000 citizens left because of lack of job opportunities which means unemployment is still high thus the emigration. There is basically no change or improvement because the ones that left are filled by the ones that arrive. If there is no improvement, the balance can only be maintained or go down.

To add to that dilemma, what if those 600,00 who left can't also find jobs in other countries, then they will only add to the unemployment of the country they are in.

The only way of adding security to the job market and preventing high unemployment rates is to have more jobs available. Say that the rate of jobs available stay constant, sooner or later the influx of those who arrive will surpass of those who leave the country and more people will be unemployed because of lack of jobs (and not of workers), which will affect the economy eventually

Globalization is creating a worldwide mass culture, therefore making a worldwide economy and society that can be shared by people of all races, and religions. Immigration to Europe plays a vital role in the success of globalization, as immigrants in Europe can connect with their countrymen, enlightening them about the advantages of European society, and culture

diversifies Europe

While it is good that globalization brings about an exchange and sharing of ideas and culture from different corners of the earth, it also has the potential problem of assimilation and conformity with the rest of the 'globalized' world, that one country's culture might deviate so far from its roots or worse, it might disappear outright.

repays the debts owed by the Europeans towards many people of the colonized nations

Reparation?
[chappelle show]"I'm rich beotch!"[/chappelle show]

[rabbitx]

el badman,

those are very interesting thoughts, the sources that I used were actually primarily news companies such as BBC and CNN, and they might not have portrayed the situation accurately. I have a friend in France who essentially said the same things as you did. those were very interesting remarks, thanks for the feedback

shadowgrin, im still waiting


i would like to hear some more feedback, so please speak your opinion on the matter, and your personal experiences, since i know that many of you live in europe

[Joe']

I'll edit my post as soon as I finish reading your paper.

[shadowgrin]

shadowgrin, im still waiting

Done. Bastard.
Just read my previous post.

[[Q]]

Since the US had never colonized nations as the Europeans did

Seems like you need some more research there.
On second thought, don't bother. Your essay is about immigration in Europe and not imperialist history.

Shadow would know... his country is one of them.

I'll start listing them here:
-every single native American tribe in the US today.
-Texas. (then a part of Mexico and then an independent country for a brief time)
-California, Nevada, & Arizona from Mexico after the Mexican-American War.
-Midway Atoll and other small islands in the Pacific Ocean.
-Hawai'i. after some shady business and coup d' etat
-Puerto Rico (aka the 51st state), The Philippines, Guam, and Cuba from Spain after the Spanish-American war.
-Samoa
-The Virgin Islands. (Tim Duncan & Raja Bell are thankful for that one)

not to mention what influence they tried to have on Asia especially when China opened up as well as Japan.

[rabbitx]

well, yes, i know that the us has colonized nations, but what i was trying to say was that it was not to the same extent as the europeans; for example, during philip II's reign, his empire included much of the americas, africa, and other places; india had previously been colonized for centuries.

the united states did colonize several nations, but in contrast to the european nations, it is a trivial amount. also many us citizens are not aware of the territores that were occupied by their country, and therefore are more open to new immigrants. the feeling that they had previously colonized many of the countries where the immigrants come from is much more prevalent within europeans.

[benji]

But that's all wrong. Colonizing and holding or protecting territories is different. Texas was an independent state we annexed with their consent. (You can debate the methods of achieving independence obviously.) The Mexican Cession were territories acquired from Mexico in a treaty. All the rest Qballer references are and were not "colonies" most were protecterates (it's almost five in the morning ignore my spelling) which means independent with U.S. assistance. Puerto Rico could become a state at any time and refuses to, Guam, Virgin Islands, etc. all also like their situation.

And to call Native Americans tribes "colonies" is a bit of a major stretch, they're independent with their own agreement of participation with the United States.

Most "United States colonies" were nothing more than areas that had military bases in exchange for massive amounts of U.S. financial and logistical aid.

Don't forget the U.S. was instrumental in getting the Europeans to decolonize. Also don't forget what a "colony" is...

Imperalist America was a failure in that it let go of it's acquisitions and/or got things that were useless. Then World War I and Wilsonianism put an end to all that.

I didn't read any of that first post, but immigration is a major issue now. States exist because of how they were created at their founding, if the nature of a state changes, so does the state. If France (just an example) becomes majority Muslim, it is no longer France as we know it. It will become a different state. We only think of states as they are now because they have been around for us and our parents and grandparents, but there have generations with entirely different states. When our grandparents or great-grandparents (depending on our age) were around there was an Austrian-Hungarian Empire and a German Empire. Now there's Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia, Austria, Hungry, Serbia-Montenegro, etc. If we want to maintain the states we grew up with, then immigration control is of the utmost importance. If not, is something different.