NY Times editorials and op-eds about refugees and immigrants reliably provoke large numbers of opposing comments. Many of them are quite hostile to the refugees and migrants, as well as to the NYT. This is especially true when the discussion is about Muslims or Mexicans.
The same thing happens whenever the Times publishes editorials and op-eds on racial issues, especially ones that have anything to do with the police or crime.
It also happens in response to editorials and op-eds about Israel, the Palestinians, and/or American-Israeli relations.
Many of the negative comments are from people who frequently agree with the editorial board on other subjects and who often espouse liberal or progressive views. They're not only coming from right-wingers, racists, and antisemites.
The many angry comments that are posted on these subjects have exposed rifts within the liberal / progressive community. What these subjects have in common is that they are about feeling threatened by and rejecting "others", people who seem to be too dissimilar from ourselves in some way.
The editorials and op-ends that provoke the most intense reactions usually espouse something about racial harmony and justice, compassion towards refugees, or acceptance of Israel's legitimacy and right to self-defense.
Rifts like these hurt our ability to maintain the strong political coalition we need to fight back against right-wing extremism and oligarchy. We should try harder to overcome them.
The same thing happens whenever the Times publishes editorials and op-eds on racial issues, especially ones that have anything to do with the police or crime.
It also happens in response to editorials and op-eds about Israel, the Palestinians, and/or American-Israeli relations.
Many of the negative comments are from people who frequently agree with the editorial board on other subjects and who often espouse liberal or progressive views. They're not only coming from right-wingers, racists, and antisemites.
The many angry comments that are posted on these subjects have exposed rifts within the liberal / progressive community. What these subjects have in common is that they are about feeling threatened by and rejecting "others", people who seem to be too dissimilar from ourselves in some way.
The editorials and op-ends that provoke the most intense reactions usually espouse something about racial harmony and justice, compassion towards refugees, or acceptance of Israel's legitimacy and right to self-defense.
Rifts like these hurt our ability to maintain the strong political coalition we need to fight back against right-wing extremism and oligarchy. We should try harder to overcome them.
2
ah yes "studies show" without any more specificity, i can only imagine how cherry picked these "studies" are, and no mention at all of the cultural suicide the EU will be committing by letting all these young men in (and the inevitable terrorism)--give it a rest NYT
19
So you found four economists who said more immigration is better for Europe. So what? It won't take but a second to find four who will say the opposite. Economists are limited by which school they attended. Are they Keynes or Hayek? Some believe the best way to help an economy is to starve it through austerity, others believe to feed it by stimulating it with cash.
You say jobs are not finite? Then you mean infinite? If low paid Europeans have their jobs taken by unskilled immigrants that is a boon that forces them up the ladder? i don't think so.
There are 11 million displaced persons in Europe/mid east, if we add them to the 11 million migrants we have from Latin America things here will get better? Tax receipts will increase over expenditures?
What are you smoking? This is illogic of the first degree, selective, wrong headed and not worthy of the NYT.
You say jobs are not finite? Then you mean infinite? If low paid Europeans have their jobs taken by unskilled immigrants that is a boon that forces them up the ladder? i don't think so.
There are 11 million displaced persons in Europe/mid east, if we add them to the 11 million migrants we have from Latin America things here will get better? Tax receipts will increase over expenditures?
What are you smoking? This is illogic of the first degree, selective, wrong headed and not worthy of the NYT.
19
So refugees are risking their lives to escape
- this place (Turkey): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGPRmDqDkR4
- or this scary camp in Jordan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk50eiLgB44
- or that (Bulgaria) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHneu6verM0
Nothing is perfect, but to say that this front-line spots are not trying to provide and that everything south of Sweden and Germany is war and terror is just incorrect (to put it mildly)
- this place (Turkey): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGPRmDqDkR4
- or this scary camp in Jordan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk50eiLgB44
- or that (Bulgaria) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHneu6verM0
Nothing is perfect, but to say that this front-line spots are not trying to provide and that everything south of Sweden and Germany is war and terror is just incorrect (to put it mildly)
7
A couple of months ago or so, a Briton pretending to be a former adviser to some European economic board made a contribution to the same effect: the more people come into another country the better it is for the growth of said country. He was strongly refuted by a healthy majority of your commenters though.
This sort of argument always boils down to one single criteria: Economics, economics, economics. Like our lives as human beings were limited to the money our societies can put out on a daily basis.
This perspective is akin to that which considers humans as machines only (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_a_Machine), an extension of Descartes’ silly theory of the animal-machine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_machine).
Along that line of thought, the world may as well import dozens and dozens of millions of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Meanies_%28Yellow_Submarine%29, it will always be "good" and positive for economics.
The word "culture", that refers to what is basically the soul of humanity, seems to bear no meaning to those who pretend to rule our world and that is the way to our downfall.
This sort of argument always boils down to one single criteria: Economics, economics, economics. Like our lives as human beings were limited to the money our societies can put out on a daily basis.
This perspective is akin to that which considers humans as machines only (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_a_Machine), an extension of Descartes’ silly theory of the animal-machine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_machine).
Along that line of thought, the world may as well import dozens and dozens of millions of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Meanies_%28Yellow_Submarine%29, it will always be "good" and positive for economics.
The word "culture", that refers to what is basically the soul of humanity, seems to bear no meaning to those who pretend to rule our world and that is the way to our downfall.
8
The Goths were a boon to the Romans as well...until they weren't.
The key to immigration working is that it be gradual enough not to fundamentally change the character of the host societies.
This is not the case in what is happening in Europe now.
Call it hyperbole if you must...but this is an invasion, albeit an unarmed one.
Interesting how the US keeps creating 'situations' (Syria, Ukraine) in Europe's neighborhood, with the Europeans left to pick up the tab.
With the Russia sanction the economy was impacted. With the refugees demography and social services are impacted.
With 'friends' like Washington...who needs enemies?
The key to immigration working is that it be gradual enough not to fundamentally change the character of the host societies.
This is not the case in what is happening in Europe now.
Call it hyperbole if you must...but this is an invasion, albeit an unarmed one.
Interesting how the US keeps creating 'situations' (Syria, Ukraine) in Europe's neighborhood, with the Europeans left to pick up the tab.
With the Russia sanction the economy was impacted. With the refugees demography and social services are impacted.
With 'friends' like Washington...who needs enemies?
6
Many of these European countries are struggling under conservative austerity programs. Where are the tens of thousands of new jobs supposed to come from?
8
It is indeed a burden on account of cultural, traditions, customs, lifestyle and most important religious differences. It this has to be a boom, then why is that the US does not want any of these refugees ( only 10,000 ) in the next fiscal year) that we created, by our fraud war on Iraq, untenable war on terror in Afghanistan/ Pakistan and our so called democracy, the word that is no where mentioned in our Constitution, we preach it but practice it not our selves.
Right now after 7 plus years, 90% of these conservative republican are still on the same binge that even the twice elected first ever black man as the President , an American Citizen/ born in the USA, with far better education, experiences, understanding of the world cultures, a Christian and up and up decent family name who as a real true patriot, who cares about this nation and all the people. Is being ridiculed by these narrow minded, bigots racists malignant narcissists, chronic scapegoating, with their perversity of inequality and rights only of their 24% minority kind.
We in this country and UK have double standards when it comes accommodating others of different religions, culture, traditions, customs etc. It is a sorry sight when we allow these right wing, hypocrite Sunday Christian mutants to insult the good man's dignity, his family with their perverse hate and Judaeo-Christian psychopathy. It fact these yahoos commit hate crimes with indifference & impunity.
Right now after 7 plus years, 90% of these conservative republican are still on the same binge that even the twice elected first ever black man as the President , an American Citizen/ born in the USA, with far better education, experiences, understanding of the world cultures, a Christian and up and up decent family name who as a real true patriot, who cares about this nation and all the people. Is being ridiculed by these narrow minded, bigots racists malignant narcissists, chronic scapegoating, with their perversity of inequality and rights only of their 24% minority kind.
We in this country and UK have double standards when it comes accommodating others of different religions, culture, traditions, customs etc. It is a sorry sight when we allow these right wing, hypocrite Sunday Christian mutants to insult the good man's dignity, his family with their perverse hate and Judaeo-Christian psychopathy. It fact these yahoos commit hate crimes with indifference & impunity.
The Times Editorial Board should do the following before writing any more rose-colored glasses editorials telling Europe what to do about the unprecedented flow of refugees from the Middle East and the Horn of Africa.
1) Read all of the many 1000s of comments published every day next to every OpEd and Editorial about the current situation. There Board members can learn how highly recommended strongly racist and xenophobic views are, especially as concerns muslims, among my fellow Americans.
2) Given those views, then ask what scenes would be taking place in America were the inflow to be not the USA's 1500 Syrians total since the start of the Syrian civil war but, for example, Sweden's 1500 applications per week from Syrians seeking asylum.
Then write serious editorials about a USA faced with this inflow - in real time not in macro-time (see Mark Thomason).
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen USA-SE just returned from a USA where I saw no incoming refugees to a a Göteborg Central Station yesterday where Red Cross Staff and a large group of mostly hijab-bearing volunteers were preparing to receive a new group of refugees. Real-time experience matters NYT Board.
1) Read all of the many 1000s of comments published every day next to every OpEd and Editorial about the current situation. There Board members can learn how highly recommended strongly racist and xenophobic views are, especially as concerns muslims, among my fellow Americans.
2) Given those views, then ask what scenes would be taking place in America were the inflow to be not the USA's 1500 Syrians total since the start of the Syrian civil war but, for example, Sweden's 1500 applications per week from Syrians seeking asylum.
Then write serious editorials about a USA faced with this inflow - in real time not in macro-time (see Mark Thomason).
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen USA-SE just returned from a USA where I saw no incoming refugees to a a Göteborg Central Station yesterday where Red Cross Staff and a large group of mostly hijab-bearing volunteers were preparing to receive a new group of refugees. Real-time experience matters NYT Board.
1
Tolerating the intolerant. So you want theocratic law under a secular constitution, hostility to women in a gender-neutral society, violence to repress freedom of expression, barbarism. Welcoming those we fear. All because it's good for business. Get lost NY Times editorial board.
30
OK guys - guess what - refugee .neq. immigrant.
Of course skilled and pre-selected immigrants bolster an economy.
You have a first world juggernaut of an economy - you can afford to be choosy - you open the flood gates - the detritus comes in as well.
You want to study a failed immigration policy in Europe - go to France - Paris in particular - a breeding ground of radical thought and action.
Taking in refugees is the right thing to do - just don't pretend that it is a "boon"
Of course skilled and pre-selected immigrants bolster an economy.
You have a first world juggernaut of an economy - you can afford to be choosy - you open the flood gates - the detritus comes in as well.
You want to study a failed immigration policy in Europe - go to France - Paris in particular - a breeding ground of radical thought and action.
Taking in refugees is the right thing to do - just don't pretend that it is a "boon"
6
So easy to say this from the distant safety of New York, 4,500 miles away and across "the Big Pond". Go tell it in in depressed Belgrade or Budapest, Ljubljana or Zagreb.
20
If it is such a boon for Europe, it should also be a boon for the United States to accept more immigrants as well as more Syrian refugees. Perhaps the NYT editorial board would like to follow up with a similar op-ed pronouncement for the US?
15
Wait until there's a mosque on every corner and imams calling for killing the infidels. Just look at the UK.
31
What people tend to forget is that the extremist groups have a foreign agenda. Organizations like ISIS and Al Qaeda want to establish a world wide Caliphate. Assuming they aren't that stupid as we like to think, they probably know that conquering the West by force isn't going to happen very soon. So an other tactic they have, is the tactic of mass emigration to the areas they like to become Islamic. They even have a word for it, Hijra.
I´m not saying they are sending terrorists to Europe, but i´m indicating that there plan for the islamization of this continent is working out fine. Does nobody ask himself why it is that Saudi Arabia has an empty refugee camp that can accommodate 3 million people, while they don´t take any themselves. If you ask me, I´d think they are just fine with all these people migrating to Europe.
The reason I´m bringing this up is because we have international policies that welcomes war refugees and we are allowed to send back the economic migrants. So the only thing a Jihadist group needs to do, is wage war. This is absolutely not the reason why the Middle-East is one giant war zone these days, but even if it is the slightest reason for terrorists to bomb other Muslim people, we should at least think about it.
If we would stop the immigrants from coming in. What reason would the extremists have left to fight each other? And what reason would Saudi-Arabia and the other Gulf-States have left to refuse refugees?
I´m not saying they are sending terrorists to Europe, but i´m indicating that there plan for the islamization of this continent is working out fine. Does nobody ask himself why it is that Saudi Arabia has an empty refugee camp that can accommodate 3 million people, while they don´t take any themselves. If you ask me, I´d think they are just fine with all these people migrating to Europe.
The reason I´m bringing this up is because we have international policies that welcomes war refugees and we are allowed to send back the economic migrants. So the only thing a Jihadist group needs to do, is wage war. This is absolutely not the reason why the Middle-East is one giant war zone these days, but even if it is the slightest reason for terrorists to bomb other Muslim people, we should at least think about it.
If we would stop the immigrants from coming in. What reason would the extremists have left to fight each other? And what reason would Saudi-Arabia and the other Gulf-States have left to refuse refugees?
23
In the entire editorial encouraging Europe to accept all of the migrants and refugees massing on their borders, the NYT editorial board doesn't once mention the very large elephant in the small living room: these refugees and migrants have a very different religious and cultural background. Even in the best of times, they have a hard time assimilating. Look at what's happened in the suburbs of Paris, and some areas in British cities. And that's during the best of times. The NYT editorial board is stunningly myopic in not recognizing this very difficult issue.
39
This is not one of the most insightful editorials in the generally distinguished history of the the NYT editorial board. I would love to see some immigrants settled here in Poland, but there are really few opportunities (or much religious tolerance) for them here and they tend to realize this,hence the push to go to Germany, in particular. A number of people like me have tried to make tentative but substantive offers of accommodation and work opportunities but have found that there is no simple governmental mechanism for doing so. A lot of European fingers have also pointed back at Arab states like Saudi Arabia (a Polish news magazine recently ran a stunning picture of endless acres of air-conditioned tens apparently designed for this purpose standing vacant in the Saudi desert). Where is the UN?
20
Clearly reality has intruded into the faculty lounge, children.
Give it up.
Give it up.
7
The migrants are a lawbreaking danger to Europe. Shame on the NYT for its haughty, misguided attempt to foist this disaster on Europe.
Put some of these migrants in your summer homes if you are so concerned! Otherwise, mind your own business.
Put some of these migrants in your summer homes if you are so concerned! Otherwise, mind your own business.
38
Any tax benefit will be used up after the first terrorist attack.
13
This editorial is demented in its fantasy.
37
I am a lifetime social democrat, but reading this editorial with its plethora of unsupported statements, passed off as facts, makes me understand why anyone to the right of my politics would dismiss the NYTs' editorials outright.
"Numerous studies have found that immigrants bolster growth by increasing the labor force and consumer demand. Rather than being a drain, immigrants generally pay more in taxes than they claim in government benefit." Yet again, a report that refers to the mythical "numerous" studies -- now you sound like Gretchen and Brody columns on health --yet there exist an equal amount of studies that contest your facile assumptions.
This editorial is an embarrassment even to a long time reader of the NYTs like myself. Unsupported prattle. What are you suggesting? An open gate policy for immigration, here and everywhere in Europe? Legal, illegal, whatever? One need not be xenophobic to find fault with that suggestion. If the U.S. took in as many immigrants per capita as Austria or Sweden --or yes, Hungary -- there would near riots across this land.
Somehow they must simply be too obtuse and xenophobic to have bought into the fantasies of this NYTs editorial. Shame on them.
"Numerous studies have found that immigrants bolster growth by increasing the labor force and consumer demand. Rather than being a drain, immigrants generally pay more in taxes than they claim in government benefit." Yet again, a report that refers to the mythical "numerous" studies -- now you sound like Gretchen and Brody columns on health --yet there exist an equal amount of studies that contest your facile assumptions.
This editorial is an embarrassment even to a long time reader of the NYTs like myself. Unsupported prattle. What are you suggesting? An open gate policy for immigration, here and everywhere in Europe? Legal, illegal, whatever? One need not be xenophobic to find fault with that suggestion. If the U.S. took in as many immigrants per capita as Austria or Sweden --or yes, Hungary -- there would near riots across this land.
Somehow they must simply be too obtuse and xenophobic to have bought into the fantasies of this NYTs editorial. Shame on them.
35
Does the Editorial board realise that the study is based on non-Muslim migrants, and that they are trying to apply the results to Muslim migrants?
The countries to which these migrants are choosing to go with the exception of Germany (80 million), are small: Norway (5), Denmark (5), Sweden (10), Belgium (10), Holland (15), and all are culturally Christian.
The countries from which these migrants are coming from, are Syria (20), Afghanistan (25), Ghana (30), Morocco (35), Sudan (40), Iran (80), Bangladesh (160), Nigeria (180), Pakistan (190)...and majority Muslim?
If Muslim peoples are so enriching, why aren't Albania, Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina economic powerhouses in Europe? and why isn't France, with 8 million Muslims, richer than Germany, which has 5 million Muslims?
Who is running the editorial board at the New York times? Trainees from Saudi Arabia? By the way, Saudi Arabia has offered to build 200 mosques in Germany to cater for the spiritual needs of the new refugees! I can visualise the Wahabi clerics in Saudi Arabia rubbing their palms in glee at the thought of the invasion and occupation of Europe, by their coreligionists without firing a single shot!
The countries to which these migrants are choosing to go with the exception of Germany (80 million), are small: Norway (5), Denmark (5), Sweden (10), Belgium (10), Holland (15), and all are culturally Christian.
The countries from which these migrants are coming from, are Syria (20), Afghanistan (25), Ghana (30), Morocco (35), Sudan (40), Iran (80), Bangladesh (160), Nigeria (180), Pakistan (190)...and majority Muslim?
If Muslim peoples are so enriching, why aren't Albania, Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina economic powerhouses in Europe? and why isn't France, with 8 million Muslims, richer than Germany, which has 5 million Muslims?
Who is running the editorial board at the New York times? Trainees from Saudi Arabia? By the way, Saudi Arabia has offered to build 200 mosques in Germany to cater for the spiritual needs of the new refugees! I can visualise the Wahabi clerics in Saudi Arabia rubbing their palms in glee at the thought of the invasion and occupation of Europe, by their coreligionists without firing a single shot!
34
Delusional.
28
I wonder if you would publish the same editorial if a million refugees were clamoring at the frontiers of America.
13
Highly amusing editorial given the US attitude toward immigrants. How would this article read if the refugees were from "Mexico" (anyone south of the US border)? Or Palestine?
8
If all Syrians moved to Europe, that would solve the Syrian crisis and make Europe the best! Right?
16
I've been looking through the Reader's Picks and I'm now wondering: has the New York Times ever published an editorial more comprehensively demolished by its own commenters?
40
>
>
Wishful thinking at best, dishonest stupidity at worst.
All this editorial is missing is the background music of the song "Don't worry be happy."
As a liberal I can smell cognitive dissonance a mile away, usually found on the Right, but here is a clear case of it affecting the Left.
"The heart has its reasons that reason knows nothing of."
Blaise Pascal
>
Wishful thinking at best, dishonest stupidity at worst.
All this editorial is missing is the background music of the song "Don't worry be happy."
As a liberal I can smell cognitive dissonance a mile away, usually found on the Right, but here is a clear case of it affecting the Left.
"The heart has its reasons that reason knows nothing of."
Blaise Pascal
29
During a conference in Denmark broadcast on NPR last summer, an audience member, self-identified conservative lady suggested that immigration is fine (perhaps even as this editorial describes it?) but must be done drop-by-drop like butter being added to the Hollandaise sauce...or else everything curdles.
10
Finally. Some honesty from the NYT. It's been pretty obvious to all of the NYT readers that the NYT has had an agenda in its coverage of the "migrant crisis." This editorial position piece confirms that the editorial board is slanted in the direction of positioning this crisis in a way that seems wholly at odds with the facts. The NYT is the only honest, decent "paper" left in the US. How disappointing and Murdoch-like that journalistic integrity has been completely abandoned in favor of the editors' personal opinions.
27
EU & UN has identified these 'migrants' as primarily financial opportunists not politically oppressed people
Since vast majority are uneducated, can't speak any European language , have a different culture that even Merkel has admitted " Multiculturalism has not worked"
I doubt the huge expense these people will be to EUROPE will in any way be covered by any taxes they pay.
They have been lured to Europe by internet posts promising free food, free housing, free education, free medical... All from Islamis sites
Migration goes well when it is within the law, people are vetted, and the migrants follow the rules
This is not a migration it is an onslaught
Since vast majority are uneducated, can't speak any European language , have a different culture that even Merkel has admitted " Multiculturalism has not worked"
I doubt the huge expense these people will be to EUROPE will in any way be covered by any taxes they pay.
They have been lured to Europe by internet posts promising free food, free housing, free education, free medical... All from Islamis sites
Migration goes well when it is within the law, people are vetted, and the migrants follow the rules
This is not a migration it is an onslaught
37
The guarded-gate elite love helping people ... well, you all love faux-coy bragging about helping people that won't be moving into your tony neighborhoods, won't attend and strain the resources at the (elite, often private) schools you send your kids to, won't be sitting next to you in the dentist or a physician waiting room, won't soak up any of the support mechanisms you and your family depend on, won't bring down your manual labor wages.
Quite easy to be noble on a high horse. Consider those in the lower and middle classes that are barely hanging on as is, and how this deluge impacts their quality of life.
Tough to tell if you're deluded or if you're shilling for plutocrats in a scheme to bring in millions of low-pay workers and/or modify the electorate of these nations.
Quite easy to be noble on a high horse. Consider those in the lower and middle classes that are barely hanging on as is, and how this deluge impacts their quality of life.
Tough to tell if you're deluded or if you're shilling for plutocrats in a scheme to bring in millions of low-pay workers and/or modify the electorate of these nations.
22
Apparently, the author of this article has not been to the local supermarket Western Union booth on payday. Illegal immigrants sending their hard earned tax free cash back home. Why not tax them right here???
14
So "immigrants" (say "numerous" studies) are a benefit, therefore Syrian "refugees" are a plus! Voila! Immigrants, refugees, what's the difference, right? Does the Times believe that sloppy thinking is covered by slick writing? Or does the Times think its readership so lacking in critical thinking skills that it won't notice?
19
Not only that Europe, whitewashing that fence really is fun.
4
"Even a large influx of immigrants does not mean fewer jobs for the existing population, since economies do not have a finite number of jobs. "
Tell that to the long term unemployed who simply can't find jobs. And is it really a smart idea to flood your job market with aliens when your own people are in dire straits?
And as to Denmark— after the Mohammed cartoons riots, why should they want a mass of imported Muslims?
Tell that to the long term unemployed who simply can't find jobs. And is it really a smart idea to flood your job market with aliens when your own people are in dire straits?
And as to Denmark— after the Mohammed cartoons riots, why should they want a mass of imported Muslims?
29
The US is in no position to criticize European migrant policies given our abject failure on our Afghan allies: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/world/asia/american-visa-delays-put-sa...
2
I live in a working class area in Finland where these immigrants are entering the local police station to claim their asylum status as I write. The ones who came earlier are milling in the streets with their children.
This editorial is just plain scary. The NYT is simply inventing opinions and improvising on them like a jazz musician. You pick statistics that include the immigration of German engineers going to work in Switzerland and present them as proof that this unprecedented calamity is totally okay.
I am sorry to say that I have already canceled my NYT subscription because I cannot support this kind of writing. Goodbye and good luck.
This editorial is just plain scary. The NYT is simply inventing opinions and improvising on them like a jazz musician. You pick statistics that include the immigration of German engineers going to work in Switzerland and present them as proof that this unprecedented calamity is totally okay.
I am sorry to say that I have already canceled my NYT subscription because I cannot support this kind of writing. Goodbye and good luck.
37
If this ks so, then it would be economic madness of the US not to take these people. I will personally pay the ticket to the US for five testosterone-laden working age healthy males last seen roaming around the border between Croatia and Serbia. No? I didn't think so...
7
This editorial characterizes this sudden flood of immigrants in term of dollars and cents and ignores important cultural and religious factors and their implications..
14
Similar to the lie Obama used to sell Obamacare- "Like your health plan? Keep your health plan"- this editorial attempts to sell mass immigration as "Like your country? Keep your country".
The reality is that welcoming hundreds of thousands of people who do not share the language, culture and history of your country is not a simple matter of dollars spent versus future tax receipts. The very fabric of your country will be changed. Changed for the better or changed for the worse? Who knows? But history is filled with the tragic results of unanticipated consequences of well intended policies so some caution on the part of European nations is certainly understandable.
The reality is that welcoming hundreds of thousands of people who do not share the language, culture and history of your country is not a simple matter of dollars spent versus future tax receipts. The very fabric of your country will be changed. Changed for the better or changed for the worse? Who knows? But history is filled with the tragic results of unanticipated consequences of well intended policies so some caution on the part of European nations is certainly understandable.
10
"Europe Should See Refugees as a Boon, Not a Burden"
A fine sounding title but that is not the issue is it?
A fine sounding title but that is not the issue is it?
8
Excuse me, but why isn't the emphasis in this paper on the utterly disgraceful response of the US to the refugee crisis? I thought the American administration prided itself on being progressive and that the NYT has refashioned itself as little more than a soapbox for that wing of American political life. But we see the same sort of double talk as in the matter of carbon: all this talk about a single pipeline to carry "dirty" Canadian oil while you applaud the tripling in production of domestic shale fuels that are marginally cleaner to produce but not different at all in emissions that result from burning them up. Moral: it's often painful to do the right thing, so worry about your own house before lecturing others.
4
The people who write these kind of articles no longer need an argument. They need treatment to connect them back to reality.
25
The NYT has turned me into George Costanza from Seinfeld.
It's come to the point where if the NYT prints an editorial about this subject matter, I don't even need to read it. I just know that the opposite viewpoint is the correct one.
It's come to the point where if the NYT prints an editorial about this subject matter, I don't even need to read it. I just know that the opposite viewpoint is the correct one.
28
As a migrant myself I can tell you your arguments are too broad, overly optimistic, have no concept of what life is like on the ground for immigrants in foreign countries and the hurdles we face. In fact, your column is missing one very crucial phrase which would support the crux of your argument: LEGAL immigration contributes to local economies, precisely because we who enter a country legally must pass a series of tests to ensure that we will not become a financial burden, but a boon, to our host country. We had to prove that we were employable, spoke the language and therefore could assimilate both culturally and economically, ie pay taxes. Immigration laws exist precisely for this reason. If you can't speak your host country's language you are not employable.
Then it comes down to race and religion, which are mitigating factors for employability in France, where I live. As Obama famously said, "Why do we call back Johnny but not Jamal?" as an example of latent racism in the US, the same could be said of France: Why do they call back Matthew but not Mohammed? Take a guess. The unemployment rate amongst the young, Muslim and unskilled in France is well into the double digits. Radicalism is on the rise. Charlie Hebdo brought home to roost what creates terrorism at home: excessive unemployment, low skills and endemic racism and poverty that give rise to young radicals looking for a purpose in life. Review the incidents of the 2005 Clichy riots. This won't end well.
Then it comes down to race and religion, which are mitigating factors for employability in France, where I live. As Obama famously said, "Why do we call back Johnny but not Jamal?" as an example of latent racism in the US, the same could be said of France: Why do they call back Matthew but not Mohammed? Take a guess. The unemployment rate amongst the young, Muslim and unskilled in France is well into the double digits. Radicalism is on the rise. Charlie Hebdo brought home to roost what creates terrorism at home: excessive unemployment, low skills and endemic racism and poverty that give rise to young radicals looking for a purpose in life. Review the incidents of the 2005 Clichy riots. This won't end well.
20
NY Times Editorial Board, I am with you on this one. Germany is basically doing the right thing by accepting the largest number of refugees. I predict Germany will handle the situation well, giving the lie to the racism and xenophobia moldering just beneath the surface of many of the comments here. Chancellor Merkel has said that this refugee crisis will forever change Germany. Is that what frightens so many Americans? That their precious, all-white vacation destinations won't look the same, and they will see more swarthy Middle Easterners and North Africans in addition to white Germans at the cafes and museums? Bravo Germany, and bravo New York Times.
Eastern Europe is far from rich. Greece and Spain are struggling. Muslims have carved out their own little world in France.
Invite chaos into your own house, do not advise others to be so foolish.
Invite chaos into your own house, do not advise others to be so foolish.
16
This editorial begins by mentioning a “working paper,” in support of its claims. The paper in question is “Immigration, Search, And Redistribution: A Quantitative Assessment Of Native Welfare.” Although the paper finds a net benefit to immigration, that benefit is based on the assessment on a 10-year period, 2001-11, across 20 OECD (including Canada, the U.S. and Australia as well as western Europe). In other words, it’s describing a period of carefully vetted, selective migration. Even then, the benefit was on the order of 1-1.19% depending on one's skill level.
But migration is not an entirely untrammeled good. The authors also wanted to see what would happen when they made “a one-percentage-point increase in immigrant share of the level force at current (2011) skill composition.” Some countries adjusted well to this relatively small increase. “However, in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland native welfare falls.” In other words, average Swedes and Germans are right to wonder how their countries will fare as the unrelenting stream of migrants pushes across Europe. The authors of the working paper could not have predicted the current migrant crisis, but if their model is correct, this vast experiment will not go well for many of the countries at the top of the migrants’ wish list.
But migration is not an entirely untrammeled good. The authors also wanted to see what would happen when they made “a one-percentage-point increase in immigrant share of the level force at current (2011) skill composition.” Some countries adjusted well to this relatively small increase. “However, in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland native welfare falls.” In other words, average Swedes and Germans are right to wonder how their countries will fare as the unrelenting stream of migrants pushes across Europe. The authors of the working paper could not have predicted the current migrant crisis, but if their model is correct, this vast experiment will not go well for many of the countries at the top of the migrants’ wish list.
10
Economic benefit? Maybe. But what about the cultural impact to local populations and rising Islamization - or am I to be dismissed as a bigot for daring to state this concern?
12
Immigration is great. Just ask a Native American
4
It is puzzling why the NYTs isn't using its editorial space to campaign for a couple of hundred thousand immigrants/war refugees to settle in New York city. As stated, immigration benefits local populations in many ways. Perhaps New York needs no help. Ya think?
8
Really? Anyone who feels that migrants are not a burden should be prepared to welcome a migrant into his living room, permanently.
12
When we were fighting in Vietnam many of our young men fled into Canada - they rather gave up their country than their life. Same for young men now fleeing Syria, Afghanistan, and Iran, and hoping for Europe to accept them. That's all it is.
1
What is the best example of the remarkable benefit of nation building by immigrants?
America!
America!
1
Eurostat's youth unemployment rate for Germany is 7.4%. That's the critical number. Maybe next year it will be 15%. I don't know, but I guess the New York Times editorial writers do. But then again, consider where these immigrant are coming from and who they are: muslims who want to have nothing to do with Europe and are totally unskilled.
Send your editorial writers to the Netherlands and let them hang out in the souks of Amsterdam, The Hague, and Rotterdam, where young men stand around cleaning their finger nails with switchblade knives, and giving hostile looks to the tourists who accidentally venture into these areas.
I guess they can all go to Germany and work at Google, and Deutchebank, or work as engineers or tool and die makers at Siemens as soon as they get off the boat. Or maybe they can come to New York and work as typesetters at the Old Gray Lady.
Send your editorial writers to the Netherlands and let them hang out in the souks of Amsterdam, The Hague, and Rotterdam, where young men stand around cleaning their finger nails with switchblade knives, and giving hostile looks to the tourists who accidentally venture into these areas.
I guess they can all go to Germany and work at Google, and Deutchebank, or work as engineers or tool and die makers at Siemens as soon as they get off the boat. Or maybe they can come to New York and work as typesetters at the Old Gray Lady.
19
"...In Britain, for example, immigrants from the rest of Europe pay more in taxes than they receive in government benefits, according to an analysis by two economists. ..."
this analysis:
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-...
raises that point with 2 demographic groups of immigrants from Europe and Eastern Europe.
"...Over the period from 2001 to 2011, European immigrants from the EU-15 countries contributed 64% more in taxes than they received in benefits. Immigrants from the Central and East European ‘accession’ countries (the ‘A10’) contributed 12% more than they received. ..."
Unless the data is interpreted to conflate immigration from all regions, is there data that points out the economic effects of immigrants from the Middle East that supports this editorial opinion?
this analysis:
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-...
raises that point with 2 demographic groups of immigrants from Europe and Eastern Europe.
"...Over the period from 2001 to 2011, European immigrants from the EU-15 countries contributed 64% more in taxes than they received in benefits. Immigrants from the Central and East European ‘accession’ countries (the ‘A10’) contributed 12% more than they received. ..."
Unless the data is interpreted to conflate immigration from all regions, is there data that points out the economic effects of immigrants from the Middle East that supports this editorial opinion?
12
Attempting to force unwanted illegal immigrants down the throat of Europe has become an absolute obsession of this newspaper. This is one of the most ludicrous pieces yet published by the Times, and that is really saying something. Notice the weasel words like "some" native citizens have seen their wages increase, while ignoring those native citizens at the bottom of the economic ladder who are replaced in their jobs by immigrants who will work for less than the existing citizen--how liberal of the Times to tell this person displaced from his job that "some" of his countrymen have seen increased incomes, so he should grin and bear it. This insipid editorial also *totally* ignores the wishes of the vast majority of Europeans not to have their continent and cultures overrun by foreigners; again, the wishes of the people actually living in these countries is entirely immaterial to the radical editorial board at the Times. This editorial doesn't even bother to mention that these hundreds of thousands of invaders have just decided that they have no interest in following established immigration, or even asylum, laws; no, they are coming in, and they are going to the country of their choosing, and the NYT is right there to support this insane lawlessness.
Finally, the Times would have you believe that there isn't benefit shopping going on with these invaders--does the Times editorial board not read its own paper? The migrants state repeatedly they want to be in Germany for benefits
Finally, the Times would have you believe that there isn't benefit shopping going on with these invaders--does the Times editorial board not read its own paper? The migrants state repeatedly they want to be in Germany for benefits
22
Open borders advocates use two rationales: morality and economic self-interest. Here the Times cites economic studies that show that the rise of anti-immigration parties in the world' most welcoming and generous nations must be due to "fear" and "false arguments," not decades of first-hand experience with Muslim (an adjective not found in the editorial) immigration.
