![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Thought on the refugee crisis
Friday, September 4th, 2015 01:33 pmI don't generally post anything remotely political here, because it tends to attract flak (and when other people do, it can make my blood boil), but I want to say something on the "migrant crisis". Or refugee crisis as it actually is, because most[1] of the people trying to get into the EU from outside atm are refugees. Looking at my Facebook feed, I'm probably preaching to the converted here there, but I've been getting annoyed at the attitude of both the UK government and the UK media (no one has been "marauding" near Calais; show me any reports of refugees looting local shops, for example).
But the real reason I'm posting this is to draw attention to this article. One can talk about how it is our moral duty to help; one can talk about how my own ancestors came to this country as refugees; one can talk about how immigrants don't steal jobs, they create them, because the total number of jobs is proportional to the total size of the workforce, not just the native part of it. Against that, though, one could argue that the country, and the EU in general, don't have the infrastructure to cope with a mass influx of refugees.
I've mentioned elsewhere that it's rather hypocritical to try and stop people immigrating to the EU when parts of it are becoming depopulated and desperate to prop their numbers up, and how there are noteworthy exceptions to this.
However, it's the main article I'm linking to here which has completely changed my views (from "managed inflow" to "open the gates!") on the subject. Let me quote the relevant part:
"[To absorb two million refugees] Europe would have to spread the newcomers throughout our 500 million members. This need not herald the collapse of European civilisation – the west absorbed 1.3 million refugees after the Vietnam war without a social apocalypse. [...]"
This I hadn't known. We've done it before, so we can do it again. But it needs political will to make it succeed. In particular, in this country, there has been a shortage of new housing built for many a year now, and taking in 240,000 refugees would make that worse. But this is a soluble problem; all it requires is sufficient government incentives to make building large numbers of new houses bureaucratically attractive, as I think it's red tape that is holding that up now. But that's a political challenge, not a logistical one.
[1] With some exceptions. *boggle*
But the real reason I'm posting this is to draw attention to this article. One can talk about how it is our moral duty to help; one can talk about how my own ancestors came to this country as refugees; one can talk about how immigrants don't steal jobs, they create them, because the total number of jobs is proportional to the total size of the workforce, not just the native part of it. Against that, though, one could argue that the country, and the EU in general, don't have the infrastructure to cope with a mass influx of refugees.
I've mentioned elsewhere that it's rather hypocritical to try and stop people immigrating to the EU when parts of it are becoming depopulated and desperate to prop their numbers up, and how there are noteworthy exceptions to this.
However, it's the main article I'm linking to here which has completely changed my views (from "managed inflow" to "open the gates!") on the subject. Let me quote the relevant part:
"[To absorb two million refugees] Europe would have to spread the newcomers throughout our 500 million members. This need not herald the collapse of European civilisation – the west absorbed 1.3 million refugees after the Vietnam war without a social apocalypse. [...]"
This I hadn't known. We've done it before, so we can do it again. But it needs political will to make it succeed. In particular, in this country, there has been a shortage of new housing built for many a year now, and taking in 240,000 refugees would make that worse. But this is a soluble problem; all it requires is sufficient government incentives to make building large numbers of new houses bureaucratically attractive, as I think it's red tape that is holding that up now. But that's a political challenge, not a logistical one.
[1] With some exceptions. *boggle*
