If mass immigration is so great, then how about the countries that lose all their workforce to the wealthy nations?

[TV and credit cards]

Ya, and this will create more incentive for other people to become plumbers and plumbers to immigrate from elsewhere in order to profit from the labour shortage in the industry. The same holds true for neurosurgeons, veterinarians and every other job which requires a particular skill.

And round and round it goes, more dodging! So what replaces the lost labour force?

Yes, the force lost to the richer country.

Since Tom's answer did not satisfy you, you must be referring to the total loss of population, which would mean not as many plumbers would be needed.
What the loosing country needs to concern itself with is brain drain. A country can easily replace the plumbers lost from it's own population. Neurosurgeons may take a bit longer. But this takes the mass out of your "mass immigration" issue.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

And you'll stop this brain drain - how?

But of course the semi-skilled will also leave, and the immigrant-provider country will stagnate,

And your answer? basically it's just 'tough shit, that's the way the cookie crumbles' - golly, how I love liberal democracy hypocrisy

and how long till Eastern Europe resembles Africa

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And you'll stop this brain drain - how?

But of course the semi-skilled will also leave, and the immigrant-provider country will stagnate,

And your answer? basically it's just 'tough shit, that's the way the cookie crumbles' - golly, how I love liberal democracy hypocrisy

and how long till Eastern Europe resembles Africa

So what? That's the job of Eastern Europe to change their conditions and not the job of better economies to stop getting the best workers available.

Your question is like saying that since Apple hiring away software developers from Microsoft could screw up Microsoft's development timelines, something needs to be done to stop Apple offering jobs to people who are already employed. While your premise that the peo-immigration people are the real racists is a ... unique ... argument, it's also a really silly one.

 

[Bar-Jesus]

well, they are just like the racists who want to decimate and control Africa with their neo-liberalism.

And now, if the EU is such a 'democratic heaven' , then why don't they care about what happens to the countries out East? If they're real libs they ought to introduce a kind of affirmative action for nations.

Basically the EU is bunk, and must be dismantled.

Reason - it's a corporate fascist state following the lines of colonialism. We, the people, did not vote for this monstrosity!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ok ... good luck with all that.

 

[laughing dog]

If the citizenry of departing country thinks it is unfair that their comrades are emigrating away, then they need to change their country.

What is this - junior school playground debate group, or what?

Given the nature of your OP and your responses, a junior school playground group is beyond your capabilities. Whether you like it or not, people are free to leave a country if they choose. They do not owe anyone in their country of origin anything. If there is mass migration from country A, then the remaining citizens of country A are either okay with the migration or they are not. If they are not, then it is up to them to change their country in order to stop the migration or even reverse the flow. I would think even members of a junior school playground group can grasp that basic reasoning. What is your excuse?

 

[Archimedes]

How does that answer my question? Is there a problem with a lack of plumbers in Poland?

Poland loses a large chunk of its workforce, so how does it benefit?

Still not actually answering my question.

Is there an actual problem in Poland with a lack of plumbers to do plumbing work? I'm genuinely curious.

And by the way, no, working min wage job in Uk does not allow one to send riches back via Western Union

I never said it did. You seem to be randomly responding to my posts and answer entirely different questions.

 

[Trausti]

The OP is a bit confused. The proponents of mass migration usually argue the benefit for the receiving country, not the reverse. Haven't heard anyway saying that the "donating" country benefits. As others have pointed out, loss of high-skilled workers results in a brain drain. Of course, these high-skilled workers leave because the economies of their home countries are generally poorly managed. Nonetheless, there is a boon for the "donating" country. They get rid of low-skilled, low-educated, and generally crime prone people. Past example - when Castro sent boat loads of Cuba's prison population to the US. More recently, the Assad regime in Syria (and ISIS, too), benefits greatly by the departure of thousands of healthy, fighting-age, men to Europe, rather than have them fight in Syria. Had these men stayed and fought for freedom and their families, the Syrian Civil War could very well be over by now.

I think the better retort to the mass migration evangelists is that if mass migration is so great, why is the benefit of these migrating peoples not directed to countries which sorely need an economic boost? There are, as of this date, 196 countries. Surely, at least a hundred or more of these are more deserving of the supposed benefits of mass migration than the already economically robust West.

 

[laughing dog]

The OP is a bit confused. The proponents of mass migration usually argue the benefit for the receiving country, not the reverse. Haven't heard anyway saying that the "donating" country benefits. As others have pointed out, loss of high-skilled workers results in a brain drain. Of course, these high-skilled workers leave because the economies of their home countries are generally poorly managed. Nonetheless, there is a boon for the "donating" country. They get rid of low-skilled, low-educated, and generally crime prone people. Past example - when Castro sent boat loads of Cuba's prison population to the US. More recently, the Assad regime in Syria (and ISIS, too), benefits greatly by the departure of thousands of healthy, fighting-age, men to Europe, rather than have them fight in Syria. Had these men stayed and fought for freedom and their families, the Syrian Civil War could very well be over by now.