(The Guardian, "Why are anti-immigration parties so strong in the Nordic states?")
As always, the economic argument focuses on growth of aggregate GDP rather than the more relevant per capita GDP. With climate change about to make life in rich countries less pleasant and life in poor countries more desperate, we should be applauding countries with declining populations.
"Immigrants generally pay more in taxes than they claim in government benefits." Some disagree:
"“Economic integration” does not apply to a fairly large proportion of the Turkish minority ... a dependent, underclass population, [which] survives through public welfare and the resources of their communities and is a constant irritant to many native Germans." ("Integrating Turkish Communities: a German Dilemma," Claus Mueller)
“Immigration has meant that Sweden has imported a bunch of social and economic problems that to a degree didn’t exist before.” (Foreign Affairs, 2014)
Leaving aside economics, might there also be some non-economic reasons Europeans are wary of more Muslim immigration?
(The Guardian, "Why are anti-immigration parties so strong in the Nordic states?")
As always, the economic argument focuses on growth of aggregate GDP rather than the more relevant per capita GDP. With climate change about to make life in rich countries less pleasant and life in poor countries more desperate, we should be applauding countries with declining populations.
"Immigrants generally pay more in taxes than they claim in government benefits." Some disagree:
"“Economic integration” does not apply to a fairly large proportion of the Turkish minority ... a dependent, underclass population, [which] survives through public welfare and the resources of their communities and is a constant irritant to many native Germans." ("Integrating Turkish Communities: a German Dilemma," Claus Mueller)
“Immigration has meant that Sweden has imported a bunch of social and economic problems that to a degree didn’t exist before.” (Foreign Affairs, 2014)
Leaving aside economics, might there also be some non-economic reasons Europeans are wary of more Muslim immigration?
11
When I immigrated to the US, as a student on F1 visa, first I had to have an admission at a US school, prove that I had enough funds to sustain me as a student, took out a loan on my dad's home back in India, got vaccinations, and a lot of immaculate document preparation just to obtain a student visa. I don't see any of the current hordes crashing into Europe anywhere near that, burning of fingerprints, passports, amazing. The true refugees are actually in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon. These are pure economic migrants and they need to go through the same deal any legal immigrant goes through, not the illegal way they have been trying to get in and seek asylum. The real ones like Yazidis that have been persecuted people are displaced and we have no reports where they are today. I am truly amazed at NYT editorial board using this piece and also all other biased reporting stories to sell this illegal invasion. What if they were to just crash into the US from its southern border, would you report them as refugees or illegals?. Its amazing how misplaced the "sympathy factor" is here. I seriously think there is a Saudi money factor involved in major news organizations reporting biased stories including NYT. Why is there no reporting on Saudis terrorizing and indiscriminately killing Yemenis and bringing about ethnic cleansing there. There was just one opinion article from someone inside Yemen but no actual reporting. Yes, I have decided to withdraw my NYT membership next billing.
21
Leave it to the New York Times to argue a position purely from the economic standpoint. Regarding the lives of millions, and the heritage of Europe, as nothing more than a balance sheet, income versus expenditure. This is a frankly horrific way of looking at the world.
16
Although in general I agree with NYT, I think the Editorial Board is being a bit glib in arguing this issue. There is immigration, then there is a Massive Influx of Refugees. A country getting a steady influx of immigrants is a different scenario from when large numbers of people show up at the same time, completely without resources of their own.
This is not to say Europe should not provide aid for the refugees, but to spin it into a fortuitous boon is a bit disingenuous.
This is not to say Europe should not provide aid for the refugees, but to spin it into a fortuitous boon is a bit disingenuous.
9
It's hard to see them as a boon to the economy when they're being encouraged by terrorist organizations to infiltrate and attack the west.
12
You seriously cannot extrapolate from the fact that "In Britain, immigrants from the REST OF EUROPE pat more in taxes than they receive in benefits" (i.e. immigrants from France, Italy and Poland) that low skilled Syrians (Germany hasestimated 80% have no useful qualifications) will be a boon for Europe's economy. That same study showed immigrants from outside Europe (including those from other OECD countries took 5% more in benefits from Britain than they paid in taxes, while a study from France showed that only 30% of working aged ethnic Moroccans actually work (the main reason being that female workforce participation is in the single digits. A careless editorial that, if implemented, could have very serious reprocussions.
20
The New York Times publishes a totally unqualified opinion piece regarding a continent-wide disaster with unforeseen consequences for peace. Your vision of the migrants' 'advantages' to Europe are reduced to crassly material and shallow considerations of their contribution to state coffers and pie-in-the-sky job creation. Get the wake up call! THESE are not erstwhile members of India's Tata family, for example! I am deeply concerned to see all of these conservative Muslims arriving en masse, whose very presence is raising hackles in Munich at the eve of the traditional Oktoberfest celebration. Though I do not condone alcohol at all for health reasons, why should the Germans feel any qualms whatsoever about the impact of this Bavarian bacchanal on the 'sensibilities' of their recent 'guests' from the Middle East? Such reservations herald very tense times ahead if Europe feels compelled to respect Islamist demands when the Muslim population attains a certain critical mass and calls for all sorts of concessions running counter to Western values of tolerance and freedom.
20
The US should see the refugees as a boon or even see them in half the light Europe does.
Europeans are doing the right thing; cheap labor is only a undesirable side effect.
3
The editorial board fails to look at the big picture here. Europe was invaded by Muslims over a thousand years ago, they almost succeeded in conquering the entire continent. Islam is not like other religions. It is a religion of conquest and intolerance to "infidels." Why are these "refugees" not heading to Muslim countries for refuge? Admitting huge numbers of these illegal immigrants is cultural suicide. The countries who are saying NO to this invasion, are doing so based on history and present day reality.
21
If we could only get a couple hundred thousand to come to the US maybe we could revive middle class wages.
Given a preference they would move in next door to the members of the Editorial Board.
Given a preference they would move in next door to the members of the Editorial Board.
22
This article is a de-facto campaign endorsement for Trump - nothing less.
The distrust of the agenda of the major media grows exponentially each day.
The distrust of the agenda of the major media grows exponentially each day.
21
" immigrants generally pay more in taxes than they claim in government benefits "
And the authority for this preposterous allegation is ? It's OK. I'll wait.
And the authority for this preposterous allegation is ? It's OK. I'll wait.
26
To constantly having the words of wisdom about Europe by this newspaper is not educational but plain insulting. Read the European papers, try the Dutch papers with blogs where every single reader is angry or living in fear of how their country is being destroyed, read the BBC where the UK Government is moving very slowly adopting refugees and only accepting people stuck in Turkey or Jordan, or for that matter where Obama will accept 20,000 refugees maximum over the next 2 years. The time has come for the NYT to show pictures of the many young men coming from say Afghanistan, a country indeed with serious problems but far from being unlivable. This immigration issue right now in Europe is far from a boon - it is a lethal cancer of a Europe as we know it. New York Times, time for you to call a spate a spate and act responsibly and professionally.
19
Check with the people in England, Scotland, France and Belgium about their actual experience with mass muslim immigration. They do not assimilate, they do intimidate, and they attempt to force their barbaric Sharia law on the inhabitants of the host country.
25
It's sad to see the NYT editorial so simple-mindedly lecture Europe on the benefits of immigrants. I can cite studies to back up all sorts of positions but that doesn't mean they are relevant. It seems to be a knee-jerk reaction these days to start Googling 'studies' to support any one position and then cobble them together as if one had written a thoughtful, encompassing, accurate analysis.
23
This reasoning does not apply in the current chaos, as it presupposes that a legal and regulatory framework exists that somehow will produce order and productivity out of chaos. That does not work in physics, it will not work here. Nature abhors a vacuum--chaos is filling this one. It will continue to do so, no matter how many people you let in under the current circumstance.
There is an absence of security, of deliberation, of order, of the regulatory and cultural norms that enable life in a democratic, capitalist society. When you throw away the rules, when you abandon your borders, this is what you will get. An old story, retold today.
There is an absence of security, of deliberation, of order, of the regulatory and cultural norms that enable life in a democratic, capitalist society. When you throw away the rules, when you abandon your borders, this is what you will get. An old story, retold today.
17
This editorial is out of touch with reality. These are not refugees, these are migrants wandering through countries like there are no laws or boundaries of countries. We expect citizens to follow the laws and rules, but let these crowds wander around with no documentation, or registration, or identification??? this is going to lead to chaos. The pictures that are shown here are cherry picked to show primarily women and children, while 70-80% of them are well-built young men. And it seems that NYT did not keep up with the events happening in the last few days. Here is a link to pictures of "peaceful" refugees: http://hvg.hu/itthon/20150916_Szerdai_osszefoglalo
26
It´s easy to have that kind of thinking thousands miles away from the real world,completely disconnected from the realities in Europe.Europe is not a magnificent machine for job creation,there are millions unemployed here,so if Europe continues to function as a powerful magnet for all the world´s miseries not millions,but many millions will come to Europe hoping to solve all their problems.Imagine only 50000 people arriving in a short time in New York City pretending to have jobs at their disposal,housing,health care etc. a difficult problem to solve certainly,and not only financially.Wake up from your dream politically correct but "out of touch" with the reality.
8
This editorial piece on the ongoing migration ...... mess currently taking place in the EU and surrounding countries is so out-of-touch with reality that it should be an embarrassment to the entire Editorial Board of this newspaper.
It is "deja vu all over again".
Most likely the same staff person(s) who pens the numerous opinion pieces on the subject of the illegal immigration that has taken place in this country has written this fanciful piece.
One has to wonder if this person(s) ever takes the time to read the comments that accompany the opinion pieces that they have so diligently produced over quite a period of time now.
Now this person(s) has chosen to extrapolate their questionable opinion to a situation that is entirely different from the illegal immigration situation here in the USA.
One has to question this person(s) analytical capabilities as well as their ability for inductive and deductive reasoning.
If one is going to produce editorial opinion pieces it would behoove that person to keep up with all the news of changing events on the subject at hand.
This might then allow them to actually learn something and even provide the opportunity for a change in view on the matter of immigration, emigration, and migrant behavior on the whole as it impacts any society on the whole.
It is "deja vu all over again".
Most likely the same staff person(s) who pens the numerous opinion pieces on the subject of the illegal immigration that has taken place in this country has written this fanciful piece.
One has to wonder if this person(s) ever takes the time to read the comments that accompany the opinion pieces that they have so diligently produced over quite a period of time now.
Now this person(s) has chosen to extrapolate their questionable opinion to a situation that is entirely different from the illegal immigration situation here in the USA.
One has to question this person(s) analytical capabilities as well as their ability for inductive and deductive reasoning.
If one is going to produce editorial opinion pieces it would behoove that person to keep up with all the news of changing events on the subject at hand.
This might then allow them to actually learn something and even provide the opportunity for a change in view on the matter of immigration, emigration, and migrant behavior on the whole as it impacts any society on the whole.
2
This editorial, which I endorse 100%, certainly has brought the nativists, isolationists and xenophobes out of the woodwork! There are good reasons why so many are fleeing to Europe and beyond. The country in which they live has been overrun by violent extremists who sweep into a town and threaten to murder anyone who does not accept their rule. By definition, the family that makes the decision to migrate rejects a failed system and seeks to contribute in a civil society. Our own discourse on immigration has devolved recently to a new low, with absurd calls for immediate deportation of over eleven million people. Germany now serves as the model of civility that the US has been. We can still be that model if we can overcome our selfishness and fear of difference and change.
Studies that generalize about all immigrants obscure more than they reveal. These studies would absolutely need to control for country of origin. That would reveal sharp differences in the percentage of immigrants and refugees in the workforce and paying taxes or reliant on public assistance.
Anyway, when it comes to refugees, I'm not sure utilitarian arguments are appropriate. We have ethical obligations and commitments to international conventions that are more important than whether letting refugees in is a net benefit to us.
Anyway, when it comes to refugees, I'm not sure utilitarian arguments are appropriate. We have ethical obligations and commitments to international conventions that are more important than whether letting refugees in is a net benefit to us.
1
I'd also like to say that I think that Germany, and Austria, may be the biggest threats to the solidarity of the European Union, certainly not countries like Hungary or Greece. Teams can't win when they are led by bullies. Their teammates hate them, as much as the opposition does.
3
The Times' recent essays lauding Middle Eastern immigration into Europe have been borderline irresponsible. First, the Times has changed a key word with enormous implications. When the series began, the Times referred to "refugees" leaving nations in strife where peoples' lives were in imminent danger. Very soon the word became "migrants." "Refugees" and "migrants" are vastly different. Refugees seek refuge; they flee situations of civil and military strife where their lives are imperiled. Migrants are aeeking the proverbial new tomorrow, often filled with dreams of material goods. One might make a case for taking in refugees and limiting or prohibiting migrants.
Second, and more important, the Times has simply ignored the social and cultural impact that alien -- yes, alien -- cultures can have on native populations over the course of one or two generations. Set aside the halo effect that first generation immigrants can have on a culture. They work hard, pay taxes, and are thankful for new opportunities. But their children are much less thankful and their grandchildren may be even less so. They may become objects of derision and discrimination. Multiply these ill effects many times when we're discussing an immigrant culture such as Islam whose refusal to assimilate is among its most powerful expressions of identity and the situation in a generation or two can be incendiary.
Second, and more important, the Times has simply ignored the social and cultural impact that alien -- yes, alien -- cultures can have on native populations over the course of one or two generations. Set aside the halo effect that first generation immigrants can have on a culture. They work hard, pay taxes, and are thankful for new opportunities. But their children are much less thankful and their grandchildren may be even less so. They may become objects of derision and discrimination. Multiply these ill effects many times when we're discussing an immigrant culture such as Islam whose refusal to assimilate is among its most powerful expressions of identity and the situation in a generation or two can be incendiary.
8
While the generosity and compassion of the Germans is being appreciated, they are buying a serious problem later in the century. These migrants do not share the great European culture which has heralded the modern age and enriched the civilization of the Western world. They will want Sharia law and Halal food in schools, will insist on women wearing the hijab, if not the full burka, and will build a mosque in every canton. Eight hundred thousand immigrants with a totally different mindset and rejecting the values of the society is going to invite disaster in the coming decades.
11
With all respect, I think the Editorial Board is confusing the current tsunami of migrants trying to illegally force their way into Europe with the LEGAL immigrants who came to America at the beginning of the last century, when this relatively new country needed skilled workers and even unskilled manual laborers.
Would you now similarly welcome an invasion of hundreds of thousands poor people from El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, etc. who forcibly breached the border to get into the US? Even considering that a) the US have much bigger economic resources and empty land mass than Europe, and b) the cultural/religious chasm between the US and Christian South/Central America is nowhere near as deep as the one between Christian Europe and Islamic Middle East.
As for these migrants paying taxes, that is laughable - if anything, the majority are and will be living at the European taxpayers' expense for the indefinite future.
Would you now similarly welcome an invasion of hundreds of thousands poor people from El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, etc. who forcibly breached the border to get into the US? Even considering that a) the US have much bigger economic resources and empty land mass than Europe, and b) the cultural/religious chasm between the US and Christian South/Central America is nowhere near as deep as the one between Christian Europe and Islamic Middle East.
As for these migrants paying taxes, that is laughable - if anything, the majority are and will be living at the European taxpayers' expense for the indefinite future.
10
Grows that what corporations and international elites crave for. Quality of life is a completely different matter and it gets destroyed by uncontrolled immigration.
5
The Times acts as if there's nothing to Western culture other than its material wealth. We in the West, however, are held together by more than economics. We are held together by Western customs, habits and ideals as surely as people in Afghanistan or Syria are held together by their customs, habits and ideals.
Our modern, secular society, with its emphasis on individual freedom, evolved over centuries, and comes out of the distinctive mix of Judeo-Christian values in mixed together with the values of the ancient world of Greece and Rome. Like all cultures, ours is, in actuality, fragile, and can be destroyed from within as well as from forces outside of us.
Sure, people all over the world envy our wealth, and wish they had it. But our way of life? Not so much. Certainly, it is not suited to those for whom women are subservient to men, or God rules every last aspect of the public sphere, or free speech is an absurd and alien concept.
The Times editorial board ignores all this when it blithely argues that "Europe Should See Refugees as a Boon." Maybe some refugees, maybe even a lot of them, will be a boon to Europe. But certainly not all of them.
Our modern, secular society, with its emphasis on individual freedom, evolved over centuries, and comes out of the distinctive mix of Judeo-Christian values in mixed together with the values of the ancient world of Greece and Rome. Like all cultures, ours is, in actuality, fragile, and can be destroyed from within as well as from forces outside of us.
Sure, people all over the world envy our wealth, and wish they had it. But our way of life? Not so much. Certainly, it is not suited to those for whom women are subservient to men, or God rules every last aspect of the public sphere, or free speech is an absurd and alien concept.
The Times editorial board ignores all this when it blithely argues that "Europe Should See Refugees as a Boon." Maybe some refugees, maybe even a lot of them, will be a boon to Europe. But certainly not all of them.
14
First of all, most are migrants, not refugees. There is a difference.
Second, I have no reason to believe the vast majority of migrants have any intention of changing their values such as treating women like cattle which are to partly to blame for why their countries of origin are such miserable places to live to begin with.
The NY Times editorial board is being very naive, and let us not forget, fully supported the invasion of Iraq. Not a good track record!
Second, I have no reason to believe the vast majority of migrants have any intention of changing their values such as treating women like cattle which are to partly to blame for why their countries of origin are such miserable places to live to begin with.
The NY Times editorial board is being very naive, and let us not forget, fully supported the invasion of Iraq. Not a good track record!
9
What nonsense.
Although many people in Germany are still afraid to speak up about their concerns, the lack of details coming out of Berlin coupled with slow realizations that the government will definitively need to increase taxes has prompted grumbles.
We now hearing the government will spend more each month on supporting individual migrants than similar disabled German citizens, which is surely not going to be a popular tune.
And that is before the effect of newly arising health care costs are passed on to employers and health insurance subscribers.
Yes - in Germany health insurance is not free for all - there are premiums of 300 to 800 euros a month for many people, generically based on employment status and the ability to pay. Unemployed persons might pay nothing, employed persons may split costs with employer and others may pull the full weight of the actuarially set premiums.
So yes, one person's free lunch will definitely come off someone else's table after those AOK actuaries tally up the costs of a few million new unemployed subscribers.
I'll wager a bet that your contributing writer several weeks ago was unfortunately right ..... Once the full effect is felt, Germany sentiment will turn against the tide.
Although many people in Germany are still afraid to speak up about their concerns, the lack of details coming out of Berlin coupled with slow realizations that the government will definitively need to increase taxes has prompted grumbles.
We now hearing the government will spend more each month on supporting individual migrants than similar disabled German citizens, which is surely not going to be a popular tune.
And that is before the effect of newly arising health care costs are passed on to employers and health insurance subscribers.
Yes - in Germany health insurance is not free for all - there are premiums of 300 to 800 euros a month for many people, generically based on employment status and the ability to pay. Unemployed persons might pay nothing, employed persons may split costs with employer and others may pull the full weight of the actuarially set premiums.
So yes, one person's free lunch will definitely come off someone else's table after those AOK actuaries tally up the costs of a few million new unemployed subscribers.
I'll wager a bet that your contributing writer several weeks ago was unfortunately right ..... Once the full effect is felt, Germany sentiment will turn against the tide.
12
This editorial is dishonest by what it doesn't mention.
In America, Hispanics will sooner or later be the majority. Will that change things for Blacks and Whites? Yes, Deomgraphy is destiny.
In Europe you could wind up with a Muslim continent over time where the native populations are now fringe groups in their own lands.
They don't want that. Most Americans, I believe that are not Hispanic don't want that here either.
When we go overseas and take over places , we are imperialists according to the Left and evil.
When they come here and do the same thing, then we are racists because we want to keep what we have.
All over the world this is reaching a tipping point. Editorials like this don't help.
In America, Hispanics will sooner or later be the majority. Will that change things for Blacks and Whites? Yes, Deomgraphy is destiny.
In Europe you could wind up with a Muslim continent over time where the native populations are now fringe groups in their own lands.
They don't want that. Most Americans, I believe that are not Hispanic don't want that here either.
When we go overseas and take over places , we are imperialists according to the Left and evil.
When they come here and do the same thing, then we are racists because we want to keep what we have.
All over the world this is reaching a tipping point. Editorials like this don't help.
8
Perhaps refugees/illegals are a boon to big box and dollar stores. Also they will work for scraps. So big businesses, (especially Agriculture/meat processing), love them.
But they are a bane to the already struggling, poor and others living in poverty. They must fight over the crumbs whether it be housing, medical, education, public transportation or other social services.
It is unlikely that those on the NYT EB will ever encounter refugees other than as domestic help.
All of this influx brings down the bottom line of many. Get used to less and lower standards. It could all very well be an intentional goal from above.
But they are a bane to the already struggling, poor and others living in poverty. They must fight over the crumbs whether it be housing, medical, education, public transportation or other social services.
It is unlikely that those on the NYT EB will ever encounter refugees other than as domestic help.
All of this influx brings down the bottom line of many. Get used to less and lower standards. It could all very well be an intentional goal from above.
4
Why European will endanger their life and safety by allowing this hostile immigrants in their neighborhood. This Middle East Region represents the dark and deadly ideology of kill, kill and kill. After going through reader's comment. I feel only 3 person/group will approve this Editorial. The List is, one old woman in Berlin, anti human bureaucrat in Brussels and Saudi Embassy in US.
5
The New York Times Editorial Board apparently puts more faith in orthodoxy than in arithmetic. The cost of all levels of government in the U.S. is about $18,000 per resident and about twice that per worker. How much does the Times believe a day worker paid in cash at a sub-minimum-wage pays in taxes each year? This does not count others costs such as emergency room medical care, which is born by those who pay for hospital care through insurance or in cash. I do not believe the cost picture is vastly different in Europe. If either Europe or the United States essentially opens borders shouldn't one expect all those whose incomes are far below the lowest wages to wish to move--say below 10% of the minimum wage--a few billion people. This is especially true once well established immigrant communities exist, so language and culture cease to be major hurdles. How many tens or hundreds of millions of low-wage immigrants does the Times believe can be brought into Europe or to the United States without depressing the wages of relatively unskilled workers or make supportive welfare system unaffordable? What is the immigration policy that the Times is advocating?
11
An unusual solidarity of opinion from commenters, with little love lost on the Editorial Board. It is interesting that Israel's decision to seal their north (and other) borders, literally with barbed wire, spot lights, armed guards and air patrols, has received so little attention. It is, of course, their business, as it should be the business of any other nation. One might otherwise gently argue that the Syrians are certainly viewed by the west as an effective roaming invasion of a kind of plague, which, interestingly, is precisely the intent of those parties that are destabilizing Syria, and thereby, Europe. After reading Seymour Hersh's critical report "The Redirection," readers might consult the Paideia Institute in Stockholm, and comments by its founder, Barbara Spectre, for clearer understanding as to causality, motivation and objectives in this "crisis."
10
Please people, wake up! The NYT is playing a sadistic game with its readers. It is obvious, (as per readers' comments) that they are way beyond good judgment and reason. Their articles do not make sense as they advocate just the opposite of what is true or sensible. They do not care. They do not have to worry about making ends meet, most likely they have two homes, one in the city and one in the countryside. Most definitely they have domestic help, and if they are more privileged, a chauffeur. They are laughing at our comments as they plot tomorrow's outlandish editorials.
14
These pro immigration arguments may be valid at the 100,000 foot level and over the long term. However, in the short and mid-term, this massive influx of people will not be evenly dispersed among various towns and cities. The uneducated will take low paying jobs and work off the grid. Social services will be strained. Over a period of years additional family members will strive to join their relatives. Pushback will escalate. The change is too much, too fast because Europeans have not had a hand in creating the change .... it has been thrust upon them.
6
The refugees can be a boon to Europe. In order to be a boon, they have to be assimilated into European culture by embracing it and giving up the one they are fleeing from. Otherwise they are only transplanting it into Europe. If it takes root in Europe, the consequences of their culture of intolerance will not be a boon but a bane.
10
Face to face with a large and growing problem the establishment reaches for the (economic) bromides: larger populations are always good because they have always been good, they increase consumer demand ... while reducing labor costs for tycoons who also happen to own and control the media.
What's good for tycoons is good for Ameri -- sorry, Germany. Right?
If large and growing populations are so fine how come ballooning populations don't work their magic in Egypt? How about Syria? Iraq? Saudi Arabia? How large a population is too large? Nobody knows, except nobody has proven Malthus wrong save for the timing.
Maybe there are other reasons for prosperity besides feeding the tycoons more cheap labor. How about looking at availability of cheap energy? It seems that folks streaming into Europe are from Europe's gas can and that refugees are non-factored externailities of European energy consumption. More consumption = more refugees, if the Europeans want to control immigration they should chop energy use as the first step.
What's good for tycoons is good for Ameri -- sorry, Germany. Right?
If large and growing populations are so fine how come ballooning populations don't work their magic in Egypt? How about Syria? Iraq? Saudi Arabia? How large a population is too large? Nobody knows, except nobody has proven Malthus wrong save for the timing.
Maybe there are other reasons for prosperity besides feeding the tycoons more cheap labor. How about looking at availability of cheap energy? It seems that folks streaming into Europe are from Europe's gas can and that refugees are non-factored externailities of European energy consumption. More consumption = more refugees, if the Europeans want to control immigration they should chop energy use as the first step.
3
Only in the progressive defective minds are masses of refugees a "boon". Especially massive numbers with different culture and somewhat intolerant of those with a different culture. Keep them safe, train the adult males to return home and fight for their country.
7
Based on the CA and NY models alone, the costs to society are obvious, constant upheaval for few benefits.
We have tried the advocated model of diversity for 50+ years here.
"Generally a boon" is the gospel of the unwilling to learn from our own social conflicts here as well as a dangerous belief in a perfect social system never seen in societies in History.
We have tried the advocated model of diversity for 50+ years here.
"Generally a boon" is the gospel of the unwilling to learn from our own social conflicts here as well as a dangerous belief in a perfect social system never seen in societies in History.
8
It is not true what this article is indicating. Or at least it isn't true in the Netherlands. An Non-Western immigrant has a net cost of 3000 euro per year. This amount is due to lower national income from taxes and higher cost of social benefits like housing, care, schooling and financial aid. Put it how you want, but on average a migrant will be cost inefficient for this country.
10
As a German living in the USA ,I would say that then the US should send Navy ships over there and bring them back safely where they are needed ,since they contribute to society . Their religious beliefs should not matter , again because they would blend into a society based on Christian beliefs with no effort.
7
Way to go NYT Editorial Board. And because you can see the sunny side of life, you are all in line for the 2015 Pollyanna Award… if there was such a thing.
16
This Editorial Board chose one anti-immigrant position to look at: immigrants are a burden. Historically they are not. They start at low level jobs, assimilate and spread upward in a couple of generations. But that doesn't happen with immigrants that aren't allowed to assimilate, for example, African Americans descended from "immigrants" brought here in chains, and, to a lesser extent, Hispanic immigrants. In modern times the effect of immigration is complicated. Immigrants have displaced Americans from STEM jobs via the H1-B visa program. These immigrants are hard working and paid well enough (although less than Americans would be paid) so they are not a burden. They are immensely profitable to their employers. Unfortunately, the displaced Americans don't move up the ladder. They are the type of young worker that made America No 1 in STEM, today they are demeaned. as lazy and incompetent. Today's business model is profit at the expense of jobs and it would amaze me if European internationals had a different business model. Therefore I'm skeptical about the need for young and grateful and no doubt cheaper Syrians. Immigration today is not simple and the NY Times editorial is too superficial to be helpful.
The elephant in the room is the history of Muslim immigrants in France, England and Germany (not well assimilated, not moving up) and the international social movement that appeals to so many: Jihad.
The elephant in the room is the history of Muslim immigrants in France, England and Germany (not well assimilated, not moving up) and the international social movement that appeals to so many: Jihad.
13
Germany has 12.5 million of its citizens currently in poverty. Let the governmet provide jobs , shelter and health care to those 12.5 million before allowing more people into their country. Why didn't Merkel come up with $7.5 billion to help those people first? Strange that she was able to find that money after the these"refugees" showed up and is using it only for them.
21
Will the NYT ever stop beating the drum for mass immigration from the third world to the first? If any Editorial Board member ever stops to read the majority of the comments on any NYT article pertaining to immigration, he or she will see that the effort to make people disbelieve what commonsense and experience tells them about the "benefits" of having one's schools, hospitals, jobs, and neighborhoods overrun is an epic fail. In Europe, their entire secular culture of extreme tolerance is under direct threat by people who expressly do not want to assimilate. How is any of this a boon to the non-elite in the U.S. or in Europe?
38
Cherry-picked data from cherry-picked reports does not make for a very good argument, and I can remember numerous occasions when this very editorial board has criticized others for employing the exact same tactic. Other commenters have persuasively made the case why the editorial board is wrong in this matter, but I am left to wonder why the board refuses to acknowledge its obvious errors, or at least stop digging the hole it's in even deeper.
It's another in a series of serious lapses in judgment, and yet another signpost in your race to zero credibility. I wonder if the editorial board truly realizes the damage it is doing to itself.
It's another in a series of serious lapses in judgment, and yet another signpost in your race to zero credibility. I wonder if the editorial board truly realizes the damage it is doing to itself.
31
NY Times editors -- please name one successful Islamic or predominately Islamic country that respects their women treats men and women equally (educationally, economically and in terms of societal advancement), funnels billions to ensure there is a strong social safety net for their people, doesn't drive away or kill its minority groups (Christians and non-Arabs), is prospering economically, treasures educational and social advancement over religious dogma, has a great human rights record, and believes in secular rather than religious laws created over 1,000 years ago? I honestly can't name one Islamic country in the entire world that holds true to these values yet you are celebrating mostly Muslim people illegally flowing into Europe by the 100s of thousands who believe in none of the things I just described. I am completely exasperated and disheartened by the sheer blindness and stubbornness of the entire NY Times staff its celebration of the illegal invasion of Europe by anti-Western migrants.
53
So, the immigrants will benefit the European economy. They also are showing up with women's rights set back thousands of years. And of course they are fleeing war and poverty but bringing with them the seeds that spread war and poverty in their homelands.
37
Wow, the writer(s) are trying to "sell" accommodating refugees as a win-win for everyone. You just swept cultural differences and difficulties in assimilation under the rug like none of these things matter. The long-term implication of an Islamic Europe is just too horrible to imagine. It would not be Europe anymore.
31
President Obama has invited 20,000 migrants to the United States. The one positive thing the Republicans could finally do for this country is obstruct this misguided plan.
20
I agree with you but at least these people won't be able to crash our borders so there would be more opportunity to actually screen them. But, yes, very bad idea. We have enough "migrants" here already, soaking up benefits.
2
Swedish study suggests that about 80% of the Muslim immigrants actually never work and are a burden to society. Your statistics apply to the US only, as I because the screening process is much more strict and only those with desired skills are let in. Furthermore you seem to be confusing immigrants with refugees.
35
40% of the immigrants in the US use one or more of taxpayer funded social services.
100% of the immigrants in the US who have a child here use many taxpayer funded social services.
When you reward people for doing nothing, that is what you will get more of.
100% of the immigrants in the US who have a child here use many taxpayer funded social services.
When you reward people for doing nothing, that is what you will get more of.
2
The World is experiencing a regional war in the Middle East and people flee for safety to political opportunism and European and global nationalism will have to deal with the causes humanitarian Stop War in Middle East
2
Carefull! Their cultures are hugely different! This is not the italians or the Irish immigrating to the US or Canada. To just say it'll be benificial is naive. Reading this article I wondered who wrote it, their age, their probable 'sheltered' backgrounds, their most assured beliefs in how Coke a Cola really can change the world for the better.
We need to help the Refugees, but lets help them keep their home, which will unfortunatly mean getting off of ones hands and confronting the tyranny.
The US has aquired the Sheriff badge it so ardently fought for, now it wants to say, 'Not me!' That is the worst display of cowardice!
We need to help the Refugees, but lets help them keep their home, which will unfortunatly mean getting off of ones hands and confronting the tyranny.
The US has aquired the Sheriff badge it so ardently fought for, now it wants to say, 'Not me!' That is the worst display of cowardice!
11
Please note that employers, not workers decide whether workers move up to better paying jobs. Workers don't need more desperate immigrants to push them up the economic ladder. They would do so eagerly if the opportunity presents itself. I am surprised that The Times has bought into the sink or swim mentality of rightwing "think" tanks.
12
This wave of immigrants increasingly appears to be a well-organized campaign to destabilize the West and infiltrate it with real or potential terrorists. Wake up to the real world.
47
I don´t believe this for one minute. A "well organized campaign"? These people are fleeing war torn nations.
Why don't they stay home and boom there? If they are so productive and functional, they should be, should've been, influencing their own societies and thriving there; turning states evidence on the rogues -- at the least.
Many of these these people are leaving home, to seek sanctuary with those whom are partnered with the government they believe they are running from. If they understood the 'West / world' in their countries, they would remain, cultivate and apply their skills; rid the disrupting rogue elements. If every discontented person left, the country would fall prey to the rouges; appetizing conquest.
What caused so many people to believe they could go to another country, not productively employed, unable to communicate, be offered a home, given food & medicine? Where do they think 'this stuff' comes from? From sacrifice; among the same societies that are partnered with their national governments. Some sacrificed much; all. That is where "this stuff" came from; not from leaving homes.
Do they intend to relocate, put their feet up, then expect Western / world treasures to sacrifice stabilizing their societies?
Many of these these people are leaving home, to seek sanctuary with those whom are partnered with the government they believe they are running from. If they understood the 'West / world' in their countries, they would remain, cultivate and apply their skills; rid the disrupting rogue elements. If every discontented person left, the country would fall prey to the rouges; appetizing conquest.
What caused so many people to believe they could go to another country, not productively employed, unable to communicate, be offered a home, given food & medicine? Where do they think 'this stuff' comes from? From sacrifice; among the same societies that are partnered with their national governments. Some sacrificed much; all. That is where "this stuff" came from; not from leaving homes.
