[News] Mass Migration

[portlock seagull]

This human tragedy continues with daily drownings and governments unable to devise or implement effective controls or solutions regardless.

The scale will continue to rise, and seemingly so will the problems.

Realistically what if anything can be done? The drivers are unstoppable eg climate, famine, war, unemployment, population growth. All summarised as survival basically.

It seems the only eventually will be such disorder as to rival something rarely or never witnessed in history ie complete collapse of civil society. I concur with David Attenborough in this sense, have done since before he upped the rhetoric.

Can we get this sorted via NSC I wonder? Post comments here and I’ll ensure the PM gets ‘em!

 

[Baldseagull]

This human tragedy continues with daily drownings and governments unable to devise or implement effective controls or solutions regardless.

The scale will continue to rise, and seemingly so will the problems.

Realistically what if anything can be done? The drivers are unstoppable eg climate, famine, war, unemployment, population growth. All summarised as survival basically.

It seems the only eventually will be such disorder as to rival something rarely or never witnessed in history ie complete collapse of civil society. I concur with David Attenborough in this sense, have done since before he upped the rhetoric.

Can we get this sorted via NSC I wonder? Post comments here and I’ll ensure the PM gets ‘em!

The drivers are stoppable, but requires governments to work together and be able to persuade their populations that they need to give more in Foreign Aid.
It is a tough sell, especially in countries like ours, where even when the benefits of paying into something are clear and direct, like EU membership, can be weaponised by populists.

It also needs an EU asylum policy, which we should join, so wherever a person presents they are processed in the same way, and entitled to the same support. Individual countries should then receive funding from the EU for every EU asylum case they take in, to prevent any one nation feeling overly burdened by being on the borders.

 

[chickens]

Option 1 - (highly unpopular) - allow free migration (vetting as appropriate) - and welcome new arrivals into the country ensuring that language skills, cultural norms and socially acceptable/unacceptable behaviour are taught. Encourage integration among all age groups, don’t allow self-contained silos of imported cultures to form where refugees have neither a desire or a reason to integrate. Solves our labour shortage issues, our demographics issues, and brings fresh minds and faces to our shores.

Option 2 - (still highly unpopular) withdraw aid and/or impose trade sanctions for nations persecuting or impoverishing sections of their population and advise that aid/trade will not be resumed until the situation has improved for the nation’s population. Will harm our exporters and potentially cost jobs.

Simultaneously, engage in meaningful diplomacy with those nations whose citizens currently form large numbers of refugees, providing assistance where appropriate, and return to providing aid/trade provided tangible improvements in quality of life and tolerance are achieved, meaning that significant refugee reduction is achieved. A bit of carrot and stick, and my preferred approach out of the options I could think of.

Option 3 - (most unpopular of all)
Spend hugely on our armed forces and threaten regime change on regimes that perform so poorly their citizens keep trying to escape their homeland. Enter multiple expensive military campaigns to enforce regime change, and see our new regimes crumble the minute we withdraw. Be no further forward but increase hatred toward us tenfold.

Option 4 - carry on as we are with our politicians giving us loads of rhetoric about how tough they are on immigration, while actually making the situation worse.

I’m sure others can think of more, but those four were the options I could think of off the top of my head. Option 2 would be my favourite as it tackles cause rather than effect.

 

[Berty23]

I have thought for a while that water will be the thing that leads of global war. If we keep warming the planet and causing changes in global climate then we are harming countries far more “at risk” than us.

Sadly nutters/conspiracy theorists/ ex presidents of USA/ gb news fans all believe global warming is a hoax. Until everyone is on board then things won’t change.

The issue with getting everyone on board is that it will be expensive and would mean going against the oil and petrol giants who are basically global lobbyists. Also if someone huge like China doesn’t play ball then they get competitive advantage.

Basically I can’t see how it gets sorted.

Cheery start to the weekend.

 

[Commander]

I've never quite understand why climate change denying / ignoring seems to be a right-wing viewpoint. If the climate does change how most scientist predict then places that are going to be the most affected by it are going to be poor countries in Africa / Asia etc. Where are all their fleeing people going to go? Here.

So it should be the other way around, no? Right-wingers should be more concerned about climate change than anyone else if they don't want a load more Johnny Foreigners converging on our shores. I've never understood why it's even seen as a political subject in the first place.