I think the better retort to the mass migration evangelists is that if mass migration is so great, why is the benefit of these migrating peoples not directed to countries which sorely need an economic boost? There are, as of this date, 196 countries. Surely, at least a hundred or more of these are more deserving of the supposed benefits of mass migration than the already economically robust West.

Um, migrants tend to pick their destination. Are you suggesting some group(s) forcibly resettle migrants? If not, your question is truly pointless.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Um, migrants tend to pick their destination. Are you suggesting some group(s) forcibly resettle migrants? If not, your question is truly pointless.

Doesn't have to be forced, but they do need to go somewhere. To use the Syrian refugees as an example, Germany isn't going to take five million of them.

Those countries which need an economic boost or have some other criteria are best served by asking first to get their pick of the bunch and thereby also reduce the amount of resources needed for the rest. For instance, Canada is taking in 25,000, most of which will be families with young children or who have some useful skills to offer. Since there are a couple hundred other countries not asking, we can afford to be selective and get the pick of the crop. If some other country waits until the good ones have been taken, it's like showing up at a grocery store at closing time and having to sift through the moldy vegetables which nobody else wanted.

The same concept applies with regular immigration. If Polish people hear that English toilets are all backed up because there aren't enough plumbers in the country, the first couple hundred Polish plumbers who show up are going to be greeted with hugs and kisses. The next hundred who show up are going to be told that their skills aren't useful and there's no work for them and they'd be better off going to deal with all the clogged up toilets in Portugal. It doesn't serve anyone, including them, to try and hang around in England.

 

[laughing dog]

Um, migrants tend to pick their destination. Are you suggesting some group(s) forcibly resettle migrants? If not, your question is truly pointless.

Doesn't have to be forced, but they do need to go somewhere. To use the Syrian refugees as an example, Germany isn't going to take five million of them.

Those countries which need an economic boost or have some other criteria are best served by asking first to get their pick of the bunch and thereby also reduce the amount of resources needed for the rest. For instance, Canada is taking in 25,000, most of which will be families with young children or who have some useful skills to offer. Since there are a couple hundred other countries not asking, we can afford to be selective and get the pick of the crop. If some other country waits until the good ones have been taken, it's like showing up at a grocery store at closing time and having to sift through the moldy vegetables which nobody else wanted.

The same concept applies with regular immigration. If Polish people hear that English toilets are all backed up because there aren't enough plumbers in the country, the first couple hundred Polish plumbers who show up are going to be greeted with hugs and kisses. The next hundred who show up are going to be told that their skills aren't useful and there's no work for them and they'd be better off going to deal with all the clogged up toilets in Portugal. It doesn't serve anyone, including them, to try and hang around in England.

Of course the refugees have to go somewhere. The specific issue I responded to was "if mass migration is so great, why is the benefit of these migrating peoples not directed to countries which sorely need an economic boost?". Unless those migrants are forcibly directed or sent to countries that sorely need an economic boost, that question is pointless.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Doesn't have to be forced, but they do need to go somewhere. To use the Syrian refugees as an example, Germany isn't going to take five million of them.

Those countries which need an economic boost or have some other criteria are best served by asking first to get their pick of the bunch and thereby also reduce the amount of resources needed for the rest. For instance, Canada is taking in 25,000, most of which will be families with young children or who have some useful skills to offer. Since there are a couple hundred other countries not asking, we can afford to be selective and get the pick of the crop. If some other country waits until the good ones have been taken, it's like showing up at a grocery store at closing time and having to sift through the moldy vegetables which nobody else wanted.

The same concept applies with regular immigration. If Polish people hear that English toilets are all backed up because there aren't enough plumbers in the country, the first couple hundred Polish plumbers who show up are going to be greeted with hugs and kisses. The next hundred who show up are going to be told that their skills aren't useful and there's no work for them and they'd be better off going to deal with all the clogged up toilets in Portugal. It doesn't serve anyone, including them, to try and hang around in England.

Of course the refugees have to go somewhere. The specific issue I responded to was "if mass migration is so great, why is the benefit of these migrating peoples not directed to countries which sorely need an economic boost?". Unless those migrants are forcibly directed or sent to countries that sorely need an economic boost, that question is pointless.

And my reply is that directing them to specific countries is a good idea. If a Polish plumber wants to go to England, then fine. If, however, he wants to go "somewhere I can get a good paying job" and his skills would be in much higher demand in Portugal instead, then having some kind of agency which matches the criteria he's looking for in a location and the criteria locations are looking for in workers would be a good idea. "Directing them" doesn't have to mean "forcing them" - it can also simply mean "explaining the benefits to them".