Do they intend to relocate, put their feet up, then expect Western / world treasures to sacrifice stabilizing their societies?
29
Do you think that is what your ancestors thought when they came to the "new world"? did they all have a job waiting for them? Did they arrive and pitch a tent, build a home, and put their feet up? I doubt it.
1
Europe is not very good at integrating muslims -- see: Sweden, Germany, France, England -- they just aren't good at it, so what makes the editorial board think they're going to do any better with this group? All over Europe are enclaves of earlier rounds of unhappy muslim immigrants. There's a more than slightly ridiculous element to the sight of Germany, which has still not integrated its large Turkish population after many decades, being the great champion of more immigrants.
If the history of the last 2000 years has shown anything, it is that Europeans are not comfortable with differences. How many wars were fought between people who were all Christian, but with small differences in religious belief? Much of the outcome of WWII resulted in countries that were much more homogenous.
In many places in Europe where large numbers of muslims have settled, it has been to the peril of the local jewish population. (France, southern Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium). Perhaps this has to do with large, unintegrated populations, because this problem does not exist in the USA.
It is not right to make major changes to a society that are opposed by a large part of the population. In fact, this open border policy has already contributed to the rise of extreme right wing parties in Europe. Who knows where this might end. People forget after 70 years of nice, peaceful, largely liberal Europe, that Europeans have this long, long history of extreme violence.
If the history of the last 2000 years has shown anything, it is that Europeans are not comfortable with differences. How many wars were fought between people who were all Christian, but with small differences in religious belief? Much of the outcome of WWII resulted in countries that were much more homogenous.
In many places in Europe where large numbers of muslims have settled, it has been to the peril of the local jewish population. (France, southern Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium). Perhaps this has to do with large, unintegrated populations, because this problem does not exist in the USA.
It is not right to make major changes to a society that are opposed by a large part of the population. In fact, this open border policy has already contributed to the rise of extreme right wing parties in Europe. Who knows where this might end. People forget after 70 years of nice, peaceful, largely liberal Europe, that Europeans have this long, long history of extreme violence.
25
Why is it Europe's responsibility to integrate Muslims? Do they not share an obligation to integrate into the societies who have allowed them to settle there and given them opportunities they cannot find in there homelands? What happened to 'when in Rome'? It fell because of migrants who tore down their highly functioning society.
2
It is the job of the immigrant to integrate to their chosen host country, not the opposite.
1
I'm beginning to worry the Editorial board is not very smart. Or perhaps they are just advocates that are supremely biased and blinkered.
I'm a progressive liberal. but this issue is complicated. To suggest that the research is decided on economic benefits of inmigration is false and absurd. Moreover there are assimilation concerns.
You are just as bad on this issue as the far right: you are impervious to other data and perspectives.
If this were easy there would be open borders.
I'm a progressive liberal. but this issue is complicated. To suggest that the research is decided on economic benefits of inmigration is false and absurd. Moreover there are assimilation concerns.
You are just as bad on this issue as the far right: you are impervious to other data and perspectives.
If this were easy there would be open borders.
59
The reality is that the European masses are not amused to say the least with having vast numbers of culturally alien peoples invading their countries.
Contrary to the New York Times view Europeans will push back by enhancing the influence and power of far right political parties.
Contrary to the New York Times view Europeans will push back by enhancing the influence and power of far right political parties.
37
How much European blood has been spilled because Germans can't get along with Czechs can't get along with Slovaks can't get along with Poles can't get along with Balts can't get along with Slavs etc etc. And they are all Christians. Let's not even get into the Jews. Now you want to introduce a whole new element into this mix. This is not an "economic" problem and arguing the economic benefits misses the point. I am willing to posit that the refugees are wonderful and skilled human beings, and I don't have the answer for where they should find a new home. But for those of us who hoped we had seen the worst results of the Bush/Cheney folly in destabilizing the Middle East, we ain't seen nothing yet.
44
Yes, immigration is a good thing for a country. BUT every country has a right to manage it the way it wants it. How many, what country from etc, etc. What we see today in Europe is a mass migration by people who do not want to be registered and processed in an organized manner. So no surprise that nations, mostly poor and small react with fences and tear gaz. On top of that the EU doe not have a unanimous immigration and refugee policy. It will get worst before it gets better!
43
What a bizarrely one-dimensional and out-of-touch editorial.
First, it is an entirely baseless assumption that the findings of past studies on entirely different immigrant groups in different times have any predictive value here. What possible relevance does a study of past intra-European immigration have on the current wave of extra-European Muslim immigration? This is akin to citing a study on the impact of population flows between US States to support the view that the US should let in a million Syrians and Afghans.
Second, the real world is not some ivory-tower macroeconomic model, where a country or society are better off simply because some economic indicator goes up (the liberal-leaning NYT knows that well). Even setting aside the risk of radical Islamist groups infiltrating Europe through this wave, many European societies can simply not sustain more Muslim immigration -or generally immigration that does not share Europe's humanistic and rationalistic values- without facing a threat to their identity, to their cohesion, to their sense of "vivre ensemble", to, in short, what makes a society pleasant and livable.
First, it is an entirely baseless assumption that the findings of past studies on entirely different immigrant groups in different times have any predictive value here. What possible relevance does a study of past intra-European immigration have on the current wave of extra-European Muslim immigration? This is akin to citing a study on the impact of population flows between US States to support the view that the US should let in a million Syrians and Afghans.
Second, the real world is not some ivory-tower macroeconomic model, where a country or society are better off simply because some economic indicator goes up (the liberal-leaning NYT knows that well). Even setting aside the risk of radical Islamist groups infiltrating Europe through this wave, many European societies can simply not sustain more Muslim immigration -or generally immigration that does not share Europe's humanistic and rationalistic values- without facing a threat to their identity, to their cohesion, to their sense of "vivre ensemble", to, in short, what makes a society pleasant and livable.
126
We put way too much reliance on economic studies which are shaky at best, and are usually designed to validate a politically motivated hypothesis. But worst, the unfounded reliance on economic "analysis" underscores a distorted world view that starts and ends with economics. There is much more to the issue of immigration. I assure you that if a thousand foreigners uprooted from their homes moved into my neighborhood the whole character of the area would change, even if the local baker was able to sell a few move loaves of bread.
16
Difficult to comment on this topic, I write for the 3rd time, I wonder if this time the NYT will publish or censor again.
Europe is not in a situation where they can afford to open their borders to all, especially . The example of France is interesting, the biggest Muslim population in Europe, 4.5 millions in 2010 or 7.5% of the population compared to 0,8% in the US, about 2,5% in Canada. Actual rate of unemployment in France as of April 2015, 10,5%. Sadly, a vast majority of the Muslim population is unemployed and would account for approximately 60% of the jailed population.
When a country takes migrants, it has to be able to offer the right conditions in order to have a good life for themselves and their kids and not be a burden for the country that welcomes them. We have to help people but only within the reasonable limits. If you're gonna do it, do it well or don't do it.
Europe is not in a situation where they can afford to open their borders to all, especially . The example of France is interesting, the biggest Muslim population in Europe, 4.5 millions in 2010 or 7.5% of the population compared to 0,8% in the US, about 2,5% in Canada. Actual rate of unemployment in France as of April 2015, 10,5%. Sadly, a vast majority of the Muslim population is unemployed and would account for approximately 60% of the jailed population.
When a country takes migrants, it has to be able to offer the right conditions in order to have a good life for themselves and their kids and not be a burden for the country that welcomes them. We have to help people but only within the reasonable limits. If you're gonna do it, do it well or don't do it.
21
The Times editorial board is brain dead on this issue. No one believes the supposed academic studies the Times seems to be referencing because they are not born out by real world experience.
And it isn't that people in the US and western world don't care about the suffering of these refugees, we all wish we had a magic wand and could eliminate it. But that's not the real world.
You have to be practical and realistic and use common sense on this issue. The root causes are in the middle east. Only that part of the world can figure out how to live with one another and solve their problems.
Most Muslims do not wish to integrate into western culture or adopt western values. The wealthy nations in that part of the world need to accept primary responsibility for taking care of those that share their world view. The US can send food and clothing, but the basic responsibility for solving this mess lies in the middle east.
And it isn't that people in the US and western world don't care about the suffering of these refugees, we all wish we had a magic wand and could eliminate it. But that's not the real world.
You have to be practical and realistic and use common sense on this issue. The root causes are in the middle east. Only that part of the world can figure out how to live with one another and solve their problems.
Most Muslims do not wish to integrate into western culture or adopt western values. The wealthy nations in that part of the world need to accept primary responsibility for taking care of those that share their world view. The US can send food and clothing, but the basic responsibility for solving this mess lies in the middle east.
33
Where do Germany and Austria get the nerve to propose that the EU sanction countries who do not agree with them? They have made a completely irresponsible, open-ended offer to 100's of thousands of mostly young, mostly male, economic migrants, who have no respect for others, or for the law, without ever having asked the opposing countries if they would cooperate, or offering to help them do so. Countries, like Hungary, do not owe Germany, or the world, an explanation for their point of view. Speaking of intolerance! Rich, arrogant countries can stick it in their collective ears, when they try to dictate to the have-nots of Europe. Those small countries have every right to make their own decisions about the direction of their sovereign states.
74
That's pretty rich coming from the USA who with a population of 320 million has accepted 10,000 of these immigrants. While Ireland with a population close to 1% of the USA, is accepting 4,000. Ireland is doing this in spite of the fact that it has absorbed hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Eastern Europe.
2
Once again the EB oversimplifies and leaves out important information. What is the timeline on the cost v. benefits equation on new immigrants? Is it six months, two years, ten years before the balance shifts from more going out to more coming in? And what difference does it make when new immigrants don't share cultural touchstones with the society they are entering--different religion, different ideas about the rule of law and content of education, different social values and quite possibly no desire to assimilate. What difference does it make when throngs of people enter all at the same time, instead of little by little? Does it make a difference when most of those entering are unattached young men and not established families?
There may be a way to handle this migrant crisis--personally I think the gulf states should at least be footing the bill, and even making space for their brethren--it's curious the the EB has no brief for them. But to offer a few numbers to support an unreasoned position on an economic and social upheaval isn't especially helpful. There's always a statistic to defend any position. Just ask the Republicans.
There may be a way to handle this migrant crisis--personally I think the gulf states should at least be footing the bill, and even making space for their brethren--it's curious the the EB has no brief for them. But to offer a few numbers to support an unreasoned position on an economic and social upheaval isn't especially helpful. There's always a statistic to defend any position. Just ask the Republicans.
13
The NY Times editorial board is beyond belief. I am still scratching my wooden head trying to figure out why it NEVER presents an unbiased and even handed approach to this topic of immigration. This is a very sad and difficult issue and the kind of emotional blackmail that the Times editorial staff is consistently complicit in engaging in is irresponsible.
I can't say that I have a solution to this problem but destroying Europe isn't one of them. Dealing properly with the cause of this problem would be a good start. Immigration only works when it can be controlled so that those coming in can be properly assimilated. Otherwise, satellite communities/ghettos are created like the one outside Paris where the inhabitants are poor, marginalized and resentful. Not a good situation.
I can't say that I have a solution to this problem but destroying Europe isn't one of them. Dealing properly with the cause of this problem would be a good start. Immigration only works when it can be controlled so that those coming in can be properly assimilated. Otherwise, satellite communities/ghettos are created like the one outside Paris where the inhabitants are poor, marginalized and resentful. Not a good situation.
37
The issue of the integration of ethnic dissimilar populations into European societies is complex. While the French experience seems to be unsuccessful with large disaffected groups living in ghetto type areas. Germany has, however, already had a successful large immigration experience with a large Turkish guest worker program from the 1960's. At present there are over 3 million of Turkish background in Germany with many now having citizenship and with minimal conflict despite being predominantly of Muslim faith.
2
While this may be true in the US and in well off, small countries in Northern Europe, it is patently untrue in Southern Europe: Spain, Southern Italy, and Greece, and to a certain extent France, where the cost of social benefits far outstrips what migrants pay in taxes, and youth unemployment hovers around 40 percent.. Also, given labour laws that protect workers in most of these countries, if the immigrants are on a regular contract, which in a fair world they should be, with a mandated wage (not begin paid illegally), those jobs would normally be taken by native workers. It is always the poor and working class that are affected by immigration, as they are the one who have to fight it out with immigrants for limited public transportation, spots in the government run childcare, and doctor's appointments in the national health service. Living in Italy, I see the results of this every day. You simply don't know what you are talking about. Also, as Philip below says, there is another cost, which is cultural, and Europe is not the melting pot this the US...
20
Instead of justifying immigration "benefits" with "hand-picked" references and studies, the author should focus on the root of the current problem. Overpopulation is destroying the quality of life on a global basis, including the USA. These people aren't migrating because of war. They are migrating because there is no hope for a better life in a totally overpopulated environment. And for the record, the National Academy of Science commissioned a comprehensive study of immigration benefits and identified that only several groups of immigrants produced a "positive benefit" for the economy. The Middle Eastern, African and Latin American groups were a significant "drag" on the economy because of their overutilization of welfare and other benefits.
21
The New York Times is trying really hard to get me to vote for Trump or Sanders in 2016. This no-borders nonsense has to stop. The first world nations do not have the population nor the wealth to absorb the entire Earth's third world population.
I want to remain a Democrat, but the more leading Democrats and their publications champion borderless anarchy, the more turned off I am with your entire party and ideology, because I find it fundamentally NOT democratic. If as citizens we cannot have a say on who we bring to this country and who our children will share this country with, then what imaginary freedoms do we really have?
I want to remain a Democrat, but the more leading Democrats and their publications champion borderless anarchy, the more turned off I am with your entire party and ideology, because I find it fundamentally NOT democratic. If as citizens we cannot have a say on who we bring to this country and who our children will share this country with, then what imaginary freedoms do we really have?
21
If someone came to my house banging on the door demanding a room, food, allowance, left trash all over, criticized my lifestyle, beliefs, said I was in their eyes, "someone who will go to Hell for not sharing the same religion," insulted, degraded women, discriminated against gays, disrespected rule of law and procedure, protests, yells religious chants, throws rocks...yeah I'd be pretty afraid too. Actually fear is the rational response isn't it?
I think I just described the refugees and right-wing Republican radicals in America. Notice what they have in common? Too much religion and hate on women and anyone different. Should Europe, or any Western democracy give up everything it fought for and all the progress it made to secure equal rights for these people?
I'm inclined to say no.
I think I just described the refugees and right-wing Republican radicals in America. Notice what they have in common? Too much religion and hate on women and anyone different. Should Europe, or any Western democracy give up everything it fought for and all the progress it made to secure equal rights for these people?
I'm inclined to say no.
18
Syrians are not immigrants - they are refugees.
Immigrants want to come to a country. Many of our current legal (and illegal) immigrants here in New York are happy to be in this country. They want their children to go to school, learn English, become successful and become US citizens. I had friends whose parents took pictures when they achieved citizenship.
Syrians do not want to immigrate- they just want to flee the violence in Syria. I don't blame them, and I feel sorry for them. But they are not looking to assimilate and join a new country. They are looking for a place to exist while hoping to be able to go back to Syria when (if?) the violence stops.
Comparing them to true immigrants is intellectually dishonest.
Immigrants want to come to a country. Many of our current legal (and illegal) immigrants here in New York are happy to be in this country. They want their children to go to school, learn English, become successful and become US citizens. I had friends whose parents took pictures when they achieved citizenship.
Syrians do not want to immigrate- they just want to flee the violence in Syria. I don't blame them, and I feel sorry for them. But they are not looking to assimilate and join a new country. They are looking for a place to exist while hoping to be able to go back to Syria when (if?) the violence stops.
Comparing them to true immigrants is intellectually dishonest.
7
The general rule as defined by the European Union is that person is no longer a when he comes to the fist country where he is no persecuted. Many of these "refugees" are coming from Turkey where the lived in peace and had jobs and housing.
To move from that environment to another makes one a migrant.
My ancestors left France for England in 1567 as refugees fleeing religious persecution and a second civil war involving Protestants and Catholics. When they left England for Mannheim Germany it was as migrants. When they left Germany for the Netherlands because of persecution during the Thirty Years War they were again refugees.
Refugees stay where they are welcomed. Migrants move to make more money.
To move from that environment to another makes one a migrant.
My ancestors left France for England in 1567 as refugees fleeing religious persecution and a second civil war involving Protestants and Catholics. When they left England for Mannheim Germany it was as migrants. When they left Germany for the Netherlands because of persecution during the Thirty Years War they were again refugees.
Refugees stay where they are welcomed. Migrants move to make more money.
This editorial isn't just unfortunate - if Europe is so imprudent to follow the same "logic" that it advocates is dangerous and alarming.
"immigrants from the rest of Europe pay more in taxes than they receive in government benefits"....let's take the Times word for it for arguments sake, but the immigrants being discussed aren't from Europe.
A large percentage have a mindset and frame of reference that is medieval. I wonder how many danced in the streets and shouted "God is Great" when the twin towers fell. Individual Muslims can be celebrated ( the boy with the homemade clock treated so despicably by his Texas school ) but when evaluating Islam at the macro level we must be realistic. A shocking percentage of the followers of this religion have little or no respect for other value systems. The NYT is encouraging Europe to embrace a malignant serpent.
"immigrants from the rest of Europe pay more in taxes than they receive in government benefits"....let's take the Times word for it for arguments sake, but the immigrants being discussed aren't from Europe.
A large percentage have a mindset and frame of reference that is medieval. I wonder how many danced in the streets and shouted "God is Great" when the twin towers fell. Individual Muslims can be celebrated ( the boy with the homemade clock treated so despicably by his Texas school ) but when evaluating Islam at the macro level we must be realistic. A shocking percentage of the followers of this religion have little or no respect for other value systems. The NYT is encouraging Europe to embrace a malignant serpent.
20
But the migrants are not European, by any definition, and show no wish to become European. Why should Europeans want to make their culture more like that of, say, Syria? The migrants are people, not just workers.
17
How does the Times consider financial gain over cultural disadvantage? I thought that would be the Republicans' job. This is an invasion by men who are too afraid to defend their own country. The guise is "migrant". The reality is a defeatist march with planted terrorists ready to supplant the decreasing Caucasian population.
9
It seems that a large part of present migrants are from the middle class. Nobody seems to care about the countries they come from. Their departure will leave these countries bloodless, screaming off the best of them. The next crisis is already evident.
3
"Europe Should See Refugees as a Boon..."--a pious statement by the NY Times which is dishonest by what it avoids.
It supports its argument by saying, for example, "Britain receives more in taxes from immigrants from the rest of Europe than they pay out in government benefits." The article says that that Denmark benefited from an influx of refugees in the 1990's without mentioning that the refugees who were welcomed were from former communist regimes rather than from third-world counties.
There is no chance that it was mere oversight that the Times' article left out the tough question: What are the limits to beneficial immigration to any country in terms of the total numbers, concentrations and parts of the world from which the refugees come?
It supports its argument by saying, for example, "Britain receives more in taxes from immigrants from the rest of Europe than they pay out in government benefits." The article says that that Denmark benefited from an influx of refugees in the 1990's without mentioning that the refugees who were welcomed were from former communist regimes rather than from third-world counties.
There is no chance that it was mere oversight that the Times' article left out the tough question: What are the limits to beneficial immigration to any country in terms of the total numbers, concentrations and parts of the world from which the refugees come?
13
It doesn't matter. If people can't live where they were, they will go elsewhere. Theoretical limits, beneficial ratios, mean nothing. Maybe to the few surviving sociologists.
Germany's economy was booming without the migrants, and the migrant communities already in Europe are burdens and not boons. So this again is just another attempt to justify open borders for reasons which I still haven't been able to figure out. I really want to know why the times and the huffpo and other outlets are losing their minds over open borders
23
Immigrants bring diversity in culture and skills which makes the country great. The US is blessed with immigrants from all over the world who contributed immensely to science, engineering and arts. Those migrants to Europe from Syria have made a journey I cannot even imagine such a journey. Wherever they settle, they will make immense contribution to the society.
9
No doubt that Europeans who will read it will feel very irritated by this Editorial. It is certainly very easy to take a highly moral position on the subject while you have no skin in the game. Instead should not the NYT be writing editorials about the thousands of kids blocked at our southern borders who are unable to join their family ?
I feel for these migrants and would probably have done as they did had I been in their position. However I also completely understand Europe’s hesitations.
- I hear that this year alone maybe one million migrants have tried to reach the shores of Europe. We have seen the most desperate or the most motivated. If Europe welcomes these, how many more are going to show up next year and the next ? There is a huge reservoir of very unsatisfied if not desperate people in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.
- Many European countries have been lambasted for their financial situation, how can this not strain them further ? Instead, would it not make more sense to encourage more Greeks to migrate to Germany or Romanians to seek work in France ?
- American economists are unable to agree on anything related to the US economic policies (understandably so, it is not an exact science) and yet you want the Europeans to readily believe that immigrants will right away pay more taxes than they will cost the taxpayer ?
Heck what have Europeans got to lose ? Why not try and see what happens ?
I feel for these migrants and would probably have done as they did had I been in their position. However I also completely understand Europe’s hesitations.
- I hear that this year alone maybe one million migrants have tried to reach the shores of Europe. We have seen the most desperate or the most motivated. If Europe welcomes these, how many more are going to show up next year and the next ? There is a huge reservoir of very unsatisfied if not desperate people in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.
- Many European countries have been lambasted for their financial situation, how can this not strain them further ? Instead, would it not make more sense to encourage more Greeks to migrate to Germany or Romanians to seek work in France ?
- American economists are unable to agree on anything related to the US economic policies (understandably so, it is not an exact science) and yet you want the Europeans to readily believe that immigrants will right away pay more taxes than they will cost the taxpayer ?
Heck what have Europeans got to lose ? Why not try and see what happens ?
4
There's nothing wrong with welcoming able hands into a country. I think the big problem here is the sheer number. Germany is increasing its population by 1% in a relatively short period of time. That's a lot of people, and it throws the equilibrium out of balance. I understand the dire situation, but I can also understand why Europeans are concerned.
24
An influx of desperate, low-skilled workers obviously tends to reduce wages. The is hardly made up for if "some local workers [earn] higher wages". In general the workers who are displaced do not have the education or skills to move up the ladder, and if they do this further reduces wages and displaces more people.
This piece is written from the point of view of employers or those who otherwise benefit from wage reduction. The issue of benefits is important, but not the only economic effect.
This piece is written from the point of view of employers or those who otherwise benefit from wage reduction. The issue of benefits is important, but not the only economic effect.
10
Another highly emotional, irrational editorial. Sometimes of course the editorial board gets away with poor logic, bad science and conflation of ideas in support of its progressive agenda because the readership is prone to buy into the overall idea (Republicans are bad for example) and overlook the the impoverished and wrong ideas put forth by the board.
But in this case, almost all commenters seem to grasp that the board is grasping at straws. First and foremost, refugees and immigrants are two different things. Yes, we should act humanely toward refugees fleeing a war zone. And yes, Europe has some experience with vast numbers of refugees fleeing from invading armies.
But that doesn't mean Europe should blithely accept every refugee as an immigrant and future citizen. As I believe Marco Rubio said, immigration without assimilation is invasion. The Times Editorial Board may be composed of globalists, but there is something about western culture that is worth preserving. How many refugees are fleeing because they want to embrace western philosophy? Not many, I would bet.
So, instead of using bad social science to suggest that these refugees are a good thing, how about offering up a solution for housing, feeding and protecting these individuals in settlement areas that are jointly funded by the international community (like the UN?) Then, when the middle east settles into some semblance of sanity, send most back except for those who truly want to immigrate?
But in this case, almost all commenters seem to grasp that the board is grasping at straws. First and foremost, refugees and immigrants are two different things. Yes, we should act humanely toward refugees fleeing a war zone. And yes, Europe has some experience with vast numbers of refugees fleeing from invading armies.
But that doesn't mean Europe should blithely accept every refugee as an immigrant and future citizen. As I believe Marco Rubio said, immigration without assimilation is invasion. The Times Editorial Board may be composed of globalists, but there is something about western culture that is worth preserving. How many refugees are fleeing because they want to embrace western philosophy? Not many, I would bet.
So, instead of using bad social science to suggest that these refugees are a good thing, how about offering up a solution for housing, feeding and protecting these individuals in settlement areas that are jointly funded by the international community (like the UN?) Then, when the middle east settles into some semblance of sanity, send most back except for those who truly want to immigrate?
22
I can't help but notice that a large percentage of the Syrian and Iraqi refugees are young, healthy men and women suitable for military service. In exchange for asylum and benefits, should the EU governments consider conscripting every able young man and women, train and equip them, and under NATO command send them back to Syria and Iraq to fight ISIS on the ground in the home countries, regions and cities from which they fled. The US just spent millions attempting to recruit Syrians to form a rebel force, but only managed to find 5. Now there's thousands of potential Muslim recruits in Europe, and the EU now has greater leverage to find "volunteers". It doesn't see fair and reasonable for US and EU military personnel to bear the sole burden to fight ISIS while these refugees are settled into cosy apartments and go on to become students, dentists or pharmacists.
18
Individuals who follow all legal procedures to become refugees (ie file an asylum application in the first safe country) or legal immigrants and arrive at their new home eager to assimilate, will, no doubt, be wonderful additions to society.
Those, like the group at Europe's door, who throw rocks at police, destroy private property, start fires, throw food they don't like in the street, chant that they are entitled to go where they wish, invoke the name of their God, and shut down highways, etc., will, no matter how many times the NYT tries to brainwash its readers, not assimilate. Europe has seen this behavior before and knows better than to make the same mistakes again.
Those, like the group at Europe's door, who throw rocks at police, destroy private property, start fires, throw food they don't like in the street, chant that they are entitled to go where they wish, invoke the name of their God, and shut down highways, etc., will, no matter how many times the NYT tries to brainwash its readers, not assimilate. Europe has seen this behavior before and knows better than to make the same mistakes again.
21
Hogwash! If they were profitable they would be the first in line to bring them in...
6
You have the problem backwards.
The problem is not 'people'.
The problem is not 'borders'.
The problem is that when 'people' cross 'borders' they find a completely different set of laws to live under.
Those laws are sprung from and create an entirely different society.
Some are 'written laws' and some are 'unwritten laws'.
Your focus, Editorial Board, is 'economics', but my focus is 'family'. Are the children 'equal'? Are the adults 'equal'? Or is 'religion' their focus? Unequal, hierarchical, misogynistic? If so, I don't want them. Don't cross my border if you don't hold to my values. I have enough problems already with the legal citizens here who wish this was a theocracy. In fact, I can't understand why half of the citizens here aren't trying to bust into Saudi Arabia, since that seems to be their Promised Land.... ooops, sorry... wrong 'religion'....
You are cavalier with your focus on cheap labor and your indifference to how societies hold together. The ones who run these countries where 'people' are fleeing are just as indifferent to their own societies. The ones fleeing are also indifferent to their own societies - otherwise they would remain where they are and fight for what they value.
The problem isn't 'people' or 'borders'. The problem is what people believe. What is between their ears? They are fleeing to lands of greater 'equality' when it is obvious that 'equality' is far down on their list of values.
The problem is not 'people'.
The problem is not 'borders'.
The problem is that when 'people' cross 'borders' they find a completely different set of laws to live under.
Those laws are sprung from and create an entirely different society.
Some are 'written laws' and some are 'unwritten laws'.
Your focus, Editorial Board, is 'economics', but my focus is 'family'. Are the children 'equal'? Are the adults 'equal'? Or is 'religion' their focus? Unequal, hierarchical, misogynistic? If so, I don't want them. Don't cross my border if you don't hold to my values. I have enough problems already with the legal citizens here who wish this was a theocracy. In fact, I can't understand why half of the citizens here aren't trying to bust into Saudi Arabia, since that seems to be their Promised Land.... ooops, sorry... wrong 'religion'....
You are cavalier with your focus on cheap labor and your indifference to how societies hold together. The ones who run these countries where 'people' are fleeing are just as indifferent to their own societies. The ones fleeing are also indifferent to their own societies - otherwise they would remain where they are and fight for what they value.
The problem isn't 'people' or 'borders'. The problem is what people believe. What is between their ears? They are fleeing to lands of greater 'equality' when it is obvious that 'equality' is far down on their list of values.
92
The editorial misses the essential point.
Population density
The population density of Germany is four times as high as that of the US. 81 million people are crammed into an area smaller than the US State of Montana.
The US is still an empty country by European standards.
It's positive experience with immigration are irrelevant for Europe, the native Indian population excepted.
Population density
The population density of Germany is four times as high as that of the US. 81 million people are crammed into an area smaller than the US State of Montana.
The US is still an empty country by European standards.
It's positive experience with immigration are irrelevant for Europe, the native Indian population excepted.
4
I love you, new york times, for this editorial.
1
I find this editorial to be far too broad in its statements and not even mentioning potential valid concerns. Given the chaotic manner of this crisis, how do we know that there are not ISIS plants in this group?
12
What nonsense. Living and working in Germany, I can debunk your claims with facts:
‘Starting new businesses’ - In Germany, you require not only capital, but a Government license to open a business. Licenses are issued to people who’ve gone through German apprenticeship training, passed the Government test, and then taken on yet more training and tests to obtain their “Meisterbreif”: none of which they can even start until they master the German language.
‘immigrants generally pay more in taxes than they claim in government benefits’ - These immigrants are paid 500€ per month each by the government, receive free housing and medical care, and are not allowed to work. Yes, the government’s stated goal is new legislation permitting them to enter the workforce …. Once they’re mastered the language. What percentage of Germans will hire a Muslim immigrant over a Christian, German speaking immigrant from Bulgaria/Greece/Spain? There’s zero cost advantage …. Our minimum wage is equally attractive to hard working Spaniards/Greeks/Bulgarians. I work with many of these people in Germany… they all speak German, and no one is worried about them cutting off the heads of other Christians.
‘Starting new businesses’ - In Germany, you require not only capital, but a Government license to open a business. Licenses are issued to people who’ve gone through German apprenticeship training, passed the Government test, and then taken on yet more training and tests to obtain their “Meisterbreif”: none of which they can even start until they master the German language.
‘immigrants generally pay more in taxes than they claim in government benefits’ - These immigrants are paid 500€ per month each by the government, receive free housing and medical care, and are not allowed to work. Yes, the government’s stated goal is new legislation permitting them to enter the workforce …. Once they’re mastered the language. What percentage of Germans will hire a Muslim immigrant over a Christian, German speaking immigrant from Bulgaria/Greece/Spain? There’s zero cost advantage …. Our minimum wage is equally attractive to hard working Spaniards/Greeks/Bulgarians. I work with many of these people in Germany… they all speak German, and no one is worried about them cutting off the heads of other Christians.
37
A strong argument can be made that EU countries should look first to workers of other EU countries before bringing in millions of unskilled, low- skilled and language deficient workers from outside the EU.
1
The NY Times Editorial Board may have a point .
But actually , the best place to settle the refugees / migrants in the EU is Ireland .
1. Ireland has the lowest population density in the EU , and could absorb very large numbers of people . It has the space .
2. Multitudes of Irish left their homes as refugees / migrants in years past , and were received in other countries with open arms and hearts . The current Irish will surely reciprocate .
3. Ireland is almost 100 % White , and needs to add ethnic diversity to its mix of people . How beneficial this could be , as is witnessed all over the world .
4. Injecting a large addition of Muslims into Ireland will likely bring a more delicate balance into the local Catholic and Protestant communities , and possibly a reconciliation . Imagine how positive this could be ! .
5. Ireland has always led a very liberal foreign policy , supporting mainly the causes of the Left . One cannot see the Irish Government objecting to the call
of humanity and to the needs of the poor of Syria , Iraq , Afghanistan , Pakistan , and even Africa .
But actually , the best place to settle the refugees / migrants in the EU is Ireland .
1. Ireland has the lowest population density in the EU , and could absorb very large numbers of people . It has the space .
2. Multitudes of Irish left their homes as refugees / migrants in years past , and were received in other countries with open arms and hearts . The current Irish will surely reciprocate .
3. Ireland is almost 100 % White , and needs to add ethnic diversity to its mix of people . How beneficial this could be , as is witnessed all over the world .
4. Injecting a large addition of Muslims into Ireland will likely bring a more delicate balance into the local Catholic and Protestant communities , and possibly a reconciliation . Imagine how positive this could be ! .
5. Ireland has always led a very liberal foreign policy , supporting mainly the causes of the Left . One cannot see the Irish Government objecting to the call
of humanity and to the needs of the poor of Syria , Iraq , Afghanistan , Pakistan , and even Africa .
2
The NY Times editorial board:
1. Has to please their biggest advertisers, i.e. big money with vested interest in cheaper labor
2. Please news sources in thrall to said big money
3. Live in an affluent bubble that is well insulated from the consequences of this mass migration.
1. Has to please their biggest advertisers, i.e. big money with vested interest in cheaper labor
2. Please news sources in thrall to said big money
3. Live in an affluent bubble that is well insulated from the consequences of this mass migration.
38
I think the editorial board should consider a confounding physics anomaly taking place in the current refugee situation. Whereas normally a stone tossed into a lake creates ripples that widen its wake as the ripples extend, a parallel action takes place that has the ripples weaken in intensity as the distance grows. The anomaly caused now, because it deals with human beings, means the succeeding volume of wake increases not decreases once the first stone lands in the lake. It's this growth phenomenon which engenders more and more powerful waves that rightfully is of concern to many European citizens and their leaders.
5
Have you been living in a vacuum, this multi-culturalism you are raving about has a darker long term side effect. Due to the high birth rate among the immigrants and the realitively low birth rate of the indigenous European people the population could very conceivably shift within the next twenty years. Now as long as the indigenous people don't mind thats all good.
However, if resentment builds, and jobs are perceived to have been lost to the newcomers resentment will build. This social experiment will have long term population effects. Certainly not all of them desirous.
In my mind, there should be a referendum on these matters among the people of the countries involved.
However, if resentment builds, and jobs are perceived to have been lost to the newcomers resentment will build. This social experiment will have long term population effects. Certainly not all of them desirous.
In my mind, there should be a referendum on these matters among the people of the countries involved.
34
Yep, nothing like hordes of invaders with no goal other than soaking the benefits of a country to bring about the Liberal Utopia! Europe would be bankrupt (no more inequality!) and culturally homogenized to the point of nothing. To boot, may a couple of terrorist, err, "freedom fighters", will come a long to blow up the institutions of the evil colonialists. I really need to get of what the Editorial Board is smoking.