 

[Berty23]

I've never quite understand why climate change denying / ignoring seems to be a right-wing viewpoint. If the climate does change how most scientist predict then places that are going to be the most affected by it are going to be poor countries in Africa / Asia etc. Where are all their fleeing people going to go? Here.

So it should be the other way around, no? Right-wingers should be more concerned about climate change than anyone else if they don't want a load more Johnny Foreigners converging on our shores. I've never understood why it's even seen as a political subject in the first place.

I think it relates to US politics. I am sure I read something about the Republicans going against it simply because Al Gore was involved in explaining science. Plus I seem to recall military and if the military supported it then the republicans would be all over it.

Also I would imagine oil revenues make their way to republicans.

 

[The Clamp]

Borders are going to become impossible to control and then possibly obsolete in the next 50 years.

Who controls the ingress and egress from a territory will be determined by who has the biggest guns and the most motivation to use them.

The notion that people are just going to sit back and accept their fate is unlikely.

I predict that with resource shortages will come locals trying to to take over and operate energy, water, and fuel facilities. Much like black farmers took over and tried to run agriculture in Zimbabwe. And failing miserably.

It’s gonna get real messy.

 

[B-right-on]

The drivers are stoppable, but requires governments to work together and be able to persuade their populations that they need to give more in Foreign Aid.
It is a tough sell, especially in countries like ours, where even when the benefits of paying into something are clear and direct, like EU membership, can be weaponised by populists.

It also needs an EU asylum policy, which we should join, so wherever a person presents they are processed in the same way, and entitled to the same support. Individual countries should then receive funding from the EU for every EU asylum case they take in, to prevent any one nation feeling overly burdened by being on the borders.

More Foreign Aid? We already give about £2,500 Billion a year, mainly to Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Ethiopia and Yemen which have incredibly corrupt Govts.

The USA gives $51Billion as a comparison.

The only way is to get non corrupt Govts in these countries but look at how it's gone in Afghanistan, Iraq etc... when military might is used.

I don't know what the solution is, but with corrupt and uncaring Govts, more Aid means more taxes for us and newer Rolls Royces and more money in the Swiss Bank Accounts of the people in charge of those countries

 

[Bakero]

More Foreign Aid? We already give about £2,500 Billion a year, mainly to Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Ethiopia and Yemen which have incredibly corrupt Govts.

The USA gives $51Billion as a comparison.

The only way is to get non corrupt Govts in these countries but look at how it's gone in Afghanistan, Iraq etc... when military might is used.

I don't know what the solution is, but with corrupt and uncaring Govts, more Aid means more taxes for us and newer Rolls Royces and more money in the Swiss Bank Accounts of the people in charge of those countries

Not to mention even more money in the bank accounts of western military contractors and their pals.

 

[Berty23]

More Foreign Aid? We already give about £2,500 Billion a year, mainly to Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Ethiopia and Yemen which have incredibly corrupt Govts.

The USA gives $51Billion as a comparison.

The only way is to get non corrupt Govts in these countries but look at how it's gone in Afghanistan, Iraq etc... when military might is used.

I don't know what the solution is, but with corrupt and uncaring Govts, more Aid means more taxes for us and newer Rolls Royces and more money in the Swiss Bank Accounts of the people in charge of those countries

I think your figure for us is a little (doing lots of lifting there) out. Isn’t it about 2.5 billion rather than 2500 billion (which is 2.5 trillion which is not far off our total gdp).

 

[The Clamp]

More Foreign Aid? We already give about £2,500 Billion a year, mainly to Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Ethiopia and Yemen which have incredibly corrupt Govts.

The USA gives $51Billion as a comparison.

The only way is to get non corrupt Govts in these countries but look at how it's gone in Afghanistan, Iraq etc... when military might is used.

I don't know what the solution is, but with corrupt and uncaring Govts, more Aid means more taxes for us and newer Rolls Royces and more money in the Swiss Bank Accounts of the people in charge of those countries

£2,500 billion? No. We don’t.

 

[Baldseagull]

More Foreign Aid? We already give about £2,500 Billion a year, mainly to Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Ethiopia and Yemen which have incredibly corrupt Govts.

The USA gives $51Billion as a comparison.

The only way is to get non corrupt Govts in these countries but look at how it's gone in Afghanistan, Iraq etc... when military might is used.