 

[laughing dog]

Of course the refugees have to go somewhere. The specific issue I responded to was "if mass migration is so great, why is the benefit of these migrating peoples not directed to countries which sorely need an economic boost?". Unless those migrants are forcibly directed or sent to countries that sorely need an economic boost, that question is pointless.

And my reply is that directing them to specific countries is a good idea. If a Polish plumber wants to go to England, then fine. If, however, he wants to go "somewhere I can get a good paying job" and his skills would be in much higher demand in Portugal instead, then having some kind of agency which matches the criteria he's looking for in a location and the criteria locations are looking for in workers would be a good idea. "Directing them" doesn't have to mean "forcing them" - it can also simply mean "explaining the benefits to them".

And if these immigrants disagree and do not wish to go where they are "directed"?

 

[whichphilosophy]

And my reply is that directing them to specific countries is a good idea. If a Polish plumber wants to go to England, then fine. If, however, he wants to go "somewhere I can get a good paying job" and his skills would be in much higher demand in Portugal instead, then having some kind of agency which matches the criteria he's looking for in a location and the criteria locations are looking for in workers would be a good idea. "Directing them" doesn't have to mean "forcing them" - it can also simply mean "explaining the benefits to them".

And if these immigrants disagree and do not wish to go where they are "directed"?

I met a Sudanese man in Abu Dhabi working in sales for one of the Airlines company. He spent several years at university in the UK and has an MBA in Engineering. He could be useful to Sudan if it were to develop. In fact when I worked for a Chinese company who were constructing production facilities in Heglig, I met several Sudanese Engineers, not all of whom were working in that field.

- - - Updated - - -

And my reply is that directing them to specific countries is a good idea. If a Polish plumber wants to go to England, then fine. If, however, he wants to go "somewhere I can get a good paying job" and his skills would be in much higher demand in Portugal instead, then having some kind of agency which matches the criteria he's looking for in a location and the criteria locations are looking for in workers would be a good idea. "Directing them" doesn't have to mean "forcing them" - it can also simply mean "explaining the benefits to them".

And if these immigrants disagree and do not wish to go where they are "directed"?

Even in our own country we sometimes have to move to where directed to where the work is to find a job.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And my reply is that directing them to specific countries is a good idea. If a Polish plumber wants to go to England, then fine. If, however, he wants to go "somewhere I can get a good paying job" and his skills would be in much higher demand in Portugal instead, then having some kind of agency which matches the criteria he's looking for in a location and the criteria locations are looking for in workers would be a good idea. "Directing them" doesn't have to mean "forcing them" - it can also simply mean "explaining the benefits to them".

And if these immigrants disagree and do not wish to go where they are "directed"?

I apologize. Apparently the phrase "doesn't have to mean forcing them" is somehow complex and not blatantly obvious and straightforward. That was my mistake in failing to specify that not forcing them does not include forcing them.

 

[bilby]

If the citizenry of departing country thinks it is unfair that their comrades are emigrating away, then they need to change their country.

What is this - junior school playground debate group, or what?

Well, all arguments of the form "If X is so great, then how about Y" are at the junior school playground level; so it seems that the tone is about right, as set by the OP.

- - - Updated - - -

How does that answer my question? Is there a problem with a lack of plumbers in Poland?

Poland loses a large chunk of its workforce, so how does it benefit?

And by the way, no, working min wage job in Uk does not allow one to send riches back via Western Union

Why would a qualified plumber ever need to take a minimum wage job?

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Mass immigration - the holy grail right?

I must have missed the meeting where we decided mass immigration was the holy grail.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why would a qualified plumber ever need to take a minimum wage job?

Duh. It's because all of the qualified plumbers immigrated to England and now there's too many of them there.

Follow the thread, dude.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Surely if they lose workers then their overall national work rate goes down, ie; the opposite , so how's that fair to them?

A means the free market neo-lib mass immigration system is a lie, ie: it only benefits the nation that recieves the immigrants at the expense of the others

I think the better retort to the mass migration evangelists is that if mass migration is so great, why is the benefit of these migrating peoples not directed to countries which sorely need an economic boost? There are, as of this date, 196 countries. Surely, at least a hundred or more of these are more deserving of the supposed benefits of mass migration than the already economically robust West.

Fair Employment Practices, Equality of Outcomes, Centrally Directed Economies...

Why do you guys hate capitalism so much?

aa

 

[whichphilosophy]

I think the better retort to the mass migration evangelists is that if mass migration is so great, why is the benefit of these migrating peoples not directed to countries which sorely need an economic boost? There are, as of this date, 196 countries. Surely, at least a hundred or more of these are more deserving of the supposed benefits of mass migration than the already economically robust West.

Fair Employment Practices, Equality of Outcomes, Centrally Directed Economies...

Why do you guys hate capitalism so much?

aa

Which version of capitalism?