41
Obviously, no one on the editorial board has spent enough time in western Europe to know that it is extremely overpopulated already. Holland where my brother in- law lives has over 16 million people and Switzerland where my son lives has 8 million both are the same size except Switzerland has huge areas of mountains and lakes that can't be inhabitated. I did not got for George W. Bush, and knew Saddam didn't present a threat for WMD. That said, President Obama has destabilized Libya and Egypt, refused for 4 years to bring Assad to the table and refused to immediately put thousands of troops on the ground in northern Iraq in January 20014 to take care of the "JV" league, so now the world, especially Europe, is left with millions of refuges from all of those situations so maybe America with only 315 million people should take all of them? What do you think, editorial board?
13
This opinion comes straight from the Land of Oz. Yes there are professional people amongst the refugees but they aren't immediately employable. The Syrian doctor needs to learn a new language, fairly fluently for an professional career. This doctor may have to pass professional exams or do a residency before he can practice in his new country. We now have paid to support this doctor and his family for at least 5 years - that means housing, school for ALL his children, food, medical care etc.
But are the professional classes numerous among the refugees? A lot of interviews and information suggest most refugees who were just laborers.
Go to the banlieues outside of Paris to see how well your idea works. You will find unemployed and unemployable people who do not speak French. A high crime area, and if they get mad they burn motor cars. All of these people live on the dole. They represent the majority of immigrants trying to get into the EU.
Do you honestly think that people with limited education are going to actually contribute to GNP of any country. They most likely will be on the dole the rest of their lives. This is more the reality than what you see in the Land of Oz.
Your opinion writers need to get out and about instead of just meeting and talking to the elite from which you get these ludicrous ideas about immigration. This is the 21st century - not the 19th century where an immigrant could farm and support his family and contribute to his new country.
But are the professional classes numerous among the refugees? A lot of interviews and information suggest most refugees who were just laborers.
Go to the banlieues outside of Paris to see how well your idea works. You will find unemployed and unemployable people who do not speak French. A high crime area, and if they get mad they burn motor cars. All of these people live on the dole. They represent the majority of immigrants trying to get into the EU.
Do you honestly think that people with limited education are going to actually contribute to GNP of any country. They most likely will be on the dole the rest of their lives. This is more the reality than what you see in the Land of Oz.
Your opinion writers need to get out and about instead of just meeting and talking to the elite from which you get these ludicrous ideas about immigration. This is the 21st century - not the 19th century where an immigrant could farm and support his family and contribute to his new country.
20
How do most commenters know that these refugees are low skilled workers, and just plain reject the editorial as ludicrous?!! I think because they do not like the ethnicity of the refugees and primarily their faith:Islam. This is not a good way to craft sound policies with all due respect to your views. And, please stop the distortion of the facts about immigrants in Europe; that they live in slums and just not interested in assimilation! If anyone is not interested, it has sadly been the Europeans. Very rarely in the Middle east have westerners been deemed less and rejected because they retained their traditions and faith. I Came here at the age of 20 from Morocco, always been part of this country, did secure great jobs and for 11 years now; the founder of a highly regarded fashion label with very affluent western private clients. I am married to a European and have a child with a European name. The NYT should support this very important editorial with a coverage on the thousands of Arab/Muslim immigrants here and Europe who would put to shame many of these commenters with the stories of their great accomplishments and argued assimilation. Stop trying to scare and divide. Uneducated, unwilling people are the fabric of many societies and not the product of an ethnicity or faith.
1
They pay more in value added, or sales taxes, i.e. the taxes everyone has to pay. Income tax, not at all. In other words, they are living in the US without having to pay much at all and they are taking much of the money they earn and sending it south to their impoverished dependents in Mexico. This is widely known and the NYT ignores it.
The figures are hard to come by because how do you quantify black market labor?, but in general most of the illegal immigrants in America work for cash and don't pay any income tax.
I wonder what NYT editorials will read like in ten years when there are ten million more illegals in the country in addition to the 11 to 20 million who are already here. I'm guessing they will read exactly the same? To wit, "What problem?"
The figures are hard to come by because how do you quantify black market labor?, but in general most of the illegal immigrants in America work for cash and don't pay any income tax.
I wonder what NYT editorials will read like in ten years when there are ten million more illegals in the country in addition to the 11 to 20 million who are already here. I'm guessing they will read exactly the same? To wit, "What problem?"
13
NYT Editorial Board states: "Rather than being a drain, immigrants generally pay more in taxes than they claim in government benefits."
What a bunch of terrible, irresponsible misinformation. Has the NYT Editorial Board seen this data:
Study: Majority of immigrants receive welfare benefits
http://www.usatoday.com/search/immigrants%20welfare/
Every immigrant enclave/neighborhood that I had an opportunity to visit/observe is/was full of people who do not work. The Muslim ghettos in Paris, London, or Malmo (Sweden), appear to have more people who are unemployed than employed. And here, any time I'm in a supermarket and see someone using an EBT card, 2 out of 3 times they are immigrants. Most of publicly-funded housing, including housing for the elderly, have immigrants as residents.
Most elderly immigrants, even after working here for years, have no savings or any other assets, and rely on the government for everything. Immigrants suck healthcare and education dollars (including scholarships that would have otherwise gone to Americans). The judicial and penal system is another place where immigrants cost us a lot of money.
The bottom line: we pay much more in all kinds of taxpayers subsidies to help immigrants stay afloat than what they manage to pay in taxes. Why does the once-great New York Times now choose to spread misguided propaganda to the contrary?
What a bunch of terrible, irresponsible misinformation. Has the NYT Editorial Board seen this data:
Study: Majority of immigrants receive welfare benefits
http://www.usatoday.com/search/immigrants%20welfare/
Every immigrant enclave/neighborhood that I had an opportunity to visit/observe is/was full of people who do not work. The Muslim ghettos in Paris, London, or Malmo (Sweden), appear to have more people who are unemployed than employed. And here, any time I'm in a supermarket and see someone using an EBT card, 2 out of 3 times they are immigrants. Most of publicly-funded housing, including housing for the elderly, have immigrants as residents.
Most elderly immigrants, even after working here for years, have no savings or any other assets, and rely on the government for everything. Immigrants suck healthcare and education dollars (including scholarships that would have otherwise gone to Americans). The judicial and penal system is another place where immigrants cost us a lot of money.
The bottom line: we pay much more in all kinds of taxpayers subsidies to help immigrants stay afloat than what they manage to pay in taxes. Why does the once-great New York Times now choose to spread misguided propaganda to the contrary?
24
Money is not everything unless you buy into all the neoliberal economic stuff.
Never underestimate culture. People will fight for it and over it like few other things. Religion is just one aspect of culture and we know what has been done the world over by zealots of one kind or another.
These economic migrants need to go home and fix their broken countries, their broken societies and outdated worldviews. There are no cities of gold on the European continent.
Never underestimate culture. People will fight for it and over it like few other things. Religion is just one aspect of culture and we know what has been done the world over by zealots of one kind or another.
These economic migrants need to go home and fix their broken countries, their broken societies and outdated worldviews. There are no cities of gold on the European continent.
21
When the Germanic tribes, under pressure from Turkic peoples from the east began crossing into Rome in 400-800 AD they usually came with their families and goods looking for protection, not conquest. They were allowed to settle on the Roman frontiers as foederati, in return for military service. Only later, as their numbers grew and they became aware of their host's weakness, did they conquer the Empire in the West.
The same thing happened during the Turkic invasions of the Arab Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad around 1000 AD and the Manchu conquest of China in the 17th century. We may be witnessing the start of the conquest of Europe by a demographic tide from the South and East. Like the Muslim conquest of Byzantium, it may take 800 years due to Europe's technical superiority, but it is already under way. The question is how to manage it for the advancement of civilization rather than its destruction. Demography is history.
The same thing happened during the Turkic invasions of the Arab Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad around 1000 AD and the Manchu conquest of China in the 17th century. We may be witnessing the start of the conquest of Europe by a demographic tide from the South and East. Like the Muslim conquest of Byzantium, it may take 800 years due to Europe's technical superiority, but it is already under way. The question is how to manage it for the advancement of civilization rather than its destruction. Demography is history.
18
Pieties and politically correct statements about refugees are cheap. But if memory serves correctly, Germany has not exactly covered itself with glory in assimilating its Turkish minority, while France has been repeatedly wounded by difficulties with its Algerian population. For that matter, the situation of Muslim immigrants to the U.S. is far from ideal. Despite the good will in Germany and among elements of European populations, even in Hungary and Serbia, this may end badly.
18
The editorial board of the NY Times must be living in an alternate universe. A visit to one of the banlieues that ring the periphery of Paris will help the board to see what a "boon" decades of importing large numbers of Islamists has been to France and will be to Europe. And, no, the banlieues are not teeming with teachers, engineers, entrepreneurs, plumbers, carpenters, skilled tradespersons, etc. They are crime-ridden slums with staggering unemployment, with many of these families still requiring welfare and government support. This is a multi-generational thing. Assimilation?? Forget about it.
41
In the area where I live we have laborers corners.
Workers gather looking for a day of work for a negotiated amount, off the books. No Taxes.
Recently a local business offered some of them full time employment with paths for advancement. That business got no takers as they felt they could earn more the other way.
Workers gather looking for a day of work for a negotiated amount, off the books. No Taxes.
Recently a local business offered some of them full time employment with paths for advancement. That business got no takers as they felt they could earn more the other way.
17
With unemployment in the double digits in a number of European countries this argument that migrants from outside is a boon is baloney. Experts are cited, well you can get experts to give you whatever answer you want.
Europe's population is ageing and will shrink over time... so what. Is it critical that the EU's population be 500,000,000+? World population is almost 8 billion, is that good? Europe is doing it's part in stopping the dangerous overpopulation of our planet.
This current uncontrolled mass migration on Europe is good for only one group, the people who want cheap labor. People who want to exploit people, and that's not good.
The problem is over population and you do not solve that by accommodation.
Europe's population is ageing and will shrink over time... so what. Is it critical that the EU's population be 500,000,000+? World population is almost 8 billion, is that good? Europe is doing it's part in stopping the dangerous overpopulation of our planet.
This current uncontrolled mass migration on Europe is good for only one group, the people who want cheap labor. People who want to exploit people, and that's not good.
The problem is over population and you do not solve that by accommodation.
19
"Europe's population is ageing and will shrink over time... so what."
Increasing automation will more than make up for fewer workers.
Increasing automation will more than make up for fewer workers.
Writing from France i can say we have some experience in failing to integrate muslim arabs.
Most of their their children and grand children have not really benefited from the free school system for a number of reasons, one of them is that what is taught is not compatible with the Coran...
At this point we have about 200.000 " emplois d'avenir " (means in novlangue job for the future) mostly dedicated to the young coming from immigration, sometimes three generations ago.
These are not real jobs since they don't do anything useful or resembling even remotely like a paid job.
But they are paid like if they worked (or learned something)
Besides there are like 600.000 state subventionned jobs because many could not be employed considering their poor performances.
You also get a minimum revenue if you don't work.
When i see the poor results after three generations how do you expect to convince me that another great batch would be a boon ?
Most of their their children and grand children have not really benefited from the free school system for a number of reasons, one of them is that what is taught is not compatible with the Coran...
At this point we have about 200.000 " emplois d'avenir " (means in novlangue job for the future) mostly dedicated to the young coming from immigration, sometimes three generations ago.
These are not real jobs since they don't do anything useful or resembling even remotely like a paid job.
But they are paid like if they worked (or learned something)
Besides there are like 600.000 state subventionned jobs because many could not be employed considering their poor performances.
You also get a minimum revenue if you don't work.
When i see the poor results after three generations how do you expect to convince me that another great batch would be a boon ?
32
As long as you remain in the EU your government will force you to accept Germany and Brussels to consider only ideology in service to the European Project and the advantages to Big Business, and you will go on seeing this. Le Pen is not the most ideal solution, but she and the FN are your only chance of getting your voice in this matter considered, and clawing back enough sovereignty to control who comes and goes in your country.
Although the editorial seeks to balance the natural reaction of resistance to the refugee influx, a few points concern me. Namely, who are these economists and where can I read their research? I'm not accusing the Times of inventing the results but if the paper defers the argument to someone else, I would like to at least have a name or a hyperlink. These unnamed economists posit that native workers seek more skilled jobs when immigrants arrive to fill low skilled jobs. Is this a result of immigrants depressing wages thus forcing the natives to seek satisfactory wages in higher skilled jobs?
12
German unemployment in August was 6.4%, not 4.6. This whole piece of opinion is full of faulty figures and wishful thinking.
The refugees should be rerouted to the USA, as they are a direct consequence of the irresponsible (to put it very mildly) US-American war-mongering in the Middle-East and Afganistan.
Have you forgotten: Germany refused to participate in the Irak war, for good reason, as we saw later. Why should they clean up after the USA?
The refugees should be rerouted to the USA, as they are a direct consequence of the irresponsible (to put it very mildly) US-American war-mongering in the Middle-East and Afganistan.
Have you forgotten: Germany refused to participate in the Irak war, for good reason, as we saw later. Why should they clean up after the USA?
12
Yes we heard that before. It's always easy for politicians, the corporate world or editorial boards to come up with theories about stuff that in the aggregate does not really affect them. Refugees are either a boon or a burden but that's beside the point, not everything is about the economy. The reality on the ground across Europe is at best a mixed picture. If you take a walk through Malmö, some suburbs of Paris, Berlin or Napoli, it's hard to see how these new arrivals will make things better. Of course the toxic past emanating from the nasty retoric of the right and mindless corectness of the left is not helpful in all this. Good or not good for the economy the whole thing is precarious, and governements better have the populace on board or things will turn ugly.
18
Some migration is good - there are lots of studies that prove that. What's less talked about is that too much is bad - it frays the social norms and social reciprocity that form the bedrock of our societies, imposing more costs than benefits. (Read Paul Collier's book Exodus) What Europe is seeing today is too much... See the social unrest it's caused in the countries where the migrants have arrived...
20
Wonder what President Donald Trump would do, probably something akin to the Great Wall of China along the southern tier of Europe.
In any case commentary from across the pond is easy when America is seeing hardly a ripple of what Europe is having to deal with.
Assimilating millions from the war town Middle east is not the needed solution to the chaos in that region.
In any case commentary from across the pond is easy when America is seeing hardly a ripple of what Europe is having to deal with.
Assimilating millions from the war town Middle east is not the needed solution to the chaos in that region.
15
"In any case commentary from across the pond is easy when America is seeing hardly a ripple of what Europe is having to deal with."
The US has an estimated 11 to 20 million illegal aliens from Mexico and Central America; while the maximum figure that I have seen for the "refugees" in Europe is about 7 million.
The US has an estimated 11 to 20 million illegal aliens from Mexico and Central America; while the maximum figure that I have seen for the "refugees" in Europe is about 7 million.
What is missing from this editorial is historical perspective. Let's for a moment ignore the cultural issues of absorbing a large Muslim community into Judeo-Christian society, which may be problematic on its own. Previous waves of immigration occurred at the same time as the industrial revolution created large numbers of jobs for less-skilled people. However,those days are long gone. The manufacture of "things" has moved largely to sources of cheap labor; look at the auto or steel industries as examples. What you have in Europe is the immigration of a relatively small Syrian middle-class, who come with modern-age skills (doctors, engineers, teachers) and a much larger number of unskilled workers from countries with no indigenous economies (Eritrea, second largest source of immigrants). To argue that large numbers of unskilled workers will benefit modern economies misses the historical settings of the studies quoted.
70
I think this editorial is broadly correct and broadly reflects the experience of immigration here in Canada. For the longest time, however, Canada has limited immigration to about 250,000 per year. But multiply that over a period of say 30 years, and within one generation that quota provides roughly 7.5 million people (excluding their progeny) in a total population of about 30 millions. Immigrants tend to congregate in the larger cities where they perceive more opportunity. As a result, cities like Toronto and Montreal have become very polyglot and derived enormous economic and social benefits from the diversity. Many trades we all depend upon in our daily lives would be starved for labour were it not for all this immigration, and I am convinced we can expand this program significantly to advantage. Perhaps if there were a change of government next month our broken immigration system could be cleaned-up - it would help a great many people including "current Canadians".
15
Immigrants generally pay more in taxes than they claim in government benefits.
If this is true, then why do all the world's countries carefully control immigration?
Why don't they just open their borders and let the wealth from immigration pour in?
If this is true, then why do all the world's countries carefully control immigration?
Why don't they just open their borders and let the wealth from immigration pour in?
23
The truth is its not true. Migrants who flood into a country as we are seeing in Europe cost more money I'm the present and immediate future than they could possible contribute and any future benefits are questionable because of the cultural and language differences. But who wants to talk about the real problems here.....that woulda be racist!
1
This editorial takes a "homo economicus" model, migrants as culturally neutral work and consumer units. Problem one is that much of Europe is suffering from huge surpluses of labor, and robots, automation and advanced software are likely to make this even worse. Problem two, more serious, is that importing migrants create effects that last beyond the lifespans of any of us here today; consider that the U.S. is still living with the aftereffects of the decision of white plantation owners to import hundreds of thousands of black slaves. Importing millions of Muslims - most migrants - may change the demographics of Europe, as they were changed before when waves of barbarians entered Roman Europe after 400AD, ending that civilization. Better for the Muslim migrants to be given new homes in the huge, 60 countries, Islamic World; why Europe?
10
The problem is that all those papers are written by economists using voodoo models and mathematics "not good enough". In other words, their conclusions are to be taken with a BIG grain of salt.
When economists rely on empirical data instead of models, they get results consistent with reality and contrary to what NYT editorial claims (examples in a different post).
Examples of bad models/methodology:
1) the paper about "reducing immigration to Britain by 50 percent" relies on a OLG-CGE model. There are no out-of-sample tests for that model. The inputs to the model (native born versus immigrants) describes much higher qualified immigrants: high qualification (20% vs 41%), low qualification (50% vs 32%). There is no number of simulations give, As any numerical scientist knows, that number of simulations is very important in quality of output
2) The NBER paper (about the 19 out of 20 countries that supposedly benefitted) finds that overall welfare effects on natives are positive but very close to zero both in Germany and the US. How close to zero? High-skilled natives in Germany see a 0.11% increase in their welfare, while low skilled lose 0.05%. In the US, high skilled individuals lose -0.02% while low-skilled individuals gain 0.01%
3) The CBO paper is lacking is a full methodological explanation of how and why it came up with the numbers it did. It admits that adding million of additional foreign workers to the labor force would drive down wages.
When economists rely on empirical data instead of models, they get results consistent with reality and contrary to what NYT editorial claims (examples in a different post).
Examples of bad models/methodology:
1) the paper about "reducing immigration to Britain by 50 percent" relies on a OLG-CGE model. There are no out-of-sample tests for that model. The inputs to the model (native born versus immigrants) describes much higher qualified immigrants: high qualification (20% vs 41%), low qualification (50% vs 32%). There is no number of simulations give, As any numerical scientist knows, that number of simulations is very important in quality of output
2) The NBER paper (about the 19 out of 20 countries that supposedly benefitted) finds that overall welfare effects on natives are positive but very close to zero both in Germany and the US. How close to zero? High-skilled natives in Germany see a 0.11% increase in their welfare, while low skilled lose 0.05%. In the US, high skilled individuals lose -0.02% while low-skilled individuals gain 0.01%
3) The CBO paper is lacking is a full methodological explanation of how and why it came up with the numbers it did. It admits that adding million of additional foreign workers to the labor force would drive down wages.
9
When the Times editors offer a family or two of war refugees to live with them indefinitely this editorial can be taken seriously.
Furthermore, having large numbers of people from a different culture suddenly thrust into communities that already have high unemployment or strained budgets causes trauma on all sides. Especially when the refugees are fleeing ruinous wars our government and their allies have instigated and underwritten.
Furthermore, having large numbers of people from a different culture suddenly thrust into communities that already have high unemployment or strained budgets causes trauma on all sides. Especially when the refugees are fleeing ruinous wars our government and their allies have instigated and underwritten.
7
I presume that Europe has a progressive tax system where the tax rate is adjusted in accordance to the ability to pay.
If this is the case, then it seems very unlikely that the migrants would pay any significant tax.
It is reasonable to assume that the bulk of the migrants will be trapped in lower paying jobs due to their limited language skills, and education. The literacy rate for young Syrian males is 85%. It is much lower for the sub-Saharan migrants.
It is a fantasy to think that the taxes paid by migrants will offset their draw upon the health care, educational, housing and food systems of their new country.
If this is the case, then it seems very unlikely that the migrants would pay any significant tax.
It is reasonable to assume that the bulk of the migrants will be trapped in lower paying jobs due to their limited language skills, and education. The literacy rate for young Syrian males is 85%. It is much lower for the sub-Saharan migrants.
It is a fantasy to think that the taxes paid by migrants will offset their draw upon the health care, educational, housing and food systems of their new country.
15
The Editorial writers should know better than to try to justify migrants because they pay some taxes. With the burdens migrants and their large families place on the societies that they invade, there is a large negative loss from the costs of schooling and medical care rather than any gain from taxes. But the problem with armies of invading migrants is that they are a huge part of the overpopulation problem facing mankind. From overconsumption of resources to the clogging and pollution of communication, the migrants are far from a plus even though they have to pay some relatively small taxes.
14
The world has changed since we welcomed the world's tired and poor through our golden door. And ours and the world's shame was writ large with rejection of Jewish refugee during the Holocaust. The spaces of the world to receive the victims of others' political or religious hatred and war have dangerously narrowed. And the flow of migrants or refugees from the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia do not pose a problem of ethics exclusively without considering the longer term...post humanity phase...of social dislocation. To deny this longer term potential is to deny what has been already seen in Western Europe as dislocation by refusal of assimilation.
No one should ever stoop to refuse aid and comfort to those displaced at no fault of their own. But when those displaced are as the result of their own society's cause and failure to act as first responders, is to metastasize a cultural cancer. And when the West is abused by claims of inhumanity while it receives these poor souls under diminishing resources, isn't it time to demand that the resources such as the likes of Saudi Arabia be called to the same outrage for the same rejection? Funding mosques in Europe while rejecting Muslims in the land of Mohammad is, essentially, a crime of inhumanity, a cynical shrug of horrors, where a religious/political outrage endemic to the region is cast off for world to resolve and hated in the process.
No one should ever stoop to refuse aid and comfort to those displaced at no fault of their own. But when those displaced are as the result of their own society's cause and failure to act as first responders, is to metastasize a cultural cancer. And when the West is abused by claims of inhumanity while it receives these poor souls under diminishing resources, isn't it time to demand that the resources such as the likes of Saudi Arabia be called to the same outrage for the same rejection? Funding mosques in Europe while rejecting Muslims in the land of Mohammad is, essentially, a crime of inhumanity, a cynical shrug of horrors, where a religious/political outrage endemic to the region is cast off for world to resolve and hated in the process.
14
Whoa, this editorial is driven either by a propagandistic zeal or incompetence, or both.
Even a cursory review of relevant literature clearly shows that the main factor determining the economic value of immigrants is skilled vs unskilled. The only reference to this most important issue in the article is a vague and baseless statement, "Immigrants often bring skills..." What skills and how often, and what's wrong with the authors of this editorial?
What we've seen so far is the skill of jumping fences, disrupting order, attacking the police, etc. What we see in Muslim ghettoes of France, UK, and Scandinavia is not much different: women are skilful at not working, while their men skilfully collect welfare and under the table checks, despising manual labor.
It is dishonest to reference studies on orderly migration within Europe or on controlled legal immigration in the US, Canada, or Australia in application to a stampede of unskilled, entitled, disrespectful mob from a hostile culture with incompatible values.
Even a cursory review of relevant literature clearly shows that the main factor determining the economic value of immigrants is skilled vs unskilled. The only reference to this most important issue in the article is a vague and baseless statement, "Immigrants often bring skills..." What skills and how often, and what's wrong with the authors of this editorial?
What we've seen so far is the skill of jumping fences, disrupting order, attacking the police, etc. What we see in Muslim ghettoes of France, UK, and Scandinavia is not much different: women are skilful at not working, while their men skilfully collect welfare and under the table checks, despising manual labor.
It is dishonest to reference studies on orderly migration within Europe or on controlled legal immigration in the US, Canada, or Australia in application to a stampede of unskilled, entitled, disrespectful mob from a hostile culture with incompatible values.
29
A low-skilled worker on the minimum wage with a family cannot possibly pay enough taxes for their health, social security and pension entitlements.
And boosting GDP helps no one unless it also boosts GDP per capita.
And boosting GDP helps no one unless it also boosts GDP per capita.
12
1. It doesn't matter whether the immigrants are Muslim. It just matters if they are law-abiding. People are people.
2. I'm an American and I have some trouble with the NY Times telling other countries what to do as if we Americans know better. American "exceptionalism" comes in many forms, and in this case, in a NY Times editorial.
3. Ecologists have been preaching for decades about population growth. Many people have dutifully limited their families so as not to wreck the planet with too many people. To say that countries ought to have more immigrants to increase the population when their own people are prudently limiting their population seems ridiculous.
4. As far as generous government benefits for immigrants, I see in the US, that people, immigrants or not, can take advantage of these benefits. It's not so much about whether immigrants take advantage, it's about whether anybody does. I hope Europeans won't think I am preachy when I say that able grown adults should take care of themselves and families should take care of each other as much as possible before the government steps in.
5. I wonder if the people fleeing Syria and other countries wouldn't be more honorable rebelling against the governments they are fleeing? People have died many times over for just causes. Just a thought....
2. I'm an American and I have some trouble with the NY Times telling other countries what to do as if we Americans know better. American "exceptionalism" comes in many forms, and in this case, in a NY Times editorial.
3. Ecologists have been preaching for decades about population growth. Many people have dutifully limited their families so as not to wreck the planet with too many people. To say that countries ought to have more immigrants to increase the population when their own people are prudently limiting their population seems ridiculous.
4. As far as generous government benefits for immigrants, I see in the US, that people, immigrants or not, can take advantage of these benefits. It's not so much about whether immigrants take advantage, it's about whether anybody does. I hope Europeans won't think I am preachy when I say that able grown adults should take care of themselves and families should take care of each other as much as possible before the government steps in.
5. I wonder if the people fleeing Syria and other countries wouldn't be more honorable rebelling against the governments they are fleeing? People have died many times over for just causes. Just a thought....
9
I'm sorry but beliefs and willingness to tolerate other people and their beliefs and lifestyles matter. Further, it is appropriate to ask why these countries are in turmoil to begin with and don't tell me that the West is at fault. The people are the ME are thinking beings with free will they have made a decision to have sectarian battles. These battles erupt into wars and violence when the strong man dictator falls or allows the strife to go on for his own reasons but the people make the decision to kill each other.
It is the arrogance of the West ..everyone wants what we want in terms of politics and government, that has lead us to the mess in which we now find ourselves.
Wake up there are difference and weneed to deal with them. But most importantly we need to fix our own country before we lecture others.
It is the arrogance of the West ..everyone wants what we want in terms of politics and government, that has lead us to the mess in which we now find ourselves.
Wake up there are difference and weneed to deal with them. But most importantly we need to fix our own country before we lecture others.
The article had not mentioned the trend of ever-increasing outsourcing from the first world, including the EU, to lower-cost countries, so this trend is bound to reduce the demand for a large labor replacement pool. Also, having a potential labor pool in the distant future cannot be a good reason for the EU to have totally lost control of its boarders and to have put its citizens, society, institutions and law and order at great risk, from a mass migration from demographic that has previously demonstrated assimilation problems and intolerance of (and hostility towards) certain minority groups (Jews, gays). If the EU slowly but surely turns into the ME, labor pool issues will be the least of its worries.
8
The column states that 19 out of 20 economies benefit from immigration.
However, the quoted paper actually stated:
"Natives in most countries benefit from a one-percentage-point increase in immigrant share of the level force at current (2011) skill composition. However, in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland native welfare falls."
The latter happen to be the preferred countries of the current immigration wave. The irony of the effects of immigration are that leftist parties support open borders, but the results are that Europe will become more like the States: a smaller welfare state and less tolerance (higher incarceration), as already happened in the last 35 years. That is usually not what socialists want, but it is inevitable if immigrants end up in welfare arrangements.
However, the quoted paper actually stated:
"Natives in most countries benefit from a one-percentage-point increase in immigrant share of the level force at current (2011) skill composition. However, in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland native welfare falls."
The latter happen to be the preferred countries of the current immigration wave. The irony of the effects of immigration are that leftist parties support open borders, but the results are that Europe will become more like the States: a smaller welfare state and less tolerance (higher incarceration), as already happened in the last 35 years. That is usually not what socialists want, but it is inevitable if immigrants end up in welfare arrangements.
8
It is disheartening to see so much fear of strangers. Xenophobia is the technical term.
For us Americans, our founding principle was the Statue of Liberty thing.
That has worked fairly well so far. Some conflict, some injustice, but works fairly well so far. (Not counting the indigenous and the slaves)
"Scared of refugees" -- Sheesh -- only the most insecure losers are scared of refugees.
For us Americans, our founding principle was the Statue of Liberty thing.
That has worked fairly well so far. Some conflict, some injustice, but works fairly well so far. (Not counting the indigenous and the slaves)
"Scared of refugees" -- Sheesh -- only the most insecure losers are scared of refugees.
Even if it was true that immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in state benefits, it would still not mean that immigration results in net economic benefit for a country. Those immigrants also receive income out of which they pay taxes. In particular, immigrants' salaries could have been received by local people, who would have spent them all in the country, instead of sending substantial portion abroad in the form of remittances. Moreover, those salaries could have been a bit higher, if it weren't for the immigrants who agree to work for lower rates. Out of those higher salaries even more taxes would have been paid to the state. So even on that count, there is an economic loss to the sate. On top of that, those locals who lost their jobs to the immigrants are now receiving social welfare payments which also need to be factored in into the calculation. So it is not just as simple as taxes vs payments, as we are led to believe here.
4
The only fair way to assign migrant, or more accurately war refugee,
quotas is to relate the percentage of refugees that each country must
take-in as a quota, to the percentage of the wars in the Middle East
that each country has caused.
For example the percentage of foreign troops that entered the Middle East and started the wars which caused the refugees, should be the basis for the percentage of war refugees that each country should have to absorb as their particular quota.
Thus the U.S., which had the majority of troops causing the
Middle East wars, should have to have the lion's share of the refugees
in its quota. The UK should have the 2nd highest quota of war refugees,
because it had the second highest number of troops, planes bombing, and
other military impact destablizing the Middle East countries. France
should have the 3rd highest quota of war refugees, since its troops
caused the third highest percentage of war and war refugees in the
Middle East.
An easy system to administer and one that was elegantly outlined by Gen. Powell when he famously outlined The Pottery Barn rule of wars that one causes as an American expression alluding to a "you break it, you buy it" policy.
The U.S. primarily broke the Middle East, so it should be responsible and required to 'buy' the war refugees that it broke/caused!
quotas is to relate the percentage of refugees that each country must
take-in as a quota, to the percentage of the wars in the Middle East
that each country has caused.
For example the percentage of foreign troops that entered the Middle East and started the wars which caused the refugees, should be the basis for the percentage of war refugees that each country should have to absorb as their particular quota.
Thus the U.S., which had the majority of troops causing the
Middle East wars, should have to have the lion's share of the refugees
in its quota. The UK should have the 2nd highest quota of war refugees,
because it had the second highest number of troops, planes bombing, and
other military impact destablizing the Middle East countries. France
should have the 3rd highest quota of war refugees, since its troops
caused the third highest percentage of war and war refugees in the
Middle East.
An easy system to administer and one that was elegantly outlined by Gen. Powell when he famously outlined The Pottery Barn rule of wars that one causes as an American expression alluding to a "you break it, you buy it" policy.
The U.S. primarily broke the Middle East, so it should be responsible and required to 'buy' the war refugees that it broke/caused!
Yup, before the late 20th century the Middle East was a paradise of fair government, liberality, emancipation of women, and equality for homosexuals. They don't have a single problem stemming from their studiously maintained backwardness over the last 800 years, the centuries of conflict between Sunni and Shi'a, their control of the world's oil . . . btw, did you see that the Saudis are getting ready to crucify (after first beheading him) a man who was arrested at 17 at an anti-government demonstration?
Yup, I'm sure that's our fault, too.
Yup, I'm sure that's our fault, too.
absolutely right! and bush, cheney and that band of thieves and war criminals should have to put up housing and food and education for the war refugees while they acclimate to a new place. Hey, we can settle all of them around those guys!
The challenge to Europe of absorbing potentially millions of refugees isn't economic, it's cultural. If these new arrivals bring their own beliefs, attitudes and values with them, presumably factors in the failure of their own societies, and they don't understand or respect those of Europe, why should anyone expect a good outcome? Europe may be transformed from within and not necessarily for the better.
27
Attitudes toward immigration are partly economic. They are also cultural. Those most opposed are those fearful for their quality of life. It takes a good long time for large numbers of immigrants to blend in. And it doesn't help that those supportive of immigration are self-righteous and uncompromising. Immigration needs to be managed better. Millions of Syrians suddenly knocking at the door is a bad formula for success. Those refugee camps should have been steadily emptying out for years. And they should have been emptying into places other than Europe, including places where the refugees did not particularly want to go. The idea is to protect people from the effects of war. Not to settle them in the wealthiest countries. The refugees want it all, and they can't have it. If they want to be safe, they should understand that they get what we give them.
11
That is why it is not right to identify them as refugees. They are economic migrants who want to settle in the countries that will provide them with the best benefits. They are not looking for safety. If they were they would stay in Serbia and the other countries through which they have passed. But they don't stop they demand transportation to Germany or the UK.
"The refugees want it all, and they can't have it."
I really think that the refugees just want to survive. Yeah, they can't have whatever status they had in the old country, but mostly, they need to live.
However this works out, the refugees will mostly have to adjust -- unless they are billionaires like you and me.
I really think that the refugees just want to survive. Yeah, they can't have whatever status they had in the old country, but mostly, they need to live.
However this works out, the refugees will mostly have to adjust -- unless they are billionaires like you and me.