I don't know what the solution is, but with corrupt and uncaring Govts, more Aid means more taxes for us and newer Rolls Royces and more money in the Swiss Bank Accounts of the people in charge of those countries

I think it is more like £12Bn, but you have demonstrated my point about it being a hard sell. Your position is that it doesn't do much good and ends up in the wrong hands, so we shouldn't do it, or do it less.
The US spends $51Bn as you say, but much of that is military aid, particularly to Israel and Egypt, in the form of American made weaponry, in effect a subsidy to their defence industry.
You can't say money does not work, it is how the money gets deployed that is the issue.
It needs to be made to do good and not end up in the wrong hands. But when you have a bunch of corrupt self serving ****s such as we have in charge in the UK, it's a bit rich to insist we get tough with the Yemeni President.

And it isn't just a choice between Carrot or Stick, we can do both.

 

[Baldseagull]

I think your figure for us is a little (doing lots of lifting there) out. Isn’t it about 2.5 billion rather than 2500 billion (which is 2.5 trillion which is not far off our total gdp).

As a country we aim to spend 0.5% of Gross National Income on Foreign Aid, or Overseas Development as I think it is now called. It used to be 1%. Cut to 0.7 for austerity and 0.5 for Covid. We also count the money we spend on an asylum seeker in the first 12 months as part of this foreign aid budget. Last year almost 30% of the foreign aid budget was accounted for by spending in the UK, on the asylum system.

 

[CheeseRolls]

Option 1 - (highly unpopular) - allow free migration (vetting as appropriate) - and welcome new arrivals into the country ensuring that language skills, cultural norms and socially acceptable/unacceptable behaviour are taught. Encourage integration among all age groups, don’t allow self-contained silos of imported cultures to form where refugees have neither a desire or a reason to integrate. Solves our labour shortage issues, our demographics issues, and brings fresh minds and faces to our shores.

Option 2 - (still highly unpopular) withdraw aid and/or impose trade sanctions for nations persecuting or impoverishing sections of their population and advise that aid/trade will not be resumed until the situation has improved for the nation’s population. Will harm our exporters and potentially cost jobs.

Simultaneously, engage in meaningful diplomacy with those nations whose citizens currently form large numbers of refugees, providing assistance where appropriate, and return to providing aid/trade provided tangible improvements in quality of life and tolerance are achieved, meaning that significant refugee reduction is achieved. A bit of carrot and stick, and my preferred approach out of the options I could think of.

Option 3 - (most unpopular of all)
Spend hugely on our armed forces and threaten regime change on regimes that perform so poorly their citizens keep trying to escape their homeland. Enter multiple expensive military campaigns to enforce regime change, and see our new regimes crumble the minute we withdraw. Be no further forward but increase hatred toward us tenfold.

Option 4 - carry on as we are with our politicians giving us loads of rhetoric about how tough they are on immigration, while actually making the situation worse.

I’m sure others can think of more, but those four were the options I could think of off the top of my head. Option 2 would be my favourite as it tackles cause rather than effect.

You don't differentiate between economic migrants (not generally permitted) and those seeking asylum. Understandable given how hard it is to establish if an asylum claim is legitimate. We could employ a lot more people to process asylum claims. It seems like much better value than accomodating them for the years it seems to take to process them. We could also have a proper national identity card. The current method for employees to prove that workers are legitimate is messy and bureaucratic.

Europe and the UK have established that closing legitimate entry points to migrants has failed to deter people from attempting dangerous crossings. Is there a case for allowing some safer routes, with focussed entry and refusal?

 

[Baldseagull]

I have thought for a while that water will be the thing that leads of global war. If we keep warming the planet and causing changes in global climate then we are harming countries far more “at risk” than us.

Sadly nutters/conspiracy theorists/ ex presidents of USA/ gb news fans all believe global warming is a hoax. Until everyone is on board then things won’t change.

The issue with getting everyone on board is that it will be expensive and would mean going against the oil and petrol giants who are basically global lobbyists. Also if someone huge like China doesn’t play ball then they get competitive advantage.

Basically I can’t see how it gets sorted.

Cheery start to the weekend.

It's another good reason to develop green energy sources, release everyone from having to deal with dubious regimes for Oil and Gas.

 

[portlock seagull]

The drivers are stoppable, but requires governments to work together

That’s the bit I’m giving a vote of no confidence in. In that sense the drivers ARE unstoppable. The scale, scope, speed and complexity of drivers appear unprecedented in history.