The flow of immigrants into Europe can be regulated through teams of host countries' representatives (trained immigration specialists) interview and select the "suitable" recruits for their particular country from the refugee camps-either the existing ones or set up specially-and transport them to their region / country. Further those refugees bent on getting to Europe and other developed nations, should be encouraged to go these camps avoiding treacherous journey by boats and foot. It will benefit both the host and the "guest." Someone has to take the lead; perhaps the UN's Refugee Agency.
The UN will only "take" the lead after a series of expensive and elegant meetings in Geneva, Zurich, Paris, London or NYC.
I generally agree that immigrants are indeed a boon to the countries they settle in, but even the most level-headed liberals can't help but be shocked by tv reports of the thousands of people swarming to the European countries. It would take years before the benefits of having them there would kick in, and in the meantime, the European countries that are struggling economically as it is, with high unemployment rates, would have to provide 100% of their needs. It would make much better sense to me if the world community truly joined forces at least this once and gave an ultimatum to the so-called leaders of the countries these poor people are fleeing from, to cease the genocidal practices they engage in, so that these poor souls wouldn't feel the need to uproot just to stay alive. Of course this is a utopian idea, and know that our current state of humanity isn't evolved enough to make this happen. But I doubt the abilities of these countries to absorb so many people so fast.
51
The capture under the picture says:
Refugees wait to cross from Macedonia into Greece on Friday.
The capture is about as correct as the editorial itself.
Shouldn't that be from Greece to Macedonia?
Refugees wait to cross from Macedonia into Greece on Friday.
The capture is about as correct as the editorial itself.
Shouldn't that be from Greece to Macedonia?
7
When someone is a refugee in a place like Germany, they get free housing, healthcare, food, education, training and money every month. That is expensive. Does Germany have enough money and housing to accept 800,000 refugees? Money doesn't grow on trees. Immigration is great when you can afford it. Sweden also takes in many refugees but when you see what happens in the decade since granting refugee status, it's not such a rosy picture. Many refugees don't have jobs and are not integrated and are still on welfare. Granted, many of the refugees are Muslim and Sweden is a liberal country so there is a cultural clash. If Germany is willing take take in 800,000 refugees this year alone, they better have a lot of welfare money up their sleeve. Many of these refugees will be on welfare for decades.
A better solution would for Germany to take less refugees. Less means that they can give more to the few so those can realistically succeed. If Germany is hellbent on taking in 800,000 refugees, then the only way to feasibly support them financially is to reduce the free monthly money given. On a side note, is Germany going to build a massive city to house the refugees? Where are all these refugees going to live???
A better solution would for Germany to take less refugees. Less means that they can give more to the few so those can realistically succeed. If Germany is hellbent on taking in 800,000 refugees, then the only way to feasibly support them financially is to reduce the free monthly money given. On a side note, is Germany going to build a massive city to house the refugees? Where are all these refugees going to live???
9
There are limits on the number of immigrants a country can take, or can legitimately be expected to take, in the short, medium, and long terms.
In the short term, a country cannot accept more immigrants than it can process. A number of countries in Europe, including Germany, have reached this limit.
In the medium term, there is the question of infrastructure, such as housing and schools, that will be needed to serve the newcomers.
In the long term, there is the environmental damage that giving a large number of immigrants a first-world standard of living will do. In particular, global climate change will be harder to combat the more immigrants first-world countries take. (Indeed, there is overall a limit to how many people the planet itself can support, and we may already be past it.)
Finally, there is the question of cultural identity. Cultural change is inevitable, but people have a legitimate desire to live in the particular culture they're used to. It isn't xenophobia to want to avoid culture shock in your own country, with no way to go "home".
The Times' position on this issue has been too radical. Yes, each migrant's story is heartbreaking, but the wave of migrants has been too much, too fast. Managed change is the key - liberalism rather than radicalism. And the change in this case has been very poorly managed. The result is a reaction well-described as "reactionary", the very outcome the Times says it abhors.
In the short term, a country cannot accept more immigrants than it can process. A number of countries in Europe, including Germany, have reached this limit.
In the medium term, there is the question of infrastructure, such as housing and schools, that will be needed to serve the newcomers.
In the long term, there is the environmental damage that giving a large number of immigrants a first-world standard of living will do. In particular, global climate change will be harder to combat the more immigrants first-world countries take. (Indeed, there is overall a limit to how many people the planet itself can support, and we may already be past it.)
Finally, there is the question of cultural identity. Cultural change is inevitable, but people have a legitimate desire to live in the particular culture they're used to. It isn't xenophobia to want to avoid culture shock in your own country, with no way to go "home".
The Times' position on this issue has been too radical. Yes, each migrant's story is heartbreaking, but the wave of migrants has been too much, too fast. Managed change is the key - liberalism rather than radicalism. And the change in this case has been very poorly managed. The result is a reaction well-described as "reactionary", the very outcome the Times says it abhors.
7
The "why"of the editors reasoning of European "boons" is not compelling. They are conflating two separable issues.
Issue #1 is the fundamental, irreversible impact of changing the life culture of the indigenous people because of sudden and numerically material appearance of another culture whose historical and present day majority values are antithetical to the host nation's values.
Issue #2 is the declining populations of Europe since indigenous European women do not bear enough children to maintain, let alone grow, the indigenous population. The downside to a fully empowered woman is a declining birth rate. This is true of nearly all of the western and Japanese cultures; eg, the more prosperous the culture and the more liberated the women, the lower the birth rate. This is not a value judgement, its only a fact.
Fact #2 characterizes the German situation. Germany as a people have basically decided that rather than having German babies, they'd rather have Syrian immigrants grow their population. It's a win-win for both Germany and the migrants. However, given the reaction of the German locales dealing with the day to day of the migrants, maybe not so rosy as the advocates might wish for.
Culture generally assimilates people, or so people thought for a long while. Today, when it involves a large number of people who hold social & religious views that are antithetical to the native population, not so much.
Not if French and Dutch recent histories matter.
Issue #1 is the fundamental, irreversible impact of changing the life culture of the indigenous people because of sudden and numerically material appearance of another culture whose historical and present day majority values are antithetical to the host nation's values.
Issue #2 is the declining populations of Europe since indigenous European women do not bear enough children to maintain, let alone grow, the indigenous population. The downside to a fully empowered woman is a declining birth rate. This is true of nearly all of the western and Japanese cultures; eg, the more prosperous the culture and the more liberated the women, the lower the birth rate. This is not a value judgement, its only a fact.
Fact #2 characterizes the German situation. Germany as a people have basically decided that rather than having German babies, they'd rather have Syrian immigrants grow their population. It's a win-win for both Germany and the migrants. However, given the reaction of the German locales dealing with the day to day of the migrants, maybe not so rosy as the advocates might wish for.
Culture generally assimilates people, or so people thought for a long while. Today, when it involves a large number of people who hold social & religious views that are antithetical to the native population, not so much.
Not if French and Dutch recent histories matter.
11
We need only to look into our politics today. Given the emerging battle with religion, how will this play out in the European countries taking in the refugees. Do not misunderstand me. I have compassion for these folks. However, I read on one news report that while starving, when offered sandwiches with bologna they threw the sandwiches out. Pork being an affront. There is a huge disconnect in cultural ideologies and food, and there will be conflict here not expected. Deep seated cultural religious norms will intersect with those of the countries welcoming those needy folks. There is surely a deeper consequence than we can imagine. As I stated, I am not without compassion, however, there is a reality check here that may escalate into a consequence not foreseen.
6
Yesterday the Editorial blames Republican candidates for making assertions not based on facts. One day later, the same editorial board speaks like a true republican candidate.
Middle East migrants who will only settle in a country with higher benefits (Sweden ,Germany) will all of a sudden pay more in taxes? How much will it cost to integrate them? 50years after they moved to Europe, North Africans in France, Turks in Germany haven't been able to assimilate. Now the Times is asking Europeans to add more uneducated people from a totally different culture (No respect for Women or Gays, no tolerance for other religious beliefs,etc...)
The US spends minimum $50.000/kid from kindergarten to College) A legal immigrant with a Master or Bachelor degree costs the US $0, and he (she)can contribute by paying taxes than he (she) takes in benefits . This is not the case for "Refugees" looking for a country with generous benefits .
Middle East migrants who will only settle in a country with higher benefits (Sweden ,Germany) will all of a sudden pay more in taxes? How much will it cost to integrate them? 50years after they moved to Europe, North Africans in France, Turks in Germany haven't been able to assimilate. Now the Times is asking Europeans to add more uneducated people from a totally different culture (No respect for Women or Gays, no tolerance for other religious beliefs,etc...)
The US spends minimum $50.000/kid from kindergarten to College) A legal immigrant with a Master or Bachelor degree costs the US $0, and he (she)can contribute by paying taxes than he (she) takes in benefits . This is not the case for "Refugees" looking for a country with generous benefits .
11
"Advocating a pro-immigration position has become politically difficult in the West, in large part because opponents have successfully cast newcomers as economic and social burdens. Their false arguments damage economies and the lives of millions of people trying to escape war and poverty." Excuse me, but who's using "false arguments"? Recent editorials by the NYT on the European refugee crisis have been the worst kind of sophomoric politically correct groupthink I have seen in a long time and this editorial stays loyal to that empty cause. There is a huge difference between a general discussion over the benefits of immigration and the need for clear headed analysis of the unique facts involved in each refugee crisis. The intellectual dishonesty exhibited by this editorial is sad. At best the Editorial Board is caught in the grip of mindless political correctness, just as Chancellor Merkel was two weeks ago, but at least she started to think more clearly after some first hand experience with the current refugee crisis, which, to the Editorial Board's dismay, caused her to suddenly commence "border control measures" last weekend. You really do not have to think that hard to understand the substantial and legitimate non-racist reasons to stop the current chaotic flow of refugees into Europe including concerns over the security risks associated with that flow - ISIS and other extremists groups may be planting people in that chaotic stream to later cause havoc in Europe.
14
As usual the editorial board is totally clueless about immigration, especially in Europe. In Denmark childcare is handled by well paid college educated pedagogues in tax subsidized public daycare institutions, which children start attending at 12 months at about a participation rate well above 95%, i.e. when their mothers return to work after their 12 months paid leave of absence. There is virtually no need for cheap childcare by non-educated non-Danish speaking immigrants. Denmark needs skilled immigrants, not unskilled immigrants.
20
Tens of thousands are possibly a boon, tens of millions is a disaster. The UN currently estimates approximately 60 million displaced persons in the Middle East. This is the population of Italy trying to find safe haven in Europe. It is insanity to believe Europe can absorb millions of refugees while trying to form an European Union. The EU will collapse along with the euro and send the world into an economic disaster. The studies never were for such a magnitude of migration and factoring in the cultural differences involved in today's situation. While German unemployment is low, the rest of the EU is high, especially among the young. Current statistics for the EU as a whole are 22.5% and EU in general as 20.7% among the youth. When almost one quarter of European youth can't find employment, why is importing additional migrants helpful? In Spain, Greece and Italy nearly half of their youth are unemployed! This is serious voodoo economics! http://www.statista.com/statistics/266228/youth-unemployment-rate-in-eu-...
11
"Another study found that an influx of refugees into Denmark in the 1990s led native workers to switch to more skilled jobs and away from jobs that were mostly manual labor. As a result, some local workers earned higher wages."
This is surprising to me because of the syrians arriving in Denmark between 2009 and 2013 only 13% are employed. (I would link to article but its in danish). I dont think that with numbers of migrants increasing it will become easier to find jobs.
I fear that a large number of muslim migrants dont find jobs and start feeling marginalised and then look to the mosques for a sense of identity and purpose. We have already in Denmark had flag burnings and a terrorist attack back in February.
I understand that in order to live up to european democratic ideals of openness and tolerance we must give aid and refuge, but the people we are letting in dont necessarily agree with these values. We dont know how many will come, it could be in the tens of millions. Merkel is making a huge gamble by opening the borders. And she is gambling with our values and freedoms. I think it is a bad bet, the stakes are too high.
We desperately need a fence, and we need it to hold.
This is surprising to me because of the syrians arriving in Denmark between 2009 and 2013 only 13% are employed. (I would link to article but its in danish). I dont think that with numbers of migrants increasing it will become easier to find jobs.
I fear that a large number of muslim migrants dont find jobs and start feeling marginalised and then look to the mosques for a sense of identity and purpose. We have already in Denmark had flag burnings and a terrorist attack back in February.
I understand that in order to live up to european democratic ideals of openness and tolerance we must give aid and refuge, but the people we are letting in dont necessarily agree with these values. We dont know how many will come, it could be in the tens of millions. Merkel is making a huge gamble by opening the borders. And she is gambling with our values and freedoms. I think it is a bad bet, the stakes are too high.
We desperately need a fence, and we need it to hold.
24
The first working paper is unrealistic, but I want to only pick out the major questionable assumption. It assumes an average replacement rate of wages by benefits of only 40%. This may be true of the average population, but wage replacement by benefits is considerably higher for un-skilled labor, reaching above 100% in certain cases in Germany (especially for families). However, as immigrant are more often unemployed (unemployment rates about twice of native population, being already high for un-skilled natives), this low benefits assumption drastically underestimates the cost.
9
This article is misleading and self-contradictory. It claims that the Syrian immigrants will bring skills with them and then says they will fill unskilled jobs while citizens move on to better jobs. It then says they will start new businesses creating jobs for others without mentioning that many of these "jobs" will be for family members who are also refugees and often avoid paying taxes on their wages.
They "increase the labor force" by taking jobs at lower wages than citizen workers will tolerate and they put citizens in the host country out of work as a consequence. Immigrants benefit predatory employers by driving wages down and weakening working conditions. In the meantime, they suck resources from the national commons of their host country without having paid anything in. Immediate welfare costs, food, housing, schooling, social services, police and fire protection and so on are being provided for them upon entry, but when they take those lower-paying jobs mentioned above they pay little in tax revenue.
In addition, they inject social strains in a country where people speak a common language, have common customs, feel comfortable with one another because of a common heritage. No country needs this stress. In the case of Muslim immigrants from a destabilized conflict region they will bring these conflicts along with them, not to mention the possibility of terrorists in their ranks or who will emerge from them in the second generation of alienated young men.
They "increase the labor force" by taking jobs at lower wages than citizen workers will tolerate and they put citizens in the host country out of work as a consequence. Immigrants benefit predatory employers by driving wages down and weakening working conditions. In the meantime, they suck resources from the national commons of their host country without having paid anything in. Immediate welfare costs, food, housing, schooling, social services, police and fire protection and so on are being provided for them upon entry, but when they take those lower-paying jobs mentioned above they pay little in tax revenue.
In addition, they inject social strains in a country where people speak a common language, have common customs, feel comfortable with one another because of a common heritage. No country needs this stress. In the case of Muslim immigrants from a destabilized conflict region they will bring these conflicts along with them, not to mention the possibility of terrorists in their ranks or who will emerge from them in the second generation of alienated young men.
27
Unlike the editorial board pontificating from on high, I live in Europe and am personally affected by these 'refugees' as is described here. They are people coming, en masse, from the most dangerous, messed-up regions imaginable- Syria, Eritrea, Iraq. Most are young men of fighting age. They will not be providing support for underemployed jobs soon. They will not be contributing income for the country in the foreseeable future, and certainly it would be, theoretically, a long time coming before they pay off half of what we are currently spending (and losing due to lost productivity) to accommodate them. As 70 years have shown, people from these regions do not assimilate and expect considerable changes to our culture and values over time. Their children and grandchildren will feel increasingly isolated and disillusioned. This is observable fact should the board wish t visit and see for themselves.
32
I do not really trust economic analyses that are based on past economic patterns, as the economic situation of Western countries has been changing so rapidly due to globalization. Successful assimilation of immigrants (mostly European) into European workforces in the past is not necessarily a guide to successful assimilation of hundreds of thousands (or millions) of migrants from the Middle East, Africa and Afghanistan -- especially at a time when most EU countries are already experiencing unemployment rates of around 10 percent. To blithely assume that most of this flood of migrants will find productive jobs is an economist's pipe dream. (And this is not even addressing the other problem, of cultural integration.) To provide so many migrants with all the generous government benefits that northern Europe offers, at a time of already high unemployment, could be a recipe for economic chaos. The issue of extensive social benefits, for additional millions of people, is a new factor in the economic equation. It's hardly surprising that European citizens are worried, and suspicious of the outcome of such a massive influx.
I particularly mistrust the British example in this article, and the blithe assumption that the Afghan sitting in Calais is comparable to the Polish worker who has resettled in UK during the past twenty years. I'm not sure that reality would support such an easy equivalence.
I particularly mistrust the British example in this article, and the blithe assumption that the Afghan sitting in Calais is comparable to the Polish worker who has resettled in UK during the past twenty years. I'm not sure that reality would support such an easy equivalence.
12
By the lights of many observers of Europeans, they should change fundamental aspects of how they organize their societies. For instance, it would be nice if so much of their GDPs weren’t dedicated to social safety nets that they’re incapable of having a material impact on global events – they project practically no force capacity beyond their own borders, a fact that impels Vladimir Putin to threaten their very existence as he eyes ways of reconstituting the old Soviet Union. Another example lies in their protectionist labor laws, which result in high structural levels of unemployment, particularly among their young, and drive much of the need for their all-consuming social safety nets. Yet another is their apparent willingness to accept diminishing populations, a fatalism positively Japanese in its intensity and danger.
Their views focus on mere subsistence: they produce enough to barely sustain their ways of life, and the fact that they may not be sustainable in the teeth of the ambitions of buccaneers whom they cannot counter apparently means nothing. What means something is that millions and millions of Middle Easterners and Africans, of the north and sub-Sahara, who are displaced and could become refugees desperate to be made West Europeans, tax those safety nets and threaten their ways of life.
Seeing refugees as a boon and not a curse requires a fundamental shift in their perspectives. They’ve shown no openness whatsoever to entertaining such a shift.
Their views focus on mere subsistence: they produce enough to barely sustain their ways of life, and the fact that they may not be sustainable in the teeth of the ambitions of buccaneers whom they cannot counter apparently means nothing. What means something is that millions and millions of Middle Easterners and Africans, of the north and sub-Sahara, who are displaced and could become refugees desperate to be made West Europeans, tax those safety nets and threaten their ways of life.
Seeing refugees as a boon and not a curse requires a fundamental shift in their perspectives. They’ve shown no openness whatsoever to entertaining such a shift.
4
These studies do not match what I have seen being done at home here in Norway. Immigrants as a whole is positive, but the numbers are skewed by the fact that most immigrants are poles and swedes. Some are from other western countries. These are usually very positive contribution. However immigrants from third world countries are often a net expense for the government. And it varies with each group. Immigrants from very poor countries with poor education fare the worst.
I fear the problem with articles like this is that they get us into the mindset that we should only take in refugees because they are an economic benefit to us. We should help these people for humanitarian reasons, not because we can squeeze taxes out of them. But certainly we have to try to find policies that can reduce the economic burden the represent otherwise it will be difficult to keep helping people both economically and politically.
I fear the problem with articles like this is that they get us into the mindset that we should only take in refugees because they are an economic benefit to us. We should help these people for humanitarian reasons, not because we can squeeze taxes out of them. But certainly we have to try to find policies that can reduce the economic burden the represent otherwise it will be difficult to keep helping people both economically and politically.
12
This opinion is based on the misguided premise that what is good for a new world country like ours is likewise good for the small and culturally-established countries of Europe. It's really apples and oranges. Also, the editorial board strain to fits the statistics to their shared viewpoint. For example, they use numbers related to overall immigration, which represents asian and eastern european immigrants, as well as many highly-trained immigrants that most countries' immigration policies are limited to. Also, they analyze only that time frame that makes their point. The short-term, economic consequences for the host countries of this sort of immigration are clearly negative. The writers choose to consider a middle-term slice of economic effects to make their point. The more important, long-term consequences are harder to know because the complex social ramifications, but it is likely to be, economically, more negative (not to suggest economics is everything.)
8
A very decadent editorial written from the safe distance of a the Atlantic ocean. Denmark's enlightened policy on refugees was not forced on it through a human flood on Europe's borders like the Syrian crisis is currently doing. It was a measured and planned response that occurred over many years. There is no data to suggest that the millions of men, women and children are in any way ready to enter a workforce, skilled or unskilled. A flood of refugees fleeing genocide is not a boon to neoliberal economics. Until the US does the right thing by sharing part of the burden in the Syrian refugee crisis, this type of speculative economic reasoning is nothing but offensive and inhumane.
12
The Times' political agenda and reality do not overlap much.
"immigrants generally pay more in taxes than they claim in government benefits." That statement is simply false.
To see the effect of *these* refugees, one need look no further than Sweden where (in 2013) the 15% of the population that is immigrants consumed more than 60% of the welfare budget. That is out of pocket expenses. It does not include the cost of not working on a permanent or long term basis. The cost to the economy is even higher than the out of pocket expense.
These are not hard working immigrants. They had safe harbor in Turkey. They are overturning barriers set up by various nations, assaulting police and forcibly entering Europe.
In any event - the Editorial Board's reasoning is faulty for another reason. They say, essentially, that we can milk the immigrants of the excess they produce (which is not true) over that which they consume. So even if the facts were other than what they are, greed becomes the reason to accept them.
False facts, bad logic and poor morals.
"immigrants generally pay more in taxes than they claim in government benefits." That statement is simply false.
To see the effect of *these* refugees, one need look no further than Sweden where (in 2013) the 15% of the population that is immigrants consumed more than 60% of the welfare budget. That is out of pocket expenses. It does not include the cost of not working on a permanent or long term basis. The cost to the economy is even higher than the out of pocket expense.
These are not hard working immigrants. They had safe harbor in Turkey. They are overturning barriers set up by various nations, assaulting police and forcibly entering Europe.
In any event - the Editorial Board's reasoning is faulty for another reason. They say, essentially, that we can milk the immigrants of the excess they produce (which is not true) over that which they consume. So even if the facts were other than what they are, greed becomes the reason to accept them.
False facts, bad logic and poor morals.
31
"The less skilled often take jobs that are hard to fill, like in child care, for example, which allows more parents to work."
Let's be clear, child care (at least in Germany and Denmark) is a skilled and state-regulated profession. This is no "oh, you can watch my kid for $8 an hour." My Tagesmutter is state certified and regularly inspected for her ability to provide a secure and stable environment for my child. She is even known to her local mayor as a Tagesmutter and featured in local newspapers. She's German and very proud of her work with children (certainly, I appreciate the excellent seasonal crafts, outings, and reading she does with my children). She also has the full package of benefits - including paid sick days, vacation, and a contract - that come with being a professional. The people working in the village kindergartens are also certified professional child care providers. No German mother is going to settle for less. The NY Times needs to accept that there are deep cultural differences between Europe and the US (and I'm American) that it cannot simply gloss over from its perch in NYC.
Let's be clear, child care (at least in Germany and Denmark) is a skilled and state-regulated profession. This is no "oh, you can watch my kid for $8 an hour." My Tagesmutter is state certified and regularly inspected for her ability to provide a secure and stable environment for my child. She is even known to her local mayor as a Tagesmutter and featured in local newspapers. She's German and very proud of her work with children (certainly, I appreciate the excellent seasonal crafts, outings, and reading she does with my children). She also has the full package of benefits - including paid sick days, vacation, and a contract - that come with being a professional. The people working in the village kindergartens are also certified professional child care providers. No German mother is going to settle for less. The NY Times needs to accept that there are deep cultural differences between Europe and the US (and I'm American) that it cannot simply gloss over from its perch in NYC.
32
A nation is more than its tax collection system, or its economy as a whole for that matter. The economic argument is always presented as the justification for mass immigration as if that answers all of the concerns, all of the counter arguments. A nation has a culture and a right to work to maintain it - it has a majority language, a language of instruction in its schools, a set of shared values and beliefs, importantly a set of shared values and beliefs about gender roles and gender identities. Allowing masses of people who do not share that culture is something a nation might reasonably consider inimical to the maintenance of its culture.
The Fed just decided not to raise interest rates in part because of the US job market and the fact that wages haven't risen since the Great Recession. And this problem does not only exist in the US - it's a problem in Europe as well, possibly a worse one there. Adding hundreds of thousands to the workforce in not a recipe for wage growth for the indigenous population. It's not a winner from any perspective. That said, finding some kind of solution for these migrants and refugees - let's be honest, the crowds contain both - is very much a humanitarian necessity.
The Fed just decided not to raise interest rates in part because of the US job market and the fact that wages haven't risen since the Great Recession. And this problem does not only exist in the US - it's a problem in Europe as well, possibly a worse one there. Adding hundreds of thousands to the workforce in not a recipe for wage growth for the indigenous population. It's not a winner from any perspective. That said, finding some kind of solution for these migrants and refugees - let's be honest, the crowds contain both - is very much a humanitarian necessity.
13
While I generally agree with your point that immigration should be seen in Europe as an opportunity and not a burden, I would like to make two points.
First, the present situation is so chaotic, the numbers so huge and the Continent's own economic and social problems so serious, that we have to accept that many otherwise sympathetic Europeans feel overwhelmed and therefore see a need to place reasonable restrictions on the flow. Cavalierly ignoring such views plays into the hands of the xenophobic right.
Second, your reasoning is flawed when you attempt to refute the argument that immigrants engage in “benefits tourism,” that is that they migrate to take advantage of generous government benefits. Thus you state that there is evidence that migrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. That may be true, but there is no contradiction whatsoever between the truth of that statement and an argument that a migrant originally moved because of the prospect of generous benefits. The second argument that you wheel out is that a study in Britain showed that a reduction of 50% in immigration rates would cause the country’s GDP to fall and force the government to raise taxes. Again, even if that statement is true, it does not follow that a migrant wasn’t originally motivated by the benefits. In sum, while both your points are good ones in favor of immigration, they do nothing to refute the benefits-seeking argument.
First, the present situation is so chaotic, the numbers so huge and the Continent's own economic and social problems so serious, that we have to accept that many otherwise sympathetic Europeans feel overwhelmed and therefore see a need to place reasonable restrictions on the flow. Cavalierly ignoring such views plays into the hands of the xenophobic right.
Second, your reasoning is flawed when you attempt to refute the argument that immigrants engage in “benefits tourism,” that is that they migrate to take advantage of generous government benefits. Thus you state that there is evidence that migrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. That may be true, but there is no contradiction whatsoever between the truth of that statement and an argument that a migrant originally moved because of the prospect of generous benefits. The second argument that you wheel out is that a study in Britain showed that a reduction of 50% in immigration rates would cause the country’s GDP to fall and force the government to raise taxes. Again, even if that statement is true, it does not follow that a migrant wasn’t originally motivated by the benefits. In sum, while both your points are good ones in favor of immigration, they do nothing to refute the benefits-seeking argument.
5
Europe is facing a socioeconomic political educational demographic nightmare as all of the nations rapidly age and shrink. Because the birthrate of 1.6 children is well below replacement level of 2.1 children. Italy and Russia top this list with among the lowest birthrates on Earth.
These refugees are one solution to their problem. The refugees are disproportionately young, middle class, educated and entrepreneurs with trades. Russia has the largest Muslim population in Europe. France and Germany are close behind. Muslims are about 6% of Europeans.
There are 4 million Syrian refugees in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt and Iran. These Muslim Arab and Turkish nations have done more than their human refuge share. By contrast Israel and the Gulf Arab states led by the Saudis have not.
There are 50 European nations with a population of 745 million. The European Union of 28 of those nations has a population of 503 million with a nominal GDP of $ 18.5 trillion. Europe has 7% of the planets people with 24% of it's wealth. There are 320 million Americans (5%) with a nominal GDP of $ 16.8 trillion (22%).
Most of these refugees are coming from nations that were former colonial vassals of European empires. Europe has past and present culpability for what is happening in those nations right now. But for the fact that the refugees are mostly black and brown and Muslim this would not be such an inhumane immoral inhuman contentious issue.
These refugees are one solution to their problem. The refugees are disproportionately young, middle class, educated and entrepreneurs with trades. Russia has the largest Muslim population in Europe. France and Germany are close behind. Muslims are about 6% of Europeans.
There are 4 million Syrian refugees in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt and Iran. These Muslim Arab and Turkish nations have done more than their human refuge share. By contrast Israel and the Gulf Arab states led by the Saudis have not.
There are 50 European nations with a population of 745 million. The European Union of 28 of those nations has a population of 503 million with a nominal GDP of $ 18.5 trillion. Europe has 7% of the planets people with 24% of it's wealth. There are 320 million Americans (5%) with a nominal GDP of $ 16.8 trillion (22%).
Most of these refugees are coming from nations that were former colonial vassals of European empires. Europe has past and present culpability for what is happening in those nations right now. But for the fact that the refugees are mostly black and brown and Muslim this would not be such an inhumane immoral inhuman contentious issue.
3
Except that the migrants only want to go to three countries: the UK, Germany, and Sweden. Oh, they'll take France if you force them, but generally they are benefits shopping.
When you start parsing out those numbers, Denmark is a small country with only 5.5 million people and whose highly successful welfare state was so because of its deeply shared cultural and historical and linguistic values. It is a highly ethno-centric culture and that is one of the sources of its success.
We're all a bit tired of western culture's contributions to the world being reduced to 150 years of colonialism that ended decades ago. The Middle East and Africa have had a few problems of their own making (like that wonderful society of Wahhabist Islam in Saudi Arabia) of their own.
And yes - I don't view the message sent to young girls by millions of women in the street who can't go out unless they are fully veiled as a cultural advantage.
When you start parsing out those numbers, Denmark is a small country with only 5.5 million people and whose highly successful welfare state was so because of its deeply shared cultural and historical and linguistic values. It is a highly ethno-centric culture and that is one of the sources of its success.
We're all a bit tired of western culture's contributions to the world being reduced to 150 years of colonialism that ended decades ago. The Middle East and Africa have had a few problems of their own making (like that wonderful society of Wahhabist Islam in Saudi Arabia) of their own.
And yes - I don't view the message sent to young girls by millions of women in the street who can't go out unless they are fully veiled as a cultural advantage.
Why do you assume that Europeans want their nations' populations to begin growing again? Germany is about the size of Montana and 80 million people live there. Perhaps Europeans have made a deliberate and wise choice to shrink their currently overcrowded nations? It certainly isn't the role of the media or bleeding heart American liberals (who generally fret regarding overpopulation) to create this ex post facto "rationale" for allowing millions of illegal immigrants to come as they please.
Often, articles about particular situations are written with a particular goal in mind and molded to reflect that goal. The problem, as is the case with this article, is not what is written, but what is omitted.
I think no one will dispute that the refugees fleeing the Middle East are in dire strait and need help.
The problem is that these are people coming from often dirt poor and a completely different socio economic background than the Europe they are fleeing to and bringing with them a culture and believe system which is mostly totally incompatible with the culture and believe system in Europe. It is easy to dismiss my comments as just another conservative racist, but the reality in Europe proves that this is true and has been true for many years now.
So, even though agreeing that immigrants may contribute by willing to take the most undesirable jobs in a society, it is the long-term impact of different believe systems that will create or, in the case of Europe, enforce the already explosive relationship between Europeans and these immigrants.
I admit that I do not have a good short-term solution to this humanitarian crisis, but it is clear – at least to me – that in the long term the world (the US) must look at a way to stabilize the Middle East.
This includes a reality by the world (US) that not everyone buys into our (Western) believe systems and we must abandon our arrogant assumption that we should spread our values across the world.
I think no one will dispute that the refugees fleeing the Middle East are in dire strait and need help.
The problem is that these are people coming from often dirt poor and a completely different socio economic background than the Europe they are fleeing to and bringing with them a culture and believe system which is mostly totally incompatible with the culture and believe system in Europe. It is easy to dismiss my comments as just another conservative racist, but the reality in Europe proves that this is true and has been true for many years now.
So, even though agreeing that immigrants may contribute by willing to take the most undesirable jobs in a society, it is the long-term impact of different believe systems that will create or, in the case of Europe, enforce the already explosive relationship between Europeans and these immigrants.
I admit that I do not have a good short-term solution to this humanitarian crisis, but it is clear – at least to me – that in the long term the world (the US) must look at a way to stabilize the Middle East.
This includes a reality by the world (US) that not everyone buys into our (Western) believe systems and we must abandon our arrogant assumption that we should spread our values across the world.
6
@ Peter C - Peter C, I am a dual citizen USA - SE with 15 years of working with refugees here in Sweden. I know many very well and am familiar with the kinds of problems you refer to.
However, since I read the Times carefully every single day I find that the gulf between me and the Republican would be president gang is at least as great as the gulf you want to believe in in Europe.
What religious belief, lack of education, or behaviors any of these people have are of no concern to me as long as they are just individuals. But to have a President who does not believe in evolution, cannot grasp the science of climate change, believes that women should not be allowed to make their own choices, and rejects universal health care does mater.
So I am far more fearful of those strange people than I am of any of the refugee groups Ihave come to know.
How about you?
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com,
However, since I read the Times carefully every single day I find that the gulf between me and the Republican would be president gang is at least as great as the gulf you want to believe in in Europe.
What religious belief, lack of education, or behaviors any of these people have are of no concern to me as long as they are just individuals. But to have a President who does not believe in evolution, cannot grasp the science of climate change, believes that women should not be allowed to make their own choices, and rejects universal health care does mater.
So I am far more fearful of those strange people than I am of any of the refugee groups Ihave come to know.
How about you?
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com,
My general concern with the refugee crisis is that they seem to be primarily economic migrants skirting the rules. The real refugees are either too poor to leave or are waiting in refugee camps in a safe country and quietly applying for asylum. And the numbers don't stop once they reach their intended country - it will exponentially increase as they bring over their families.
I have two problems with this article:
1. Mixing the definition of refugee and immigrant. The paper begins talking about refugees, but switches into citing papers about immigrants. Refugees comprise of a small subset of immigrants, and it would be incorrect to attribute facts about immigrants to refugees.
2. Citing papers that only support the author's point of view. There should be at least one paragraph summarizing the many existing studies that contradict their statement, or provide caveats. Surprisingly, the first paper cited is a working paper - which has not gone through the peer-review process, and I'd think if there was enough evidence supporting the editorial's claims they wouldn't need to resort to that.
I have two problems with this article:
1. Mixing the definition of refugee and immigrant. The paper begins talking about refugees, but switches into citing papers about immigrants. Refugees comprise of a small subset of immigrants, and it would be incorrect to attribute facts about immigrants to refugees.