It feels therefore like the buck stopping moment will be more naturally imposed than from our efforts as a species, which have been and remain pathetically weak, small and slow so far. When the moment arrives, it’ll be every man woman and child for themselves ie survival of the fittest (that’s me gone!) or survival of the richest more accurately (that’s me gone also!)

I just don’t see how everyone (migrants, of which there will be hundreds of millions eventually) running to one end of the boat (planet earth’s remaining countries that’s aren’t devastated by war, famine or disasters we’ve caused) can be prevented? And what gives then? Chaos and collapse and lots of blood letting if history is anything to go by.

Happy Friday btw Where’s that drinking thread…?

 

[Baldseagull]

You don't differentiate between economic migrants (not generally permitted) and those seeking asylum. Understandable given how hard it is to establish if an asylum claim is legitimate. We could employ a lot more people to process asylum claims. It seems like much better value than accomodating them for the years it seems to take to process them. We could also have a proper national identity card. The current method for employees to prove that workers are legitimate is messy and bureaucratic.

Europe and the UK have established that closing legitimate entry points to migrants has failed to deter people from attempting dangerous crossings. Is there a case for allowing some safer routes, with focussed entry and refusal?

Having large numbers of asylum claimants in the UK allows the UK to spend 30% of it's foreign aid budget in the UK, that money sloshes around in the UK economy rather than an overseas one. I would not be surprised if this Government and it's ministers are enjoying spending that Foreign Aid in the UK, especially if their chums are running the establishments that house them, and they can use their presence to feed the xenophobia of some, so they vote for the party that is claiming it is tough on illegal immigration, again. Win Win for the Tories.

 

[CheeseRolls]

Having large numbers of asylum claimants in the UK allows the UK to spend 30% of it's foreign aid budget in the UK, that money sloshes around in the UK economy rather than an overseas one. I would not be surprised if this Government and it's ministers are enjoying spending that Foreign Aid in the UK, especially if their chums are running the establishments that house them, and they can use their presence to feed the xenophobia of some, so they vote for the party that is claiming it is tough on illegal immigration, again. Win Win for the Tories.

We will never know if stopping the boats achieves anything, as after 13 years they have failed to deliver -bound to be those pesky pronouns to blame.

 

[Baldseagull]

That’s the bit I’m giving a vote of no confidence in. In that sense the drivers ARE unstoppable. The scale, scope, speed and complexity of drivers appear unprecedented in history.

It feels therefore like the buck stopping moment will be more naturally imposed than from our efforts as a species, which have been and remain pathetically weak, small and slow so far. When the moment arrives, it’ll be every man woman and child for themselves ie survival of the fittest (that’s me gone!) or survival of the richest more accurately (that’s me gone also!)

I just don’t see how everyone (migrants, of which there will be hundreds of millions eventually) running to one end of the boat (planet earth’s remaining countries that’s aren’t devastated by war, famine or disasters we’ve caused) can be prevented? And what gives then? Chaos and collapse and lots of blood letting if history is anything to go by.

Happy Friday btw Where’s that drinking thread…?

It does look bleak currently, but things can change for the better.

 

[Bakero]

That’s the bit I’m giving a vote of no confidence in. In that sense the drivers ARE unstoppable. The scale, scope, speed and complexity of drivers appear unprecedented in history.

It feels therefore like the buck stopping moment will be more naturally imposed than from our efforts as a species, which have been and remain pathetically weak, small and slow so far. When the moment arrives, it’ll be every man woman and child for themselves ie survival of the fittest (that’s me gone!) or survival of the richest more accurately (that’s me gone also!)

I just don’t see how everyone (migrants, of which there will be hundreds of millions eventually) running to one end of the boat (planet earth’s remaining countries that’s aren’t devastated by war, famine or disasters we’ve caused) can be prevented? And what gives then? Chaos and collapse and lots of blood letting if history is anything to go by.

Happy Friday btw Where’s that drinking thread…?

For a start we could do with some joined up thinking when it comes to migration and economic policies. For example, not so long ago the EU struck a deal with Senegal allowing Spanish boats to fish in Senegalese waters. Lo and behold, fish stocks are now depleted leading to economic hardship. 3 guesses where the majority of African migrants in Spain come from.

Broadly, we need to address the issue of food sovereignty overall. Right now multinational corporations preside over the entire food chain which begets all manner of problems.