2. Citing papers that only support the author's point of view. There should be at least one paragraph summarizing the many existing studies that contradict their statement, or provide caveats. Surprisingly, the first paper cited is a working paper - which has not gone through the peer-review process, and I'd think if there was enough evidence supporting the editorial's claims they wouldn't need to resort to that.
21
You shouldn't be surprised. There is probably little impirical evidence to support the unbelievable claims of the economic benefit of unregulated and uncontrolled migration of tens of thousands of humans without any support. The same unbelievable claims of billions if not trillions of dollars of economic upturn are made for uncontrolled illegal immigration into the U.S. The estimates have the same "ring of truth" as the claims made by the oil companies for the Keystone PipeLine. The estimates are bogus and made to drive policy not to actually lay out the truth.
Even if there are some economic benefits to "immigration" , those benefits deal with legal immigration that is controlled and those benefits are long term. The costs and burdens of uncontrolled, unregulated mass migration of the kind we are now seeing are immediate and will, in many cases, be destructive not only in the short term but also in the long term but of course that's "racist". As a result, we cannot discuss that. That's how all discussions of immigration end.
Even if there are some economic benefits to "immigration" , those benefits deal with legal immigration that is controlled and those benefits are long term. The costs and burdens of uncontrolled, unregulated mass migration of the kind we are now seeing are immediate and will, in many cases, be destructive not only in the short term but also in the long term but of course that's "racist". As a result, we cannot discuss that. That's how all discussions of immigration end.
4
One of the migrants was concerned that Germany might not accept all of his wives.
@ HL Boston - HL, you have two problems with the Editorial. So do I. However, I have a more basic problem with your comment. You write that "they seem to be primarily economic immigrants..."
Seem to be? On what basis? Your personal survey of inaccurate NYT reports?
Here from the International Organization on Migration some real data: total arrivals to Europe by sea in 2015 at 473,887 men, women and children. At least 182,000 of those migrants have arrived from Syria—making Syrians just under 40 per cent of this year’s total. In 2014, Syrians comprised between 25 per cent and 33 per cent of those entering Europe by sea.
I write from Göteborg where yesterday at the train station I saw the real thing, Red Cross and volunteer groups, mostly young muslim women, waiting to help an arriving group of genuine refugees, probably mostly Syrians. I read the morning paper and there are interviews with these refugees. In Linköping at the Red Cross I meet new refugees every week.
There are economic migrants, mostly from Eastern Europe, who try to be treated as refugees. They will mostly fail and be sent back.
Here is a simple comparison for you to make. I was at Logan 10 days ago and was surprised to see not a single woman in hijab. Here on landing at Landvetter and coming into town I see countless such.
Your "seems to me" just won't do.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen USA-SE
Seem to be? On what basis? Your personal survey of inaccurate NYT reports?
Here from the International Organization on Migration some real data: total arrivals to Europe by sea in 2015 at 473,887 men, women and children. At least 182,000 of those migrants have arrived from Syria—making Syrians just under 40 per cent of this year’s total. In 2014, Syrians comprised between 25 per cent and 33 per cent of those entering Europe by sea.
I write from Göteborg where yesterday at the train station I saw the real thing, Red Cross and volunteer groups, mostly young muslim women, waiting to help an arriving group of genuine refugees, probably mostly Syrians. I read the morning paper and there are interviews with these refugees. In Linköping at the Red Cross I meet new refugees every week.
There are economic migrants, mostly from Eastern Europe, who try to be treated as refugees. They will mostly fail and be sent back.
Here is a simple comparison for you to make. I was at Logan 10 days ago and was surprised to see not a single woman in hijab. Here on landing at Landvetter and coming into town I see countless such.
Your "seems to me" just won't do.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen USA-SE
Most of the arguments against the immigrants boil down to, "they're not like us, we don't like them," so they're hardly worth even paying attention to. But among the ways those arguments are cloaked, one of the most ridiculous is that some of these countries, particularly in eastern Europe have small homogeneous populations with no experience of immigration. Wait a minute, many of these countries sent waves of immigrants to the US in the early twentieth century, experienced massive population transfers in the wake of two World Wars, sent trickles of refugees westwards while under Soviet domination, and now send huge numbers of people to work in western Europe. So, how can it be that countries whose own populations include so many who have lived as emigrants or who have family who have lived (or are living) as emigrants, are completely incapable of adapting to small populations of foreigners (and they would be small populations in countries like Hungary, Slovakia, or Poland) in their midst? It's also tedious to hear about all these poor displaced native workers in the US or Europe -- nonsense, maybe some of the people who have shown the drive and initiative to immigrate, often in difficult circumstances, simply work harder than the local boy "employed" in his uncle's construction or gardening firm. Stop whining about displacement and learn some skills.
25
Will you also lecture the migrants on learning the language or assimilating into the host countries culture? I come from a background of legal immigrants who taught themselves English and embraced the culture and American values. They fled their homeland because it was harsh and the culture punitive. They didn't expect Americans to accommodate them or change their culture, they recognized that it was the American culture that provided them with the freedoms they craved and that engrafting the culture of the "old country" would destroy the very thing they escaped to enjoy.
And yet Japan, China, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel all have relatively homogeneous populations, seem to be doing relatively well economically and have shown no desire to accept large (or small) numbers of immigrants or migrants, legal or otherwise. Is that ok? Why should Europe alone, particularly the smaller more impoverished countries within, feel any great need to make massive changes to their ethnic balance. Those countries have never been defined as source destinations for immigration. Why aren't these migrants/refugees fleeing to Kenya or Qatar or Kuwait or Bahrain or several other closer destinations?
As far as displaced workers I guess we just have different views on who deserves sympathy. I don't think it's a good thing for workers in the US or Europe to be forced to compete against Third World lower wage workers who enjoy fewer workplace protections. Saying they should work harder makes about as much sense as the similar statement by Boxer in "Animal Farm".
As far as displaced workers I guess we just have different views on who deserves sympathy. I don't think it's a good thing for workers in the US or Europe to be forced to compete against Third World lower wage workers who enjoy fewer workplace protections. Saying they should work harder makes about as much sense as the similar statement by Boxer in "Animal Farm".
James. I don't think we can expect Europeans to accept the waves of Middle Eastern immigrants out of gratitude for their own family's benefits from an emigration experience. Today's population regard their grandparents' exploits and privations as irrelevant to the modern situation.
You live in Arizona: does the population there show much gratitude to the native American population which (graciously) ceded their lands for settlement by immigrants from Europe? No? That's because modern Arizonans forget the genocide of the original inhabitants and attribute the present population spread to the stalwart bravery of their pioneer ancestors.
Americans haven't got a leg to stand on in preaching to Europeans about tolerance and acceptance of a foreign culture!
You live in Arizona: does the population there show much gratitude to the native American population which (graciously) ceded their lands for settlement by immigrants from Europe? No? That's because modern Arizonans forget the genocide of the original inhabitants and attribute the present population spread to the stalwart bravery of their pioneer ancestors.
Americans haven't got a leg to stand on in preaching to Europeans about tolerance and acceptance of a foreign culture!
3
I have no idea how taxes work in the European countries that will absorb these refugees/migrants. I do know that in the U.S. immigrants who might pay taxes, generally might pay federal/state taxes, but little or no local taxes. Local taxes are where the real problems are. Generally, immigrants live in apartments and pay no property taxes whatsoever. Many local school districts and the few available local resources can be severely tapped, even when only moderate numbers of immigrants move into a community. The federal government and many state governments have severely cut back on their aid to cities and to the school districts. Even in our wealthy country the cracks have been showing for years and are getting more noticeable. Europe needs to figure out a long term plan quickly because the supposed "boon of income from taxes generated by the refugees/migrants" as heralded by the NYTs will surely never reach down to those local communities that will bear the heaviest burden.
7
Sure. Europe should see refugees as a boon, not a burden. How convenient for the rest of the world. Makes the whole world feeling good, generous and gracious with Europe's dime. I am not trying to be cruel or failing to see these lives in torture and fear. Far from it. But it is for that very reason I want to point out this great hypocrisy in the guise of well-meaning words of empathy and reason. Europe was criticized first for not heeding the signs of the oncoming deluge. Then they were roundly blamed for not handling the crisis and cries of racism went up into the stratosphere. Then a real world Leader, Angela Merkel and the Austrian President took charge and embraced as many as they could while trying to find a solution. Then started the pontification and chiding and now - patronizing! No wonder Europe has begun seething. The audacity of the rest of the Western World and the rich patrons of murder of the Middle East resplendent in their decadence! Put your money where your mouth is.Practice what you preach or don't preach at all!! Hypocrites!!
8
And you wonder why Donald Trump is so successful. This editorial is a collection of cherry-picked statistics, calculated omissions, and outright attempts to mislead -- no, jobs do not magically appear when more people do -- have you seen the unemployment figures for Europe? -- and blue collar citizens who lose their jobs to immigrants do not magically get higher level jobs.
You ignore too the importance of culture, the difficulty third-world immigrants have assimilating, and the scary flow of Muslim immigrants to ISIS.
Since most of this is plainly obvious, I have to wonder why you're trying to foist this on us rather than presenting an honest account. It's hardly the first time you've displayed an agenda on this topic, and made claims that are just as distorted as Trump's.
You ignore too the importance of culture, the difficulty third-world immigrants have assimilating, and the scary flow of Muslim immigrants to ISIS.
Since most of this is plainly obvious, I have to wonder why you're trying to foist this on us rather than presenting an honest account. It's hardly the first time you've displayed an agenda on this topic, and made claims that are just as distorted as Trump's.
75
NYT's editorial board is not composed of blue collar workers, not even of workers with any knowledge at all of the reality of working class life. Also, I notice the editorial omits the impact that huge population growth has on the natural environment. European countries have very limited physical space, and while we are more fortunate than they are in that regard, I still don't want the great plains and rockies paved over and turned into strip malls, box stores, and fast food joints.
1
D. Lawton, spot on. And even our own country is now overpopulated -- a net importer of raw materials, dogged by water shortages in the West and disappearing aquifers in the Midwest. And our population growth at this point is due entirely to immigrants and their high birth rates.
We at least can feed ourselves, and much of the world besides. The population density of Europe is among the highest in the world: the UK, Germany, and Italy have population densities higher than China's!
We at least can feed ourselves, and much of the world besides. The population density of Europe is among the highest in the world: the UK, Germany, and Italy have population densities higher than China's!
Suppose your in-laws are in terrible financial straights. They arrive on your doorstep, telling you they've lost their home and must move in with you.
Your father-in-law has a part time job he will continue to do. Your mother-in-law can help with childcare and housekeeping.
They are also strict adherents of a faith you do not share, which affects many aspects of day to day life.
You calculate that the money your father in law makes, and savings on childcare and housekeeping, will be greater than what they will cost you.
End of your problems? Smooth sailing ahead? You should be happy they showed up?
That's the analogy of what's going on in Europe and this editorial.
A family has a culture--a way of doing things, seeing things, a shared vision. Countries also have cultures. They are no less real, less important.
Your father-in-law has a part time job he will continue to do. Your mother-in-law can help with childcare and housekeeping.
They are also strict adherents of a faith you do not share, which affects many aspects of day to day life.
You calculate that the money your father in law makes, and savings on childcare and housekeeping, will be greater than what they will cost you.
End of your problems? Smooth sailing ahead? You should be happy they showed up?
That's the analogy of what's going on in Europe and this editorial.
A family has a culture--a way of doing things, seeing things, a shared vision. Countries also have cultures. They are no less real, less important.
37
And a family has deal with their local neighbors, and ultimately with the whole world. No way around that. Try and keep the whole world on your family's values -- won't work, and your family loses.
When economists rely on empirical data instead of models, they get results consistent with reality and contrary to what NYT editorial claims (see aslo my previous post)
Papers contradicting the editorial. I should note that I spent less than 5 min finding them: those papers were already referenced in the papers that were presented by NYT editorial as evidence of positive impact of economic migration in last 10-15 years
1) Empirical analysis of the effects of immigration on average wages in the UK is conducted in Nickel and Saleheen (2008). These authors find
that, even though small, the immigrant-native ratio has a significant negative impact on the average occupational wage rates of that region, for both native and foreign workers. They also find that the biggest effect is in the
semi/unskilled services sector.
2) Coleman and Rowthorn (2004) find that the purely economic consequences of large-scale immigration are not equally distributed, giving rise to winners and losers
3) Storesletten (2000, 2003) finds that immigration can strongly benefit natives if it occurs in the `right' age bracket (middle-aged workers) and if immigrants have a sufficiently high employment probability. Realized
migration, however, often falls short from the ideal composition, so that de facto immigration may be a burden rather than a blessing to the native taxpayer.
Papers contradicting the editorial. I should note that I spent less than 5 min finding them: those papers were already referenced in the papers that were presented by NYT editorial as evidence of positive impact of economic migration in last 10-15 years
1) Empirical analysis of the effects of immigration on average wages in the UK is conducted in Nickel and Saleheen (2008). These authors find
that, even though small, the immigrant-native ratio has a significant negative impact on the average occupational wage rates of that region, for both native and foreign workers. They also find that the biggest effect is in the
semi/unskilled services sector.
2) Coleman and Rowthorn (2004) find that the purely economic consequences of large-scale immigration are not equally distributed, giving rise to winners and losers
3) Storesletten (2000, 2003) finds that immigration can strongly benefit natives if it occurs in the `right' age bracket (middle-aged workers) and if immigrants have a sufficiently high employment probability. Realized
migration, however, often falls short from the ideal composition, so that de facto immigration may be a burden rather than a blessing to the native taxpayer.
25
Accepting refugees and immigrants is fine, and I commend Germany for doing so, but it should be done in a more controlled manner. We should not see people making risky crossings on unsafe boats, breaking through fences or pushing past border guards to get there.
Why aren't these refugees and migrants applying for asylum before making the journey, in the first safe country they reach? If Germany is willing to accept them, and it's great if they are, why don't they apply at a German embassy or consulate in advance, receive proper paperwork and permission to enter, and cross the borders legally and use safe transportation to get there, knowing there is a host country ready to receive them? It appears it's because conditions where they're coming from are bad, and there are more of them than host countries can handle, so it becomes a mad rush to try to get there before the border is closed. Survival of the fittest among refugees.
It's bad to see people making unsafe trips and trying to cross borders illegally to get to their preferred destination, with no assurance they'll be accepted once they get there. Perhaps they think once they're there, they have a better chance of being accepted, or at least of staying even if not legally.
Why aren't these refugees and migrants applying for asylum before making the journey, in the first safe country they reach? If Germany is willing to accept them, and it's great if they are, why don't they apply at a German embassy or consulate in advance, receive proper paperwork and permission to enter, and cross the borders legally and use safe transportation to get there, knowing there is a host country ready to receive them? It appears it's because conditions where they're coming from are bad, and there are more of them than host countries can handle, so it becomes a mad rush to try to get there before the border is closed. Survival of the fittest among refugees.
It's bad to see people making unsafe trips and trying to cross borders illegally to get to their preferred destination, with no assurance they'll be accepted once they get there. Perhaps they think once they're there, they have a better chance of being accepted, or at least of staying even if not legally.
7
"Why aren't these refugees and migrants applying for asylum before making the journey, in the first safe country they reach?"
Why aren't these smartphone-wielding young men applying for asylum online?
Why aren't these smartphone-wielding young men applying for asylum online?
Don't believe that for a minute.
18
The Times as usual conflates legal and orderly immigration to illegal immigration. This is illegal immigration out of control and Europe is being overrun. With the liberal social programs in most of Europe cradle to the grave care for all how does this incentivize work? Second who are these folks? They come from a part of the world know for Islamic fundamentalism with very few Christians. Part of Europe's problem is not forcing assimilation to western values and the western world this has created ghettos of poor males with lots of testosterone. Unless this is thought out more than just a helping hand it will turn to be a disaster in 10 to 20 years.
26
Yup. part of Europe's problem was forcing people in the MidEast to try "remote assimilation" with no chance of making it happen
"Part of Europe's problem is not forcing assimilation to western values and the western world this has created ghettos of poor males with lots of testosterone."
Yup, right, the whole Middle East, where people are fleeing from
"Part of Europe's problem is not forcing assimilation to western values and the western world this has created ghettos of poor males with lots of testosterone."
Yup, right, the whole Middle East, where people are fleeing from
1
These people are leaving a safe sanctuary in Turkey in order to improve themselves economically as many Turks have done. The difference is that the Turks go to places that want them expressly to work. Turks aren't given citizenship until they can prove they'll fit in with the German secular culture. These new arrivals don't have any of the criteria necessary to assimilate at this point and should wait their turn like everyone else IMO.
18
Easy for you to take the high road so many thousand miles away. These are not the Jewish, Irish and German migrants who built America, nor is Europe or America a sparsely populated oasis ripe for waves of people who are foreign to every strut in the culture. Yeah, our heart goes out to them and pictures of children on beaches are wrenching. But the best solution is to find a path to peace in the lands they are fleeing. 8 billion people cannot be maintained on earth, much less future projections amid the breakdown of any climate equilibrium. Spaceship earth is in trouble and lifeboats can only float when not overloaded. We have to deal with the real world.
28
Too many people is a boon? The whole world is a crowded place and there are limits. If the refugees are a boon, let Turkey take them. There are a 2.5 billion people in China and India alone. They ruined their own countries. Now they should come here? Where is the common sense here?
21
Hahahahaha!!!!!
Another ridiculous piece by the Editorial Board.
‘In Britain, for example, immigrants from the rest of Europe pay more in taxes than they receive in government benefits, according to an analysis by two economists.’ - these are not immigrants from the rest of Europe (what is that anyway? Germans? Danes? Albanians?); these are people from a foreign country, who barely speak the language, have families of 10 members or more, and will go on the dole soon as settled in. Thus simple mathematics, if 10 people will be on the dole, no job for say 6 months (a pie in sky dream, but follow me here), that is 10 people on the dole for 6 months, and 6 months of paying taxes. This is assuming of course everyone is working … but grandpa, grandma, the wife(s), and the kids will not be working. So it will be one person working 6 months, and 9.5 people on the dole for a year. How do you figure this will result in more taxes paid, than welfare received?
From there, we go off to shove dirt at the republicans for immigration.
What a joke this Editorial Board really is.
Another ridiculous piece by the Editorial Board.
‘In Britain, for example, immigrants from the rest of Europe pay more in taxes than they receive in government benefits, according to an analysis by two economists.’ - these are not immigrants from the rest of Europe (what is that anyway? Germans? Danes? Albanians?); these are people from a foreign country, who barely speak the language, have families of 10 members or more, and will go on the dole soon as settled in. Thus simple mathematics, if 10 people will be on the dole, no job for say 6 months (a pie in sky dream, but follow me here), that is 10 people on the dole for 6 months, and 6 months of paying taxes. This is assuming of course everyone is working … but grandpa, grandma, the wife(s), and the kids will not be working. So it will be one person working 6 months, and 9.5 people on the dole for a year. How do you figure this will result in more taxes paid, than welfare received?
From there, we go off to shove dirt at the republicans for immigration.
What a joke this Editorial Board really is.
28
The USA is a country familiar with immigration. We occasionally have "issues" when numbers become large ... be it a particular population or area .... this happened with the Irish and the Italians .. and somewhat less to the germans in the mid 1800's..
Europe has almost no history of immigration .. and what they have experienced has not gone well. I frequently travel to Germany -- Munich in particular. They don't like the the current influx of UAE residents fleeing the heat of the middle east -- and they are paying! This is not going to end well -- I don't think people understand the homogenous nature of the place. It's not going to work in Italy or Austria either -- it's not London.
I'm Irish BTW
Europe has almost no history of immigration .. and what they have experienced has not gone well. I frequently travel to Germany -- Munich in particular. They don't like the the current influx of UAE residents fleeing the heat of the middle east -- and they are paying! This is not going to end well -- I don't think people understand the homogenous nature of the place. It's not going to work in Italy or Austria either -- it's not London.
I'm Irish BTW
83
That is actually not correct. In Germany every fourth person has foreign roots. I live in Berlin-Mitte where there are close to 30% foreigners and it is so no problem at all. Munich and Bavaria are very conservative places that were dirt poor till the end of WW2 , but profited most of the separation of Germany and the island called Berlin right in the centre of the GDR. Many companies relocated to the South and also many American enterprises put up their offices there. In the meantime Munich is the richest city ( together with Hamburg) in Germany but the mindset is still very narrow minded and anti-foreign. If London is so welcoming and cosmopolitain, why does the UK accept less than 10.000 immigrants for the whole of 2015 and Germany will accommodate at least 1 million refugees ? We do have the jobs and the majority in this country has learned from the past and welcomes refugees with open arms. The same is definitely not true for Denmark, the UK and others.
Homogenous? 20%+ of Germany's population has a non-German background, and that's just fine. People there are starting to understand that what it means to be German is changing. It's not always easy, but it's happening, through work, friendship, sports, mixed marriages and all of the other aspects of daily life where we have an opportunity to meet as people. It just takes time, as it does in the U.S.
Most of the Irish and Italian immigrants did not come over here and go on the dole, because there wasn't any dole. They came here with the clothes on their backs and made a success of themselves through hard work. And became US citizens and were proud of it!
Europe is not America. The European nation-states have very distinct histories and cultures based on a common heritage that is distinct and definable. Say what you will about imperialism and colonialism, etc, but these are cultures that are among the greatest the world has ever produced, the heirs of Rome and Athens, the seat for most of the world's important discoveries and contributions, that brought civilization to its apex in music, literature, painting, and science.
Don't delude yourselves into thinking that has nothing to do with culture, values, & people. Don't delude yourselves into thinking the makeup of these societies hasn't already been radically altered, and will continue to be altered, in ways that are not always for the best. As long as immigrants exhibit a reasonable degree of assimilation, things are fine, but the face of immigration has changed immensely in the past twenty years.
If large groups arrive into Sweden, France, and Germany with medieval values that they have no intention of changing; with a mindset of entitlement; insisting on the fundamental superiority of their own beliefs and culture, settling in Europe only for the benefits rather than the values --- then Europe will no longer be Europe, and that will be a big loss. We don't need a more Islamic Europe. If you need a bigger population, give incentives for people to have kids! Manage your economies so people don't eschew having children because they can't afford life with 1 salary.
Don't delude yourselves into thinking that has nothing to do with culture, values, & people. Don't delude yourselves into thinking the makeup of these societies hasn't already been radically altered, and will continue to be altered, in ways that are not always for the best. As long as immigrants exhibit a reasonable degree of assimilation, things are fine, but the face of immigration has changed immensely in the past twenty years.
If large groups arrive into Sweden, France, and Germany with medieval values that they have no intention of changing; with a mindset of entitlement; insisting on the fundamental superiority of their own beliefs and culture, settling in Europe only for the benefits rather than the values --- then Europe will no longer be Europe, and that will be a big loss. We don't need a more Islamic Europe. If you need a bigger population, give incentives for people to have kids! Manage your economies so people don't eschew having children because they can't afford life with 1 salary.
33
In Europe that nation is the tribe and the tribe is the nation.
Refugees? Those who have left Syria could surely have rested their weary, frightened bones on Turkish soil -- but they are headed towards European countries whose lifestyles, or at least their housing and healthcare benefits, are preferable.
That makes them migrants, not refugees.
Besides, Arabs other than Syrians are blending into the marching crowds -- of mostly young men, despite some sought-for photographs of women and children -- and they are not fleeing persecution.
As for their benefiting the countries in which they finally end up, try asking the Dutch or the French how well their Muslim populations fare in secular, liberal democracies. You can contact the English, too, whose towns have been taken over by Muslim families that hold to traditional Muslim practices -- like forced marriages, genital mutilation of girls, and even revenge killings.
And you can ask at least some Muslim clerics what they think of Western values. I can hear their resounding "Faugh!" all the way from Flatbush.
That makes them migrants, not refugees.
Besides, Arabs other than Syrians are blending into the marching crowds -- of mostly young men, despite some sought-for photographs of women and children -- and they are not fleeing persecution.
As for their benefiting the countries in which they finally end up, try asking the Dutch or the French how well their Muslim populations fare in secular, liberal democracies. You can contact the English, too, whose towns have been taken over by Muslim families that hold to traditional Muslim practices -- like forced marriages, genital mutilation of girls, and even revenge killings.
And you can ask at least some Muslim clerics what they think of Western values. I can hear their resounding "Faugh!" all the way from Flatbush.
26
"The European nation-states have very distinct histories and cultures based on a common heritage that is distinct and definable. Say what you will about imperialism and colonialism, etc, but these are cultures that are among the greatest the world has ever produced"
I think you meant "were among the greatest"? or "some of the greatest" --
Where did "algebra" come from? or "macaroni" or Monotheism?
Or the Vandals? or the Inquisition - the model for the few extremist Muslim sects?
Get real.
I think you meant "were among the greatest"? or "some of the greatest" --
Where did "algebra" come from? or "macaroni" or Monotheism?
Or the Vandals? or the Inquisition - the model for the few extremist Muslim sects?
Get real.
Amazing. This editorial pinpoints why many people see the Times as hopelessly biased; it's a stunning illustration of addressing an issue only in terms which are favorable to one's argument and ignoring the elephant in the room. Such intellectual dishonesty convinces only those who already believe that open borders is a good idea.
Everyone who is honest will admit that the problem with these immigrants arriving in Europe, beyond the difficulty of accommodating them economically, is that of cultural assimilation of large numbers of Moslems.
By completely ignoring this point, the Times' editorial board demonstrates that it is no more 'fair and balanced' than Fox News.
Everyone who is honest will admit that the problem with these immigrants arriving in Europe, beyond the difficulty of accommodating them economically, is that of cultural assimilation of large numbers of Moslems.
By completely ignoring this point, the Times' editorial board demonstrates that it is no more 'fair and balanced' than Fox News.
46
Culturally assimilating millions of Moslems is difficult?
Provide evidence please.
Seems to work OK here in Minnesota.
Consider the Congressman from Minneapolis.
Provide evidence please.
Seems to work OK here in Minnesota.
Consider the Congressman from Minneapolis.
They certainly aren't a cultural boon. In the long term, they may be of economic benefit but in the short time taking in so many migrants may be a burden. Europe can't build homes overnight.
6
The Times is disingenuous in claiming that ANY number of refugees is a net boon to any country. Certainly, a million new immigrants (the number Germany expects to settle this year) would lead to chaos in many of the much poorer and less populous other countries of Europe. Thus, limiting numbers is both appropriate and necessary, the Times' opinion notwithstanding.
21
This is pretty much what Swedish politicians have been saying all along, but there are caveats. Sweden one of the most developed economies in the world, which means that manual labor opportunities are scarce. Sweden is also completely unionized which means that immigrants cannot compete with lower wages. Sweden is also one of the most generous welfare states, which means that a large portion of people who work full time are actually a net loss for the state, and this is the type of worker a refugee today is likely to become because they are to larger extent unskilled (and more unskilled than native unskilled.) Sweden is also the country that accepts by the most refugees than any other country, proportional to its population size. No serious research that I've ever seen has been able to show that this is economically a good idea.
19
Pragmatism and scientific studies do suggest that refugees contribute a lot to GDP growth, job creation, skill diversity, and cultural enrichment, but political opportunism and pseudo nationalism do dictate a course that shuts doors on the refugees, ignoring the basic historical truth that since the advent of post- nomadic civilised life we all are in a way refugees and migrants.
5
The mideast needs more taxes. let the mideast countries and countries such as Pakistan absorb these refugees.
If this is so, then it would be economic madness for the US not to take these people. In fact, I volunteer to pay the tickets to the US for five working age, strong, testosterone-filled young men last seen roaming the area around the border between Croatia and Hungary. No? I didn't think so...
It is not pseudo nationalism. It is fear of being swallowed up by those professing to being your enemy and wanting to force you to become what is diametrically opposed to all your values. It is not pseudo nationalism to like your own culture and want to protect it.
This is not just about long term macro numbers.
Before anyone gets to the long term, they must first pass through the short term. They must live and make lives for those years.
There is concern is about existing unemployment problems becoming worse.
There is concern is about strain on public services during the adjustment, during a period already strained.
There is concern about culture. Where a few who don't fit in are easily accommodated, millions are not so easy.
These concerns must be admitted, addressed, and dealt with. They can be. They are not reasons to give up. But neither can they be ignored.
Jobs for the new migrants can be found by concerted efforts. Jobs for those already looking can be provided instead of the fixation on austerity.
Money can be contributed by those who are not taking so many. That is a burden easily shared.
Culture is a concern easily made into a political football by those stirring hate. It must be confronted just as all attempts to stir hate much be confronted. Confronting it means more than just denying concerns. Address them. Make compromises. Educate. Work at it. That is the meaning of leadership in cultural matters. That leadership is important, and not especially easy; get to it.
If the macro view is as rosy as this article suggests, then that is great. We still have to get there, and that means work to do, and truths to tell.
Before anyone gets to the long term, they must first pass through the short term. They must live and make lives for those years.
There is concern is about existing unemployment problems becoming worse.
There is concern is about strain on public services during the adjustment, during a period already strained.
There is concern about culture. Where a few who don't fit in are easily accommodated, millions are not so easy.
These concerns must be admitted, addressed, and dealt with. They can be. They are not reasons to give up. But neither can they be ignored.
Jobs for the new migrants can be found by concerted efforts. Jobs for those already looking can be provided instead of the fixation on austerity.
Money can be contributed by those who are not taking so many. That is a burden easily shared.
Culture is a concern easily made into a political football by those stirring hate. It must be confronted just as all attempts to stir hate much be confronted. Confronting it means more than just denying concerns. Address them. Make compromises. Educate. Work at it. That is the meaning of leadership in cultural matters. That leadership is important, and not especially easy; get to it.
If the macro view is as rosy as this article suggests, then that is great. We still have to get there, and that means work to do, and truths to tell.
9
It is frustrating that people who believe in a community's right to want to defend certain values are always accused of "hating" those who don't share those values. In this country, not engaging in female genital mutilation, not requiring women to cover their faces, or to stay in the home and not work outside of it are values that we generally share. I don't hate people whose cultures advise the opposite, but I'd prefer to live in a place where women generally live by the values of gender equality or something approaching it. That doesn't mean I'm a hate monger.
The root cause of this mass migration is regional war in the Middle East.
The obvious solution is political resolution of the myriad conflicts there. Intransigent parties abound on all sides, and the situation can look hopeless. But everyone wants something, and everyone has something they can be persuaded to give up. Have we reached the point where enough is at stake for the powers trying to dominate each other militarily that they are finally willing to talk?
Iran and five powers have negotiated a nuclear deal. Russia and the USA have agreed to coordinate their military activities to avoid directly engaging each other. There is hope. But someone needs to draw a matrix on the wall with every faction's aims and what diplomatic wins would satisfy each enough to agree to a cease fire.
Hot-headed newspaper readers strongly believe that this party or that will never agree to anything. That is how hot-headed newspaper readers think. But there is a solution, and it is not total military dominance of the region by one belligerent power or another. WWI ended badly. Here is a second chance.
The obvious solution is political resolution of the myriad conflicts there. Intransigent parties abound on all sides, and the situation can look hopeless. But everyone wants something, and everyone has something they can be persuaded to give up. Have we reached the point where enough is at stake for the powers trying to dominate each other militarily that they are finally willing to talk?
Iran and five powers have negotiated a nuclear deal. Russia and the USA have agreed to coordinate their military activities to avoid directly engaging each other. There is hope. But someone needs to draw a matrix on the wall with every faction's aims and what diplomatic wins would satisfy each enough to agree to a cease fire.
Hot-headed newspaper readers strongly believe that this party or that will never agree to anything. That is how hot-headed newspaper readers think. But there is a solution, and it is not total military dominance of the region by one belligerent power or another. WWI ended badly. Here is a second chance.
8
Maybe the NYT thinks editorial is penance for the way is disparaged Irish and Italian immigrants to the US.
34
This is economic fiction. And ironically it comes in the same paper on the same day Krugman accused the Republicans of spouting economic fiction.
Europe cannot absorb billions of immigrants and grow exponentially.
This is not hundreds of years ago. We can easily see that resources are limited. Jobs are limited. The billions of people that the NYT is speaking of will not save Europe. They will not improve its cultures. Instead they will overrun the existing cultures and institutions.
Europe cannot absorb billions of immigrants and grow exponentially.
This is not hundreds of years ago. We can easily see that resources are limited. Jobs are limited. The billions of people that the NYT is speaking of will not save Europe. They will not improve its cultures. Instead they will overrun the existing cultures and institutions.
212
They should stay where they are and fight against ISIS!
The editorial board has obviously never visited the banlieues of Paris or Lyon, talked to the alienated youth who boo the French national anthem, etc. despite never having set foot in the North African lands of their parents or grandparents.
In light of these post-colonial problems, the European Union's position on the migrant crisis must be a TEMPORARY humanitarian one : provide room and shelter to a population whose ultimate fate will be a return to their embattled homelands once stability returns to the Middle East.
In light of these post-colonial problems, the European Union's position on the migrant crisis must be a TEMPORARY humanitarian one : provide room and shelter to a population whose ultimate fate will be a return to their embattled homelands once stability returns to the Middle East.
There are about 3 million. Euorpe has 350 million, Your claim of "billions" shows the ignorance in the U.S.
Easy to tell Europe what to do when you live on the other side of the Atlantic.
141
When the United States accepts immigrants, migrants, asylum seekers, etc. it does not provide free housing, full medical care, full time child care, including university, free vocational training and language classes, etc. We are speaking about ca. 800,000 to a million migrants in Germany this year alone. The US on the other hand picks and chooses its legal migrants, with background checks and a host of other criteria. Just the fact that Syrian migrants would have to pay a plane ticket to get to the US suggests that those being accepted there are educated and in the middle or upper class and more in a position to work. The majority of Syrian migrants to Europe will need to first be educated or trained, learn the language and in the mean time completely supported. Hundreds of thousands of migrants coming into the country will not provide Germany with tax dollars but just the opposite. Many will be trained and educated and many will remain on full social services for life.
1
And when you live in comfortable doorman apartments in Manhattan or leafy suburbs in Westchester County.
1
Is that the same CBO report that cheerily observed that "[a]verage wages would be slightly lower...through 2024...However, the rate of return on capital would be higher"? Why, yes it is!
Sometimes best to say nothing...
Sometimes best to say nothing...
100
This entire editorial is ridiculous (framing the enormous cultural and security aspects of the migrant crisis only in terms of profitability from the new arrivals), but I take special offense to the claim that these migrants are not coming for "benefits tourism." The Times points out that immigrants in Britain pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits, but what on earth makes you think they will be paying taxes at all? They are undocumented migrants without so much as a driver's license and no knowledge of the language! But you think they will be paying taxes and otherwise "chipping in" for the common good? You honestly believe these immigrants will make their first priority filling out a W-2?
Beyond that, so much I've seen of the crisis reeks of a bizarre form of entitlement which runs contrary to the narrative of desperate families fleeing war-torn countries in search of peace. Attacking police officers, laying down on tracks to stop trains, refusing to yield until they reach their country of choice? Every story that comes out of this crisis feels less like a genuine "refugee crisis" and more of a free-for-all of Middle Eastern migrants espousing to cash in on benefits and hospitality for Western countries they have spent their entire lives denouncing.
It's easy to lecture Europe about its moral obligations from this side of the pond, but Lord knows if 100,000 undocumented Middle Easterners washed up on our shores, the Times would be signing a different tune.
Beyond that, so much I've seen of the crisis reeks of a bizarre form of entitlement which runs contrary to the narrative of desperate families fleeing war-torn countries in search of peace. Attacking police officers, laying down on tracks to stop trains, refusing to yield until they reach their country of choice? Every story that comes out of this crisis feels less like a genuine "refugee crisis" and more of a free-for-all of Middle Eastern migrants espousing to cash in on benefits and hospitality for Western countries they have spent their entire lives denouncing.
It's easy to lecture Europe about its moral obligations from this side of the pond, but Lord knows if 100,000 undocumented Middle Easterners washed up on our shores, the Times would be signing a different tune.
235
Thank you, well stated. I would like to make only one comment. The number is not 100,000 but several hundred thousands. We (Germany) expects up to 1 million migrants be year's end.
2
Actually, Solaris, I'm pretty sure the NYT editorial board would be welcoming them too, and with the same tone-deaf and irrelevant argument.
2
Unfortunately they wouldn't.
The editorial staff of the Times must live on another planet. It must be fun to pick and choose the data you want. The staff should read the articles in their own paper about the ghetto like areas in France and Britain, framed with people who refuse to assimilate, learn the language, obey the laws, yet demand Sharia law, more welfare, persecute Jewish citizens and on and on.
Study after study has shown the illegal (pardon me, "undocumented") immigrants in the United States are a net drain on our economy, costing $billions in education and health expenses. They depress wages of minority citizens, and take jobs away from them. People say these illegals only take jobs Americans don't want, but how many illegal citizens work as roofers, plumbers, in factories.
Many legal businesses can not survive because they are priced out by competition that uses illegal labor.
The editorial staff should get its head out of the clouds and look at the real world.
Study after study has shown the illegal (pardon me, "undocumented") immigrants in the United States are a net drain on our economy, costing $billions in education and health expenses. They depress wages of minority citizens, and take jobs away from them. People say these illegals only take jobs Americans don't want, but how many illegal citizens work as roofers, plumbers, in factories.
Many legal businesses can not survive because they are priced out by competition that uses illegal labor.
The editorial staff should get its head out of the clouds and look at the real world.
338
Could you provide links to the studies that show illegal immigrants are a net expense to the US? All the ones I have read state the opposite.
You are presenting a caricature of immigration to Europe. I live in an immigrant area in Norway and I have lived in immigrant areas in the Netherlands. There certainly are people who are poorly integrated but in general we get along well. We just had elections in Norway and I see how lots of immigrants are getting involved in our democratic traditions. Many have joined parties and participate in debates as candidates.
In the winter I see minorities trying out our national past time cross country skiing.
Parents of all backgrounds are helping out training the kids in my kids school's soccer team. The kids all go to each other's birthdays. More immigrant girls than native girls are going to university.
One has to remember that these are new times for Europe. We don't have centuries of immigration. The various waves of immigrants to the US weren't very well integrated initially either. I know Norwegians were quite getto like originally as well. Today though when visiting Norwegian areas, there is little left of Norwegian culture or attitudes. People are thoroughly assimilated. Give it a couple of more generations and I think most of these problems in Europe will have disappeared.
You are presenting a caricature of immigration to Europe. I live in an immigrant area in Norway and I have lived in immigrant areas in the Netherlands. There certainly are people who are poorly integrated but in general we get along well. We just had elections in Norway and I see how lots of immigrants are getting involved in our democratic traditions. Many have joined parties and participate in debates as candidates.
In the winter I see minorities trying out our national past time cross country skiing.
Parents of all backgrounds are helping out training the kids in my kids school's soccer team. The kids all go to each other's birthdays. More immigrant girls than native girls are going to university.
One has to remember that these are new times for Europe. We don't have centuries of immigration. The various waves of immigrants to the US weren't very well integrated initially either. I know Norwegians were quite getto like originally as well. Today though when visiting Norwegian areas, there is little left of Norwegian culture or attitudes. People are thoroughly assimilated. Give it a couple of more generations and I think most of these problems in Europe will have disappeared.
Yes. Get their heads out of the sand. This editorial is ridiculous,
pious, and lacking in any factual information. Who are these people?
pious, and lacking in any factual information. Who are these people?
1
Big and small business love "illegal immigrants" for exactly the reasons you quote. Don't have to pay much, can send them away at the drop of a hat.
Like slaves, but the business doesn't have to feed them. Yeah. And they can't vote. And they pay taxes but don't get benefits.
Right.
Like slaves, but the business doesn't have to feed them. Yeah. And they can't vote. And they pay taxes but don't get benefits.
Right.
"Another study found that an influx of refugees into Denmark in the 1990s led native workers to switch to more skilled jobs and away from jobs that were mostly manual labor. As a result, some local workers earned higher wages."
This study cannot be read by members of the general public unless we pay to do so. But the summary of it that the reporter has made, is refuted by David Frum in a January 15, 2015 highly readable essay in The Atlantic titled "Does Immigration Harm Working Americans?” He wrote that most of the American workers displaced by illegal immigrants are not switching to more skilled jobs. “...millions of native-born Americans, especially men, have abandoned the job market altogether. The percentage of men aged 25 to 54 who are working or looking for work has dropped to the lowest point in recorded history.” Many are receiving disability pensions even though they would be working if illegal immigrants had not taken their jobs and driven down wages.
This study cannot be read by members of the general public unless we pay to do so. But the summary of it that the reporter has made, is refuted by David Frum in a January 15, 2015 highly readable essay in The Atlantic titled "Does Immigration Harm Working Americans?” He wrote that most of the American workers displaced by illegal immigrants are not switching to more skilled jobs. “...millions of native-born Americans, especially men, have abandoned the job market altogether. The percentage of men aged 25 to 54 who are working or looking for work has dropped to the lowest point in recorded history.” Many are receiving disability pensions even though they would be working if illegal immigrants had not taken their jobs and driven down wages.
127
You got to remember Denmark is very different from the US. Denmark spends probably 10-100 times more on job retraining for unemployed than the US. Education is free. Natives are more likely to acquire higher skills in Denmark to move up the employment chain.
Naive, silly article that ignores the actual situation. The people in question are mostly Muslims, Muslims who will not take kindly to being told to be tolerant to gays, treating women like equals and separation of mosque and state.
259
The NYT conveniently conflates an orderly, filtered immigration (a boon to the economy) with a massive chaotic influx of (mostly) uneducated people of a radically different culture. That anyone could see this as a net positive (economically, culturally and socially) for the host country is a rather remarkable thing.
237
My I remind you of the Mariel Boat Lift? We all survived it, and it was all put on one CITY. The population doubled overnight, the people were supposedly criminals and insane people, there were over 150,000 dumped in Miami and it all worked out. This hysteria is unwarranted.
The shrinking population in Spain has led to some villages being completely abandoned. Japan, with restrictive immigration policies is suffering through recession and even deflation as the population both ages and shrinks. The U.K. service economy is reliant on eastern Europeans to fill those jobs or else it would be in the same boat as Japan. Even in the U.S. our fertility rate is below the replacement rate. Developed western nations NEED immigration or their economies will stagnate as their populations age and become increasingly moribund.
12
The west certainly needs immigration. But we shouldn't overplay this hand. In the case of Syria the main obligation is humanitarian in nature.
If we mainly cared about filling up jobs then we would probably go about it in a different way and make sure we get people with the best suited education e.g.
Instead we have to deal with a dual situation of taking in people who are not necessarily optimal for our labour market and quite incompatible culture wise and at the same time try to make them suitable for the jobs we have in demand. I think we have an obligation to help, but lets not pretend this is just some net benefit to us or purely done out of economic self interest.
If we mainly cared about filling up jobs then we would probably go about it in a different way and make sure we get people with the best suited education e.g.
Instead we have to deal with a dual situation of taking in people who are not necessarily optimal for our labour market and quite incompatible culture wise and at the same time try to make them suitable for the jobs we have in demand. I think we have an obligation to help, but lets not pretend this is just some net benefit to us or purely done out of economic self interest.
1
If the Japanese are suffering, they surely do not look it! Neither does their country. I do not understand how immigration will help any economy. People are no longer needed to produce goods -- only to consume goods. If we do not take better care of our environment, there will be no one left to either produce or consume anything.
2
Immigration, with selectively letting refugees who have the need skills , can be a boon. But letting in refugees who will almost certainly destroy Europe is not something Europe should attempt. It would be much easier to settle these refugees in Jordan, Pakistan , Afghanistan, saudi Arabia, Libya etc where they will be much more at home with their Islamic societies. Europe will be a shock to them wit European women baring their hair and their arms.
1
Now the NY Times Editorial board, after declaring the "Black Lives Matter" thugs (I'm Black, so put away the race card) the 21st century equivalent of the Civil Rights Freedom Riders of the 1960s, fresh off declaring Barack Obama's Iran Deal (the one where Iran gets everything including nukes and America gets nothing)...this Times Editorial Board is now telling European leaders what they should see when it comes to the Syrian Refugee Crisis, created by Barack Obama, someone the NYT Editorial Board has never held accountable.
As someone who travels to Europe several times a year, trust me when I say they are laughing at this.
As someone who travels to Europe several times a year, trust me when I say they are laughing at this.
81
As somebody who is European and actually live in Europe, I don't know what you are talking about when you say we are laughing at this.
But I agree it is quite offensive that the US is telling us to help, when the crisis is in many ways created by the US and the US is taking in almost no refugees. First they blew up Iraq, and the US took in minuscule amounts of Iraq refugees. Single little towns in Sweden have taken in more Iraq refugees than the US. Now the Iraq screwup has spilled over to Syria and again Europe is left picking up the bill after the US.
Next time the US goes in to bring "democracy" at gun point, we should demand that the US obligate itself to take in the majority of refugees from any screwup they do.
But I agree it is quite offensive that the US is telling us to help, when the crisis is in many ways created by the US and the US is taking in almost no refugees. First they blew up Iraq, and the US took in minuscule amounts of Iraq refugees. Single little towns in Sweden have taken in more Iraq refugees than the US. Now the Iraq screwup has spilled over to Syria and again Europe is left picking up the bill after the US.
Next time the US goes in to bring "democracy" at gun point, we should demand that the US obligate itself to take in the majority of refugees from any screwup they do.
I am not so sure about that. The Saudis have changed a lot of things for worse. If we don't try to change them first, they won't stop trying to mold the world in their radical image. That's hardly a boon to Europe, or the world.
46
Well intended, but still voodoo economics!
28
Honestly, I am not sure how you can say this will be boon and not a burden. Going back to past articles in your paper, I have read about the Muslim communities in France that have failed to assimilate instead living in slums. I have read in your paper the stories of young college graduates in Spain, France and other European countries that cannot find permanent work. The unemployment rate for this group is said to be well above 20%, yet to seem to think, that European countries can absorb hundreds of thousands or even millions of people. Finally, there have been the recent stories about the children of Muslim immigrants who have gone to Syria to fight with ISIS. How do you find this to be a boon?
371
Your reply lists the very same reasons that were used in the U.S. between the years of 1900 to 1930, when the U.S. was flooded with immigrants (perhaps your family members) that (gasp!) settled in their own communities (not up to a lot of American's standards) with more in small apartments than the landlord liked, using their own language and bringing with them their cultures and religion practices. I would hope that your claim of "non assimilation" isn't code for converting to Christianity.
In the end, the U.S. had it's greatest period of innovation and labor force particiapation and growth. It continued after the Great Depression (again, done by Wall Street, not immigrants) until today. I hope you will remember that when the southern states such as Alabama passed it's orwelian immigration laws recently, the immigrants left and the crops rotted in the field, no "real" Americans would do the back breaking labor.
This article is spot on. Europe has 340 million people. The number of refuges will not be noticeable in a few years. In Spain and France the youth are like in the U.S., they are sitting on their butts, not agressive with jobs, and, like the U.S. demand more pay and will not do "menial" work.
In the end, the U.S. had it's greatest period of innovation and labor force particiapation and growth. It continued after the Great Depression (again, done by Wall Street, not immigrants) until today. I hope you will remember that when the southern states such as Alabama passed it's orwelian immigration laws recently, the immigrants left and the crops rotted in the field, no "real" Americans would do the back breaking labor.
This article is spot on. Europe has 340 million people. The number of refuges will not be noticeable in a few years. In Spain and France the youth are like in the U.S., they are sitting on their butts, not agressive with jobs, and, like the U.S. demand more pay and will not do "menial" work.
Not to mention that Jews now feel unsafe in France, and synagogues have been regularly attacked in recent years. It is one thing to provide temporary refuge to those fleeing war as a humanitarian act. It is quite another to naively extol uncontrolled immigration as an economic panacea, when the evidence is so clear of the dangers. The Jews who came to USA embraced their new country and its values. In Europe, it is startlingly clear that this has not been the case with many immigrant communities. Economics is not everything. Ideologies have a destructive effect that undermines the best economic theories. Human beings do not always think or behave rationally (the NYT editorial being a case in point).
Just walk through Brooklyn from Flatbush to the East River.
There are blocks of unassilimlated Muslims. Street to street--
you walk from all Muslim blocks to other. They certainly don't
want to become American even in Brooklyn. Why would they want to
assimilate into a European culture? This is one of the more ridiculous
editorials of the Times.
There are blocks of unassilimlated Muslims. Street to street--
you walk from all Muslim blocks to other. They certainly don't
want to become American even in Brooklyn. Why would they want to
assimilate into a European culture? This is one of the more ridiculous
editorials of the Times.
1
If you America think the Refugees are such a boon, why don't doesn't America a take them all?
I would like to see your comments if they did.
I would like to see your comments if they did.
43
frankly, the condescending tone of NYT is getting annoying
and for the record, a chosen, well trained computer engineer may well generate revenues in excess of what he or she costs in various benefits... but there are already hundreds of thousands immigrants in Europe whose lack of education makes them poorly fit in a 21st century, training intensive economy for whom this is certainly not the case.
And for the record again, Denmark is not California, you can't easily employ untrained people picking fruits ...
and for the record, a chosen, well trained computer engineer may well generate revenues in excess of what he or she costs in various benefits... but there are already hundreds of thousands immigrants in Europe whose lack of education makes them poorly fit in a 21st century, training intensive economy for whom this is certainly not the case.
And for the record again, Denmark is not California, you can't easily employ untrained people picking fruits ...
221
It is difficult enough to integrate a population which speaks a common language and has been through The Enlightenment.
I am sure there is some economic benefit to industrial barons living in Swiss chalets somewhere, but I am of German descent, speak German, am Lutheran and found it difficult to blend. Can you imagine someone who locks up their wives and kids and thinks a woman's hair is obscene ever getting it? Delusional, you are.
I am sure there is some economic benefit to industrial barons living in Swiss chalets somewhere, but I am of German descent, speak German, am Lutheran and found it difficult to blend. Can you imagine someone who locks up their wives and kids and thinks a woman's hair is obscene ever getting it? Delusional, you are.
Are the interns writing the editorials today or is the Times being coy? The information in this editorial is at best half-digested. It's based on research on settled immigrant communities that arrived in moderate numbers over a long period of time. Yes, in the long term a moderate influx is beneficial to the immigrants and the host country in most economic conditions. But that's not what we're looking at in Europe today. We're looking at realistic concerns about the near term effects of a large influx of migrants in a very short period of time when host economies are shaky.
And even if the Times is right about this research, what does it mean European nations and the US should do? Should they/we admit all the refugees who want to come? If not, how many and when? That's the issue in dispute and the research cited by the Times doesn't help to resolve it. One has the sense that The Times wants a very liberal immigration policy. If so, why hint about it? Tell us exactly what you recommend.
And even if the Times is right about this research, what does it mean European nations and the US should do? Should they/we admit all the refugees who want to come? If not, how many and when? That's the issue in dispute and the research cited by the Times doesn't help to resolve it. One has the sense that The Times wants a very liberal immigration policy. If so, why hint about it? Tell us exactly what you recommend.
104
Wish I could recommend this twice.
1
While it is no doubt true that the initial surge of immigrants into Europe will have economic benefits fairly quickly and for some time to come, those benefits will fade over time as the immigrants become assimilated, most likely in a very imperfect way if past experience can be a guide, leading to a monumental transformation of European culture and institutions, and not necessarily in a positive way. While I applaud the European countries that display a humanity that most Islamic countries have yet to accede to, I fear they may have unwittingly signed their own death warrants since these immigrants constitute a demographic time bomb that will eventually explode. All we have to do is look to the UK, France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands (to name a handful) at the simmering unrest, often among second and third generations of immigrants. The Europe in the year 2100 will be quite different from the Europe of the year 2015.
45
The American CBO report was written by business interests to justify the importation of foreign scabs. If the majority of illegals were economically useful, Mexico would be demanding they return home rather than shoving them on us. People have the right to control their nation's borders. More is not always better.
105
Another interesting take on Syrian refugees from the NY Times. If these people are all going to bring with them an economic boom, why don't you lead the way and bring a few thousand of them here as NY Times employees? The United States, abetted by your indifferent coverage, with our ham fisted military brinksmanship that has created and is solely responsible for the upheavel that these people are fleeng, is the only nation on earth with a genuine moral obligation to harbor refugees of our US caused war. Leave the Europeans alone, they didn't create this mess, we did.
38
The same argument can, and should, be made here in the US. As a social security beneficiary, I am acutely aware of the immigrants' contribution to my own bottom line. As the grandson of immigrants, I see the welcoming of these new neighbors as payback for my own grandparent's welcome to these golden shores.
6
Yes for US, but Europe is not made of immigrants. It's made of settlers who fought for 2 thousand years to maintain their ethic homogenity - like Japan, which is taking zero immigrants.
1
The real boon to your social security checks would be the complete removal of all income caps on contributions to the system, which would make it solvent in perpetuity. But Congress and Obama and the TIMES would rather persuade you that a few million more low-wage immigrants should do the necessary, rather than ask another dime from people who would never know it had ever been there, let alone miss it.
1
Sorry but illegal aliens do not pay taxes and are therefore not funding your SS payments.
1
The economic benefits being touted for immigration are, if they occur at all, long term while the burdens or costs of caring for the migrants are immediate. Further the studies generally do not deal with massive migration of individuals who come with nothing and surge across a border in the thousands. These golden predictions are similar to the jobs predictions made by the supports of the oil pipe line Canada...overblown and illusion at best but more than likely lies.
If migrants are going to be welcomed, it should be based not on some claim of benefit but with a recognition that the host nation will have to bear significant burdens.
If migrants are going to be welcomed, it should be based not on some claim of benefit but with a recognition that the host nation will have to bear significant burdens.
34
This is an insightful refutation of some contagious misconceptions about the economic effects of immigration to developed nations. However, it leaves at least two crucial questions unaddressed. First, who will facilitate these newcomers' integration into a broader, ostensibly democratic society as citizens, and not merely, as one public official from Erfurt said, as laborers who will "pay the pensions" of an aging Old Continent? Conversely, what measures will be taken to address the resentment and hiring discrimination that Westerners have traditionally shown towards non-European immigrants? Time and again since the 1950s, Western leaders have prided themselves on fostering multicultural "tolerance," yet the changing social geographies of major Western cities show that they have succeeded in spurring fragmentation and segregation along lines of religion, class, and, importantly here, immigrant status. This kind of "tolerance," it seems, is based more on the tense, parallel cohabitation of militarized postindustrial urban space as consumers, producers, and middlemen than on any meaningful membership in a shared public sphere, be it in schools, parks, unions, or parliaments. In the USA, a combination of myopically "growth"-oriented governance and unskilled migration has already led to the "South Africanization" of metropolises like Los Angeles. To be clear, I reject the facile "send them to Saudi Arabia!" mantra, but what will Western leaders do differently this time around?
40
Is fascinates me that the truths you touch on in your comment are so impossibly unacceptable to the media. 12 million+ Latinos were alowed over the border into the US basically to enable a decade of sprawl construction and yard mowing. Period. The sort sightedness of a very small number of greedy (and lazy) Americans has changed the cultural and economic calculus of America forever. If you can't start the narrative on present day immigration in America with that truth then why bother with the discussion at all?
The issue of immigration should be left up to the people of each European country rather than coerce them into action. The disruption that occurs when certain religious cultures refuse to assimilate & demand cultural accommodations including demanding free speech be stifled & viewing women's rights differently.
My husband is of Dutch Indonesian heritage & was among the first wave of immigrants of color to arrive in Holland after Sukarno exiled them after the revolution. The Dutch Indonesians assimilated quickly into society, worked hard & were too proud ever to rely on the generous Dutch social safety net. In fact, my husband & his brother attended Catholic school, excelled & became a prominent dentist & business owner. Then, the various waves that followed included the Turks, Moroccans, Somali & Surinamese who had difficulty assimilating into the homogeneous society & placed a heavy burden on the already extremely overtaxed citizens. Many of the devout Muslims demanded that the tolerant & permissive Dutch should change their society especially after the murder of film director, Theo van Gogh & threats against Somali women's right activist, Ayaan Hirsi Ali. This is too much pressure for such a small country & now the society is full of conflict & increasing crime & stress. Europe is not as big as the US nor as heterogeneous. The countries have long cultural histories & traditions unlike the Us that is connected through pop culture rather than centuries of culture.
My husband is of Dutch Indonesian heritage & was among the first wave of immigrants of color to arrive in Holland after Sukarno exiled them after the revolution. The Dutch Indonesians assimilated quickly into society, worked hard & were too proud ever to rely on the generous Dutch social safety net. In fact, my husband & his brother attended Catholic school, excelled & became a prominent dentist & business owner. Then, the various waves that followed included the Turks, Moroccans, Somali & Surinamese who had difficulty assimilating into the homogeneous society & placed a heavy burden on the already extremely overtaxed citizens. Many of the devout Muslims demanded that the tolerant & permissive Dutch should change their society especially after the murder of film director, Theo van Gogh & threats against Somali women's right activist, Ayaan Hirsi Ali. This is too much pressure for such a small country & now the society is full of conflict & increasing crime & stress. Europe is not as big as the US nor as heterogeneous. The countries have long cultural histories & traditions unlike the Us that is connected through pop culture rather than centuries of culture.
98
Again and again reporters misuse statistics to obfuscate this issue.
The fact that in 20 out of 19 countries (I'd be very interested in the analysis of the outlier country - could be most revealing) immigrants pay more in taxes than draw in benefits does not mean that they benefit the host countries because these statistics do not account for the hidden cost of massive immigration (massive means exceeding the assimilative capacity of the host):
1. The cost of crime especially by 2nd and 3rd immigrant generations, which is significant at least in USA and France.
2. The cost of education that is usually not included in calculating immigrants' benefits.
3. Probably most importantly, the cost of eroding the host culture, which cost is almost impossible to measure, although I'm not sure if anyone's tried.
What history teaches us is that Roman slaves were a huge economic asset until they destroyed that civilization and plunged it into the dark ages. Btw, many if not a majority of those slave had been freed by the time of that carnage.
Besides, there's a much better and safer way to benefit from those people's labor - guest worker visas. All the gulf countries, Russia, Singapore, etc have figured that out long ago. Look at Dubai to see what guest workers are capable of.
The fact that in 20 out of 19 countries (I'd be very interested in the analysis of the outlier country - could be most revealing) immigrants pay more in taxes than draw in benefits does not mean that they benefit the host countries because these statistics do not account for the hidden cost of massive immigration (massive means exceeding the assimilative capacity of the host):
1. The cost of crime especially by 2nd and 3rd immigrant generations, which is significant at least in USA and France.
2. The cost of education that is usually not included in calculating immigrants' benefits.
3. Probably most importantly, the cost of eroding the host culture, which cost is almost impossible to measure, although I'm not sure if anyone's tried.
What history teaches us is that Roman slaves were a huge economic asset until they destroyed that civilization and plunged it into the dark ages. Btw, many if not a majority of those slave had been freed by the time of that carnage.
Besides, there's a much better and safer way to benefit from those people's labor - guest worker visas. All the gulf countries, Russia, Singapore, etc have figured that out long ago. Look at Dubai to see what guest workers are capable of.
54
Yes, I'm sure you're right.
The unemployable, uneducated, unskilled, undisciplined, unruly, unmarried, and uninterested in the rule of law hordes are going to be as valuable as diamonds.
Surely these Muslim mobs will be more eager than anyone imagined to abandon their eighth century religious beliefs and primitive tribal associations in order to completely assimilate into the various European cultures they are violently demanding access to.
And most optimistically, surely there is not a single ISIS or Al Quaeda plant or cell in the entire lot, so we won't ever have to worry about any terror attacks resulting from this completely chaotic rush over Europe's borders.
What could possibly go wrong?
The unemployable, uneducated, unskilled, undisciplined, unruly, unmarried, and uninterested in the rule of law hordes are going to be as valuable as diamonds.
Surely these Muslim mobs will be more eager than anyone imagined to abandon their eighth century religious beliefs and primitive tribal associations in order to completely assimilate into the various European cultures they are violently demanding access to.
And most optimistically, surely there is not a single ISIS or Al Quaeda plant or cell in the entire lot, so we won't ever have to worry about any terror attacks resulting from this completely chaotic rush over Europe's borders.
What could possibly go wrong?
289
"The less skilled often take jobs that are hard to fill". Sometimes because of low pay. This is a good thing? Low-paying jobs contribute to higher poverty levels.
31
NYT states: "The less skilled often take jobs that are hard to fill"
Those jobs that are hard to fill because they don't pay enough. Why doesn't the NYT recommend that the employers raise the wage? Our own chronically unemployed or underemployed would be happy to fill them.
Those jobs that are hard to fill because they don't pay enough. Why doesn't the NYT recommend that the employers raise the wage? Our own chronically unemployed or underemployed would be happy to fill them.
"Immigrants generally pay more in taxes than they claim in government benefits."
Come and spend some time in California, where billions in taxpayer money is spent yearly on health care and education and ID cards and welfare and food stamps benefits, not to mention prison facilities, all of it on people who have no permission to be here.
Additionally, the low end of the labor market is severely depressed, and those millions working off the books because they are getting less than minimum wage aren't paying taxes at all. Yet they all send their children to public schools, and use the emergency medical system as their personal doctors at incredible expense to the rest of us.
And no, the solution is NOT to just open the floodgates and make them ALL citizens. That way lies madness. Remember, Reagan gave amnesty to five million, and now there are fifteen million more. If we do it again, in twenty years there will be 100 million.
Come and spend some time in California, where billions in taxpayer money is spent yearly on health care and education and ID cards and welfare and food stamps benefits, not to mention prison facilities, all of it on people who have no permission to be here.
Additionally, the low end of the labor market is severely depressed, and those millions working off the books because they are getting less than minimum wage aren't paying taxes at all. Yet they all send their children to public schools, and use the emergency medical system as their personal doctors at incredible expense to the rest of us.
And no, the solution is NOT to just open the floodgates and make them ALL citizens. That way lies madness. Remember, Reagan gave amnesty to five million, and now there are fifteen million more. If we do it again, in twenty years there will be 100 million.
75
Refugees and migrants are two different groups. The majority of those entering Europe are economic migrants, not refugees. Why else would they be unhappy with random placement in countries and instead fighting for placement in areas with the most generous welfare programs (Germany, Sweden, etc.) If they were refugees, they would be happy when they first hit Turkey and other areas in which they were finally safe.
Economic migrants benefit a country when they assimilate and add to the overall diversity and productivity. These groups tend to not assimilate, and tend to impose their culture. Anti-women's rights, hypermasculine, anti-religious freedom, etc. Basically, the antithesis of what western Europe believes in.
In addition, this diaspora of "refugees" contain within them ISIS and Assad factions that may cause significant damage to the local populations. Even if they are not affiliated with these factions, large groups of young, working age men with little hope for economic gain may tend to cause issues, especially in countries with already weak economies.
If I were Europe, I would tread carefully, and determine what is most important for the good will of the country as a whole in 10, 20, 30 years.
Economic migrants benefit a country when they assimilate and add to the overall diversity and productivity. These groups tend to not assimilate, and tend to impose their culture. Anti-women's rights, hypermasculine, anti-religious freedom, etc. Basically, the antithesis of what western Europe believes in.
In addition, this diaspora of "refugees" contain within them ISIS and Assad factions that may cause significant damage to the local populations. Even if they are not affiliated with these factions, large groups of young, working age men with little hope for economic gain may tend to cause issues, especially in countries with already weak economies.
If I were Europe, I would tread carefully, and determine what is most important for the good will of the country as a whole in 10, 20, 30 years.
38
I sometimes wonder if the NYT editorial board reads the stuff they write. Europe isn't the USA, they don't have a strong immigrant underpinning. In American everyone who isn't a native American has to acknowledge if they go far enough back they are children of immigrants. European countries each define themselves with a common language and typically go back centuries. When countries are build without regard for those commonalities you get a place like Yugoslavia. Which once looked pretty stable but ultimately was a ticking time bomb. To think these countries can comfortably absorb vast numbers of people with different languages, a different religion and an unclear level of commitment to socializing into these societies is absurd. The issues places like France are already having with their significant Muslim minority only adds to the concerns. The answer is to try to fix the countries the refugees are fleeing which is a major undertaking but not a big as trying to resettle half the population of Syria.
67
The first report referred to in your article was probably underwritten by the government, but cannot be read without a payment.
Another one of the reports says that a quarter of the Europeans moving to Britain since 2000 had a university degree paid for by their country of origin. This is a stark contrast to our illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America as the overwhelming majority of them have no more than a primary school education taught by rural teachers who either inherited or purchased their positions. Some of the illegal immigrants have never been to school at all, and so cannot read or write even in their native Spanish or Mayan language, let alone in English.
The 2013 Congressional Budget Office Report predicts that if the illegal immigrants are given legal status, that unemployment will rise through 2020 and average wages will decrease until 2025.
Another one of the reports says that a quarter of the Europeans moving to Britain since 2000 had a university degree paid for by their country of origin. This is a stark contrast to our illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America as the overwhelming majority of them have no more than a primary school education taught by rural teachers who either inherited or purchased their positions. Some of the illegal immigrants have never been to school at all, and so cannot read or write even in their native Spanish or Mayan language, let alone in English.
The 2013 Congressional Budget Office Report predicts that if the illegal immigrants are given legal status, that unemployment will rise through 2020 and average wages will decrease until 2025.
26
I'm sorry but I find it hard to believe that any rational human could suggest to the poor, working class and middle class humans in Europe that tens of thousands of migrants will be anything less that a burden. Most of the people now screaming for unlimited reception of the migrants won't have to give up their housing benefits or unemployment or access to health care to accommodate them. Why because they live in beautiful houses or flats with regular pay checks or big stock portfolios.
No one wants to deal with the negatives of this crisis. But there are negatives that will be visited on those who are ill equipped to carry them. But who cares the elite can now feel superior.
No one wants to deal with the negatives of this crisis. But there are negatives that will be visited on those who are ill equipped to carry them. But who cares the elite can now feel superior.
56
Skilled immigrants can be a boon. Millions of unskilled Muslims with large families and a sexist belief system that denies women their potential are hardly likely to be anything but a burden.
202
The ignorance emanating from this editorial is breathtaking. As if the amount of taxes potentially paid were the only factors here. Not even a mention of the huge potential risks associated with immigration by millions of people who are up to 20% analphabets, come from war-ravaged countries and mostly follow a strict form of islam.
Our goal shouldn't be to raise our GDP. I'm totally fine with declining population in my country. The number of humans should decline everywhere, that is the only real answer to climate change and environmental degradation. And I don't need our 'decline' filled up with desperate people from other continents for economic reasons, thank you very much.
Our goal shouldn't be to raise our GDP. I'm totally fine with declining population in my country. The number of humans should decline everywhere, that is the only real answer to climate change and environmental degradation. And I don't need our 'decline' filled up with desperate people from other continents for economic reasons, thank you very much.
88
Would the NYT Editorial Board take on hundreds of new unskilled, uneducated journalists, and pay them a weekly salary, until one may, with some will and a lot of luck become a real attribute o the newspaper? That's precisely what it is ;lecturing the E.U to do at a time when Globalism has decimated many economies of democracies in the west, countries that barely know how to keep their own citizens working, much less take on more. Let the rich Muslim countries take the refugees. Why is it always on the West to rescue the world to only be told ungratefully I might add, to stop medalling. No one is advocating xenophobia. I feel deeply for the plight of any person in such tragic circumstances. Yet, is it wrong to truthfully examine why these events are happening? Religion and the violent and inhumane behavior it cultivates, seems to be topical here yet no one will say it. Blame the west is always the easy way out.
395
Yes, one does need to truthfully examine why these events are happening, and its fairly clear, but that won't solve the immediate crisis in the here and now. In examining the root causes, however, I often ask myself - and haven't yet found a convincing answer - whether religion is a root cause or a tool in the hands of malicious people who corrupt it for their own purposes.
It seems you didn't read the article. By taking in migrants, many countries stand to rescue themselves as much as the newcomers. Simple facts, yet too difficult to grasp for many here it seems. Why the naked fear, I wonder?
Given that the NYT Editorial Board is perennially writing about how illegal aliens in the US should be given amnesty or better, it's not surprising that they'e equally generous in advising Europe to do the same.
Yes, Europe does see migrants as a burden because Europeans have to bear the expense of sheltering, feeding, and educating millions people - who really have no desire to become European (particularly: equal rights for all). Yes, Including a group of people into your society whose religious views -either implicitly or explicitly - place women and anyone from the LGBT community - as
less than - does create a burden.
less than - does create a burden.
38
Of course the studies are based on orderly immigration, which is routinely quota based on criteria, education and a country's needs. This is quite different. The root cause is in Syria, where our foreign policies and red lines are non existant.
19
"A working paper published last year by four economists found that immigration benefited local populations in 19 of the 20 industrialized countries they studied."
"Immigrants can be particularly important for countries like Germany that have low birthrates and aging populations."
The persistence of stereotypes and myths concerning immigration--and other issues as well--is really pretty amazing given the ready availability of studies. Why is it that when it comes to issues that bring out the worst in people--fear and hatred of foreigners, people's fears they will be economically hurt by immigrants---it's impossible to change minds even when data is pushed right under their noses.
I suspect it's because fear always seems to triumph reason. I've heard many times that fear can be lumped into 2 main buckets: fear of losing something you have and fear of not getting what you want. Right now, European fear is at an all-time high because of the sheer physical volume of people trying to knock down border walls. In the US, citizen fear is being stoked by cowardly politicians who have kicked this can down the road for far too long.
Trying to prove the win-win of situations that simply cause fear requires a heavy dose of education. But even more important, a heavy dose of resolve to follow moral imperatives, as well as the realization that but for happenstance, we could be the ones fleeing tyranny and trying to make a better life for our families.
"Immigrants can be particularly important for countries like Germany that have low birthrates and aging populations."
The persistence of stereotypes and myths concerning immigration--and other issues as well--is really pretty amazing given the ready availability of studies. Why is it that when it comes to issues that bring out the worst in people--fear and hatred of foreigners, people's fears they will be economically hurt by immigrants---it's impossible to change minds even when data is pushed right under their noses.
I suspect it's because fear always seems to triumph reason. I've heard many times that fear can be lumped into 2 main buckets: fear of losing something you have and fear of not getting what you want. Right now, European fear is at an all-time high because of the sheer physical volume of people trying to knock down border walls. In the US, citizen fear is being stoked by cowardly politicians who have kicked this can down the road for far too long.
Trying to prove the win-win of situations that simply cause fear requires a heavy dose of education. But even more important, a heavy dose of resolve to follow moral imperatives, as well as the realization that but for happenstance, we could be the ones fleeing tyranny and trying to make a better life for our families.
4
"A working paper ... found that immigration benefited local populations in 19 of the 20 industrialized countries they studied."
As I have described in another comment, the data presented in that paper is based on a model which is too simplistic, and the numbers are too close to zero to allow any meaningful conclusions.
A relevant policy needs to rely on numbers that are valid from a scientific point of view, not on "wishful thinking" numbers.
As I have described in another comment, the data presented in that paper is based on a model which is too simplistic, and the numbers are too close to zero to allow any meaningful conclusions.
A relevant policy needs to rely on numbers that are valid from a scientific point of view, not on "wishful thinking" numbers.
5
Or maybe . . . maybe . . . the people in the countries where you don't live know that these papers represent shallow statistics by ivory tower academics that don't actually represent those peoples' experience?
11
Right on MS. RENANT: You summed up the problem so well and so succinctly.
Once again, you conflate those who immigrate legally with those who do so illegally.
Legal immigrants are filtered by the host country, which chooses those who are healthier, stronger, and smarter than the natives. As you would expect, they use social services less often than natives, and do more work. They are a boon to the economy.
Illegal immigrants typically include a mixture of hard-working but uneducated people who are net contributors until their children enter school, at which point they become expensive, and benefits seekers who are expensive from the very beginning. Studies sometimes obscure this by ignoring the costs of their children on the basis that their children are citizens. But this is invalid and the children and grandchildren of uneducated migrants are usually net recipients of public funds, and much less happy to take the less desirable jobs that the original immigrant parent or grandparent was glad to have.
Legal immigrants are filtered by the host country, which chooses those who are healthier, stronger, and smarter than the natives. As you would expect, they use social services less often than natives, and do more work. They are a boon to the economy.
Illegal immigrants typically include a mixture of hard-working but uneducated people who are net contributors until their children enter school, at which point they become expensive, and benefits seekers who are expensive from the very beginning. Studies sometimes obscure this by ignoring the costs of their children on the basis that their children are citizens. But this is invalid and the children and grandchildren of uneducated migrants are usually net recipients of public funds, and much less happy to take the less desirable jobs that the original immigrant parent or grandparent was glad to have.
35
The two economist cited here calculate the costs of education in the UK, and apply it to immigrants as if the education in their home country was the same. By that logic, the UK should simply eliminate their own education system. What a boon that would be.
We can see right through your agenda, NY Times.
We can see right through your agenda, NY Times.
39
This discussion of migrants focuses solely on the economic consequences. Allow that to be true (although it's debatable in the European context). What is overlooked, though, is the cultural dimension. Uncontrolled immigration to England, France and Germany have brought deep changes to the cultural life and values of those countries. England is very different to the country I grew up in in the '50s and '60s; France has changed so much that it can feel a parody of itself. The elephant in room is that the migrants don't share a Judeo-Christian world view, by and large, and that they have little intention or desire to integrate or assimilate.
42
The "refugees" are mostly single men, or married men who have left their wives and children behind. They are coming to Europe for economic reasons, not political reason and not for fear of their lives. Many want to go to Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden because of their generous welfare benefits. Many, like many who have come before them, have absolutely no intention of assimilating into a secular society. Some are radicals who wish to bring Islam to Europe, and a few of these radicals are Jihadi terrorists.
These are not the types of "refugees" most Europeans are welcoming with open arms. And I cannot blame the in the least.
These are not the types of "refugees" most Europeans are welcoming with open arms. And I cannot blame the in the least.
77
Has the editorial board ever been to a norther European city? Unlike America where Latino immigrants work impossible hard jobs for low wages to provide the families with a better life - here hundreds of thousands of migrants support their families on generous government benefits while refusing to work the unskilled job opportunities that are available to newcomers with no local language skills. Being a welfare state - we continue to pay the family benefits and naively hope they will take the employment opportunities that are available and offered. The sink or swim system in America is much better at assimilating migrants. Why do you think these migrants are "fleeing" Turkey for Germany and Sweden? Good news travels fast.
232
The USA is a country familiar with immigration. We occasionally have "issues" when numbers become large ... be it a particular population or area .... this happened with the Irish and the Italians .. and somewhat less to the germans in the mid 1800's..
Europe has almost no history of immigration .. and what they have experienced has not gone well. I frequently travel to Germany -- Munich in particular. They don't like the the current influx of UAE residents fleeing the heat of the middle east -- and they are paying! This is not going to end well -- I don't think people understand the homogenous nature of the place. It's not going to work in Italy or Austria either -- it's not London.
I'm Irish BTW
Europe has almost no history of immigration .. and what they have experienced has not gone well. I frequently travel to Germany -- Munich in particular. They don't like the the current influx of UAE residents fleeing the heat of the middle east -- and they are paying! This is not going to end well -- I don't think people understand the homogenous nature of the place. It's not going to work in Italy or Austria either -- it's not London.
I'm Irish BTW
27
Well said. Immigrants, especially the one's brave and young enough to tolerate initial discrimination and hardship, do become the force to transform the receiving country for the better. Xenophobia is shortsided and scapegoating, especially when nativists refuse to undertake difficult jobs (in farming, construction, slaughterhouses, nursing homes, restaurants, hotels, etc) and untold menial activities that allow those better educated to pursue higher aims. Germany seems to be one of the few that is fully cognizant of immigrant's intrinsic value, and an assurance of a brighter future. The U.S., with republican 'help', is shooting its own foot, with a pitiful behavior countering diversity and inclusion...and greatness.
1
Allowing large number of immigrants in to do menial jobs also means that the country has to spend huge amounts of money on welfare benefits to its native low-skill folks -- who could do those menial jobs if they weren't routinely filled by immigrants.
The fact of the matter is that immigration is good for corporations that employ cheap immigrant labor, but not for the country's middle-class taxpayers or the poor who would be able to negotiate higher wages if immigrants were not undercutting them.
The fact of the matter is that immigration is good for corporations that employ cheap immigrant labor, but not for the country's middle-class taxpayers or the poor who would be able to negotiate higher wages if immigrants were not undercutting them.
This is pure rubbish. How is Germany spending 6 billion on immigrants helping Germany? They will never recoup these costs. USA Today just published a report last week that showed more than 50% of immigrants in the USA are on Welfare: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-u....
These are facts, not groundless assumptions that importing more low-skilled workers is going to be good for the host country.
Germany's lower birthrate is not a problem, with a smaller population, more of the wealth will now be concentrated in fewer people. German citizens will actually become richer on a per capita basis. In fact, populations should be decreasing now that society is entering the technological age where machines and automation can do most of the work and less people are needed, not more!
What Europe's countries need to do is protect their borders, their cultures, their heritage, and their people from the destabilization caused by mass immigration or else Europe will turn into the foreign countries the immigrants are fleeing.
These are facts, not groundless assumptions that importing more low-skilled workers is going to be good for the host country.
Germany's lower birthrate is not a problem, with a smaller population, more of the wealth will now be concentrated in fewer people. German citizens will actually become richer on a per capita basis. In fact, populations should be decreasing now that society is entering the technological age where machines and automation can do most of the work and less people are needed, not more!
What Europe's countries need to do is protect their borders, their cultures, their heritage, and their people from the destabilization caused by mass immigration or else Europe will turn into the foreign countries the immigrants are fleeing.
100
Excellent arguments and reasoning. If only the NYT would hire someone like you to write the editorials.
This is I'm afraid is a fallacy and underplays the stresses already existing in our countries due over populated schools which have to cater to multiple languages and to our health services which are already groaning under the weight of demand. Add to that mix uneducated young Muslim men whose work ethic is questionable and I believe we are creating an explosive mix. Longer term the change to our societies as a result of a failure to integrate will create insurmountable problems as we already see. No, the answer is to provide temporary help in a safe environment so that ultimately those people can return to their home. Enough of the bleeding hearts and lack of basic common sense.
61
I do not think that people are simply only concerned about the economic benefits of a mass migration of Islamic immigrants...
These new immigrants have a different set of cultural values and intolerant to many ideals of western civilization.
Currently 60 to 70 percent of inmates in France's prison are Muslim...
In Germany, Muslims are four times as likely to be receiving welfare as non Mulsims...
Although mass migration may help large businesses, does this benefit the people?
These new immigrants have a different set of cultural values and intolerant to many ideals of western civilization.
Currently 60 to 70 percent of inmates in France's prison are Muslim...
In Germany, Muslims are four times as likely to be receiving welfare as non Mulsims...
Although mass migration may help large businesses, does this benefit the people?
58
Dear Editorial Board:
Please take off your Polyanna glasses already!
Do you really believe that some obscure, unnamed “numerous studies” by think-tanks with vested interested or by nerdy scholars who only understand Europe in numbers, could ever know better that each EU sovereign state and its people? How arrogant!
Your insistence on this is preposterous and ignores the FACTS, and how the Muslim immigration failed to assimilate in Europe.
Once upon a time, when Times was a better newspaper, the studies about immigration (EU? American?) Big difference!) you quoted would have been named.
If EU will face a decline of population, each country can open the borders to European countries outside the EU, such as Ukraine, where they can find a pool of ethnically, culturally and religiously well-educated people, not import Middle East and its troubles.
If Arabs were the industrious people you claim, they would have been a boon to their own Middle East, Instead, they destroyed it.
More: Refugees claim a free apt, job, monthly well-fare, free education and healthcare, plus the right to bring in the wife, 5 children, and all the in-laws to whom each beleaguered EU tax payers must pay. In return, they bring radical jihadism, backwards views, hatred of free women,Jews, Catholics, Gays, a desire to outnumber the host country and to reinstall Sharia Law.
Please stop pretending you know better than each European country and citizen and stop pushing the EU toward suicide.
Please take off your Polyanna glasses already!
Do you really believe that some obscure, unnamed “numerous studies” by think-tanks with vested interested or by nerdy scholars who only understand Europe in numbers, could ever know better that each EU sovereign state and its people? How arrogant!
Your insistence on this is preposterous and ignores the FACTS, and how the Muslim immigration failed to assimilate in Europe.
Once upon a time, when Times was a better newspaper, the studies about immigration (EU? American?) Big difference!) you quoted would have been named.
If EU will face a decline of population, each country can open the borders to European countries outside the EU, such as Ukraine, where they can find a pool of ethnically, culturally and religiously well-educated people, not import Middle East and its troubles.
If Arabs were the industrious people you claim, they would have been a boon to their own Middle East, Instead, they destroyed it.
More: Refugees claim a free apt, job, monthly well-fare, free education and healthcare, plus the right to bring in the wife, 5 children, and all the in-laws to whom each beleaguered EU tax payers must pay. In return, they bring radical jihadism, backwards views, hatred of free women,Jews, Catholics, Gays, a desire to outnumber the host country and to reinstall Sharia Law.
Please stop pretending you know better than each European country and citizen and stop pushing the EU toward suicide.
316
Beautiful. Spot on. Go visit Minneapolis some time and make an effort to research the experiences of two group that emmigrated there in mass: the Hmong tribes people from Vietnam and the Somalis. From the beginning, the Hmong - as culturally alien and any people who ever entered America - were industrious and enterprizing, seeking to assimilate with vigor and enhtusiasm. Hmong never populated the welfare roll - that would have shamed them. Today they are a proud asset to the region. The Somalis? take a guess.
I don't know....a featured story today in the Guardian newspaper online (U.K) reads: "Munich fears migrants and beer hunters may not mix well at Oktoberfest". This is not just about people being able to get jobs and contribute to the economy - this is about the clash of two cultures that are really unreconcilable.
43
The studies referenced in this article may all be true; immigration bolsters growth. However this article only references the conclusion arrived at by these studies. It is disingenuous to continue to claim that immigration is a boon for countries without examining the controlled naturalization process many countries use to ensure immigrants are assimilated into their society.
Refugee crises surely cannot be conflated to the controlled immigration these studies reference. How can one take the Editorial Board's opinion seriously when, instead of posing a humanitarian viewpoint, the Board attempts to cite studies on controlled immigration and apply them to a refugee crisis.
When an individual immigrates to the U.S. (for example) they must endure an arduous naturalization process. This process essentially forces them to be sponsored by an employer (if working) and motivates them to engage in socially productive behavior in order to become a citizen. Taking this into account, I for one, can see how someone immigrating (LEGALLY) to the U.S. would be motivated to find and keep work, pay taxes, and assimilate into society.
With all of that said, this isn't immigration. This is a refugee crisis spurred by civil war throughout Syria and ISIS in Iraq. This is a crisis that occurred while Obama "drew a red line" and called ISIS a "JV-team". This is a crisis that the U.S. actually supported in Syria via CIA weapons and cash paid to rebel fighters. This is not immigration
Refugee crises surely cannot be conflated to the controlled immigration these studies reference. How can one take the Editorial Board's opinion seriously when, instead of posing a humanitarian viewpoint, the Board attempts to cite studies on controlled immigration and apply them to a refugee crisis.
When an individual immigrates to the U.S. (for example) they must endure an arduous naturalization process. This process essentially forces them to be sponsored by an employer (if working) and motivates them to engage in socially productive behavior in order to become a citizen. Taking this into account, I for one, can see how someone immigrating (LEGALLY) to the U.S. would be motivated to find and keep work, pay taxes, and assimilate into society.
With all of that said, this isn't immigration. This is a refugee crisis spurred by civil war throughout Syria and ISIS in Iraq. This is a crisis that occurred while Obama "drew a red line" and called ISIS a "JV-team". This is a crisis that the U.S. actually supported in Syria via CIA weapons and cash paid to rebel fighters. This is not immigration
16
Mass immigration certainly looks sexy on the spread sheets of multi-national corporations and tax collectors but there is a huge cultural and cost when millions of Muslims begin to embed themselves within secular Judeo-Christian nations. There is also an terrible environmental cost associated with endless population growth. Europe should take care of its own poor and dispossessed (of which there are millions) before acting as a safety valve for the failures of Africa and the Middle East. This editorial should be directed at the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Dubai.
482
When these refugees are assimilated (assuming that us "Western Powers" keep our policy of destroying their homelands)
No big deal. It happens all the time.
I live in the middle of the USA. My city has oodles of Hmong and Soomali.
No problem.
Oh, and when these refugees have safe place to live - they don't "breed like cockroaches" anymore.
So there. Fact.
All you paranoid "homelanders" -- get real.
No big deal. It happens all the time.
I live in the middle of the USA. My city has oodles of Hmong and Soomali.
No problem.
Oh, and when these refugees have safe place to live - they don't "breed like cockroaches" anymore.
So there. Fact.
All you paranoid "homelanders" -- get real.
But these demands will never be made of Suaid Arabia or the UAE or any other Islamic country. The princes of Saudi Arabia (and other Arab) never have to do anything except sit and collect money. They travel to the West and flaunt our laws and try to intimidate local residents and in many cases buy up limited housing while funding terrorism at home. They use the struggles of their Poole as weapons agains the west. I'm sick of it.
By the way today there is an opinion piece in this very newspaper that makes it clear that the migrants aren't refugees. They demand not safety but the ex conic benefits of Germany or the UK. Safety is not their goal. They will quite literally bleed the Western nations dry and complain when they don't get enough...money, benefits, housing, " jobs" , accommodation or "respect". They will make it difficult for host nations to enjoy their own cultural traditions....German officials are afraid of how Muslim migrants will react to beer drinking Germans at Octoberfest. It is time for the ME to take care of its people and stop the sectarian wars.
By the way today there is an opinion piece in this very newspaper that makes it clear that the migrants aren't refugees. They demand not safety but the ex conic benefits of Germany or the UK. Safety is not their goal. They will quite literally bleed the Western nations dry and complain when they don't get enough...money, benefits, housing, " jobs" , accommodation or "respect". They will make it difficult for host nations to enjoy their own cultural traditions....German officials are afraid of how Muslim migrants will react to beer drinking Germans at Octoberfest. It is time for the ME to take care of its people and stop the sectarian wars.
2
There is so much wrong information in this reply that it impossible to address it all in my reply. My only question to the writer is when, and for how long, have you been to Europe. I spend a lot of time there and find most of your statements and descriptions right out of Fox news. Go there, see it, stay and observe, and you will find that all of your assumptions are wrong, all of them.
"In Britain, for example, immigrants from the rest of Europe pay more in taxes than they receive in government benefits, according to an analysis by two economists."
Ok. Now exactly WHICH immigrants of that totality pay more in taxes?
Ok. Now exactly WHICH immigrants of that totality pay more in taxes?
32
And as it happens, the EU workers are for the most part not "immigrants" but migrants who aren't seeking citizenship, but instead due to the EU's "free movement of people" go to the UK, get jobs, and send millions of pounds back home to Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, and Romania. There is a difference between a lone Polish construction worker who has come to the UK to work and send benefits money back home, and a true immigrant. Conflating the two is disingenuous.
2
NYTimes is conflating issues in its race to the bottom with the Guardian. There is a difference between legal and illegal immigrants. There is even a greater difference between illegals in the US, who would, if given opportunity, be very happy to register and become legal, and the Muslim invaders in the EU who refuse to respect the laws even when that would benefit them.
I don't see how violent migrants who are attacking the police before even entering a country are going to benefit any society let alone the one that's based on law. These people break the laws just for the sake of breaking them - they can easily enter the EU legally but refuse to do so! Slovenia is the latest example of a state that allows the migrants to freely move on to Austria or stay in the country legally with all the help provided. But apparently honoring the laws of the infidel countries is bellow these war-like young men. They want to be illegal.
I don't see how violent migrants who are attacking the police before even entering a country are going to benefit any society let alone the one that's based on law. These people break the laws just for the sake of breaking them - they can easily enter the EU legally but refuse to do so! Slovenia is the latest example of a state that allows the migrants to freely move on to Austria or stay in the country legally with all the help provided. But apparently honoring the laws of the infidel countries is bellow these war-like young men. They want to be illegal.
89
If refugees are such a boon, why don't we bring all of them here?
13
This refugee crisis created by Obama and Hillary Clinton is now being foisted upon Europe. Solutions are needed ... not excuses from the Times editorial board hoping to shed a positive light on the greatest humanitarian disaster of this millennium.. Most readers are simply not dumb enough to believe the editorial board that this refugee crisis is such a great gain to the countries that take these people in and will create high wage jobs for the currently unemployed in those countries. New York Times readers may be ill-informed, but they are not stupid enough to believe such rancid slop.
23
Mass immigration is very good for the billionaire class by driving up the supply of labor and thus driving down its price. Why billionaires deserve this special favor is unexplained, however.
35
"Even a large influx of immigrants does not mean fewer jobs for the existing population, since economies do not have a finite number of jobs." No but for Sweden, which takes mainly refugees, this means importing unemployment since the vast majority of them are unskilled whereas Sweden's economy requires mainly skilled labor. So instead we are importing unemployment that is life long for a lot of these people and, given Sweden's very generous welfare, life long unemployment benefits. So instead of supporting an ageing population we now have to also support unemployed refugees. Then add the cost of increased crime rates and health care... It is not sustainable. It is a lie to think that it is economically beneficial for any European country to take on tens of thousands, if not millions, of asylum seekers per year when unskilled Europeans can not even get employment. Where is my source? Tino Sanandaji at Stockholm School of Economics. Check his blog for data.
78
As usual the whole commentary is misguided. We are not talking about migrants who aspire to join a culture because they admire it. These migrants...NOT REFUGEES...should not be confused the garden-variety immigrant who move because they dream of a better place and a society which is better than what they are escaping. No, these migrants will recreate the world they left behind to the detriment of the hosts. This has nothing to do with any study which says immigrants are a net gain for the host in terms of economics. The issue is obvious and clear: they are not so much a threat to our economy but to our very existence as a free culture. The Koran does not tolerate pluralism. The Editorial Board is like Merkel et al...blinded by their political correctness and protected behind their elitist enclaves.
Again, Europe has enough unemployed that they could bring those from Greece, etc to Germany or Sweden. This is the reason behind the EU and open INTERNAL borders to facilitate the free movement of EU citizens and residents, not foreigners with no investment in the project.
Again, Europe has enough unemployed that they could bring those from Greece, etc to Germany or Sweden. This is the reason behind the EU and open INTERNAL borders to facilitate the free movement of EU citizens and residents, not foreigners with no investment in the project.
187
That is also the reason why we should think about ways to encourage and implement immigration from the West to the underdeveloped countries. Its citizens would not only bring the skills still needed in those countries, but also help bridge the cultural divide and inject some excitement and competition. Tourism alone has never been enough to cement influence and understanding of each others way of life, thinking and expectations. There are many industries in North Africa and the Middle east that need the experience and the know how of western workers. We could spur the lack or under investment in many industries from the governments and the private capital by this new influx of skilled and experienced workers. Please note, that as new skills are required in the West to make a decent living, that other part of the world still lack the skills of the past century to propel it to the new world. Many people would think this is a joke, but as an immigrant myself, i do know this would work for sure if Governments have the will to consider it and make it work. North Africa and many parts of the Middle east would be better off just like Northern Europe with far less homogeneous nations. Think about it.
37
As for the middle eastern countries, I can only imagine what immigration rules might look like: convert to the state religion, no gays allowed, women must wear head to toe body covering, and no education for girls.
1
In theory your ideas make perfect sense. Yes, of course, under-developed countries everywhere could benefit from an influx of not just western money (tourism) and ideas, but from an actual presence of re-located western population who would bring refreshing and innovative ideas, etc first hand.
The problem is that many of the leaders of the countries you refer too - particularly in the mideast - do not want their populations exposed to new ideas of any kind, economic or cultural. Same goes for many of the people who freely an willingly embrace an insular 14th century culture & religion that makes intercourse with the west very difficult, even dangerous. For both parties. Seriously Hisham, who wants to be beheaded on Youtube?
The problem is that many of the leaders of the countries you refer too - particularly in the mideast - do not want their populations exposed to new ideas of any kind, economic or cultural. Same goes for many of the people who freely an willingly embrace an insular 14th century culture & religion that makes intercourse with the west very difficult, even dangerous. For both parties. Seriously Hisham, who wants to be beheaded on Youtube?
So far it doesn't seem that the people of the Middle East and North Africa would welcome westerners who've come to live with them. Many highly skilled and motivated workers would not even be let into their countries simply because they are not Muslim. Some westerners are members of an ancient religion that aren't even accepted as tourists.
In the 1980's Michael Milliken had the insight that junk bonds provided a higher yield than regular bonds, even allowing for their default rate.
What was true of the junk-bond market in the past did not hold true however, if the volume was upped by a multiple factor.
The same principle applies to immigration. Assimilating groups of immigrants and integrating them is much more manageable when when the numbers align with historical numbers. The absorptive capacity of any society has its limits - it is not the case that such a society is uncaring. Just realistic.
What was true of the junk-bond market in the past did not hold true however, if the volume was upped by a multiple factor.
The same principle applies to immigration. Assimilating groups of immigrants and integrating them is much more manageable when when the numbers align with historical numbers. The absorptive capacity of any society has its limits - it is not the case that such a society is uncaring. Just realistic.
12
If the world weren't overpopulated with people and if Islam weren't incompatible with Western values, then I'd agree with the NYTs editorial board. But neither of the two things I mentioned is the case. If we don't hold people accountable for their reckless reproducing or for their antiquated, backwards ideologies, how else will they learn?
67
And human beings are pretty fungible, anyway - culture is really just a surface phenomenon, and in fact, in Western societies, is often little more than a repository of excuses for the abuse of others.
Plus, like the Times editorial board, I don't actually live in Europe, so what's to worry?
Plus, like the Times editorial board, I don't actually live in Europe, so what's to worry?
10
This editorial is so disingenuous I can't take it seriously.
186
This is a disingenuous editorial. Allowing in vetted documented refugees may be good both economically and socially- but the current Middle Eastern diaspora to Europe is unfiltered and is overcoming any security measures. I favor liberal immigration in our country- but the border has to be controlled so we know who is coming in and where they reside. The NYT and Obama administration obviously favor no accountability for migrants either here or in Europe.
99
Nothing that is uncontrollable is a boon.
43
This is roughly the same argument that Lindsey Graham used in favor of legal immigration and its benefits on Social Security during the second debate. Problem is no one is behind him. Problem is the physical onslaught of so many people scares people.
Being told that, "some local workers earned higher wages" is not going to quell the fear that a) that might not happen and b) their culture will be trampled while the promised economic benefit is not coming to fruition.
These people had a home, and it's been a long time since ISIS actually carved out a caliphate from it. They didn't just make threats and create terror, they seized the land. How the superpowers that could've done something let that happen, is the greatest failure of power of our time. And, in light of that, economic lectures just don't cut it.
Being told that, "some local workers earned higher wages" is not going to quell the fear that a) that might not happen and b) their culture will be trampled while the promised economic benefit is not coming to fruition.
These people had a home, and it's been a long time since ISIS actually carved out a caliphate from it. They didn't just make threats and create terror, they seized the land. How the superpowers that could've done something let that happen, is the greatest failure of power of our time. And, in light of that, economic lectures just don't cut it.
6
We have more to fear from right-wing nationalists, who oppose immigration on economic grounds, and who insist on maintaining racial, ethnic, and religious purity, than we do from immigrants.
Sherry, what makes you think that immigrants cannot be as bad as home-grown right-wing nationalists? Have you ever heard of jihadists? Frankly, if I had to choose one group or the other to move into my neighborhood, I'd feel safer with the nationalists.
Here is Boston, 3 innocent people (including a child) were savagely killed, in a most gruesome way, and hundreds of others lost limbs and in other ways were scarred for life, because this country had admitted the Tsarnaev brothers and their family as immigrants.
Here is Boston, 3 innocent people (including a child) were savagely killed, in a most gruesome way, and hundreds of others lost limbs and in other ways were scarred for life, because this country had admitted the Tsarnaev brothers and their family as immigrants.
2
I am in a kind of stupefied awe at the gall of thus editorial - of, indeed, the NYT's entire slant regarding the refugees/migrants crisis from Syria. This newspaper's omnipotent fingerpointing at Europe is incredible and unbelievable. I am a longtime NYT subscriber, I consider myself as close to a bleeding-heart liberal as one can be and yet the what can only be termed a demagoguic moralizing from the NYT Editorial Board and most of its journalists is outstanding.
The Syrian crisis, let us not forget, is NOT Europe's problem or fault - it is basically a consequence of Russian and American idiocy, as are many things in this world, and if at all Europe's biggest faux pas has been to put up with both these world bullies. Beyond that, the very idea that one small, already overpopulated continent (Europe) should offer unlimited access to these refugees or any other is simply absurd because when, after all, does one say "stop". Ours is a terrible place for a great deal of humanity, that is the truth, and why should *these* refugees deserve access to Europe, the most civilized place on earth, more than all the others?!! How are we supposed to fit them all in? How are we supposed to support them? How are they supposed to integrate - especially when, as we all know, the great majority come from lands and cultures which are present do NOT want to integrate?
Stop pointing fingers, NYT, and instead look around you, at your own crisis-riddled home.
The Syrian crisis, let us not forget, is NOT Europe's problem or fault - it is basically a consequence of Russian and American idiocy, as are many things in this world, and if at all Europe's biggest faux pas has been to put up with both these world bullies. Beyond that, the very idea that one small, already overpopulated continent (Europe) should offer unlimited access to these refugees or any other is simply absurd because when, after all, does one say "stop". Ours is a terrible place for a great deal of humanity, that is the truth, and why should *these* refugees deserve access to Europe, the most civilized place on earth, more than all the others?!! How are we supposed to fit them all in? How are we supposed to support them? How are they supposed to integrate - especially when, as we all know, the great majority come from lands and cultures which are present do NOT want to integrate?
Stop pointing fingers, NYT, and instead look around you, at your own crisis-riddled home.
203
Europe as twice the population and more area than the U.S. It is not a small over populated continent as you state. It can easily absorb. Your other statement that this is because of the U.S. and Russia is flawed. GWB "coalition" took in most of the governements of Europe as well.
Russian and American idiocy? What did the Russians ever do? Did they invade and destroy Iraq and Libya for the sake of ill-conceived regime change? Maybe their insistence on a similar regime change in Syria instigated and fuelled the civil war in that country? Oh, I get it, Russian idiocy was in opposing the US policy and warning about its dire consequences all along while hoping that anyone might listen. That was truly idiotic.
Does the NYT Editorial Board EVER read their own readers' comments, especially regarding immigration and migration?
Do they care that these sorts of open borders, naive editorials are infuriating to many liberal and left readers?
And why does the NYT print cropped, hand-picked, and outright agitprop photos trying to convince the unwary that most of these are middle class families when in fact the overwhelming majority seem to be young men of military age?
Seriously, I am wondering if there is a strategy here or if the NYT editors just don't care, or just are this out of touch with their readers.
Do they care that these sorts of open borders, naive editorials are infuriating to many liberal and left readers?
And why does the NYT print cropped, hand-picked, and outright agitprop photos trying to convince the unwary that most of these are middle class families when in fact the overwhelming majority seem to be young men of military age?
Seriously, I am wondering if there is a strategy here or if the NYT editors just don't care, or just are this out of touch with their readers.
424
You aren't the only one. These editorials are so off that they have me scratching my head, and the news coverage is often slanted as you said. The Times has increasingly lost the sense of balance and objectivity for which it was once renowned.
10
Thank you, Kevin, for speaking with crystal clarity.
2
The strategy has a name: "ideological blindness". First it has afflicted for the last 10 years most Republican politicians regarding taxes, abortion and benefits of a good government, and in the last 1-2 years the NYT Editorial board regarding illegal (excuse me, "undocumented") immigration
1
Please stop telling Europe what to do from the NYT's comfortable perch in Manhattan.
256
Their presence will drive down labor costs and that will indeed be a boon to business owners.
But the costs to actually feed and educate these masses will fall on the middle classes.
The NYT board is a bunch of 1%ers; all 1%ers love low wages.
But the costs to actually feed and educate these masses will fall on the middle classes.
The NYT board is a bunch of 1%ers; all 1%ers love low wages.
97
Yes. Because all those immigrants from Muslim countries have worked out oh-so-well in France. For our part in the United States, let's follow this argument. open up the borders, and watch the American economy take off into the stratosphere. What are we waiting for?
Look. It is a terrible humanitarian crisis. But if tiny Israel could resettle tens of thousands of Yemeni and Ethiopian Jews to its territory in a matter of weeks, the West could resettle a million of these migrants in any Arab or majority-Muslim country or countries that is willing to take them on. We've got the logistical capability to do that. The Moroccan and Algerian airlines can keep flying their commercial flights. So can the Turks and Emiratis. In doing this, we'll more than meet our responsibility.
Look. It is a terrible humanitarian crisis. But if tiny Israel could resettle tens of thousands of Yemeni and Ethiopian Jews to its territory in a matter of weeks, the West could resettle a million of these migrants in any Arab or majority-Muslim country or countries that is willing to take them on. We've got the logistical capability to do that. The Moroccan and Algerian airlines can keep flying their commercial flights. So can the Turks and Emiratis. In doing this, we'll more than meet our responsibility.
23
As I understand it, none of the surrounding Muslim countries, except for Jordan and Turkey, where refugee camps are located, are willing to take on refugees, and Turkey is allowing people to flee on mass to Greece. Saudi Arabia plans to do its part though-- by building 200 mosques in Germany. I really wish we could get a NY Times editorial parsing the effrontery of that statement.
11
>>>A Congressional Budget Office report in 2013 estimated that giving undocumented workers a path to citizenship and making more employment-based visas available to foreigners would raise G.D.P. by 5.4 percent and lower the federal budget deficit by $897 billion over 20 years.
There's a big difference between GDP and ***per capita*** GDP. Even immigrants earning low wages will raise GDP, but they will lower per capita GDP.
Any benefits would go to the wealthy business owners and the middle and lower classes would continue to get left behind. (see "per capita")
3. The report was comparing path to citizenship with business as usual--lots of illegal immigration, etc., rather than to enforcing the
There's a big difference between GDP and ***per capita*** GDP. Even immigrants earning low wages will raise GDP, but they will lower per capita GDP.
Any benefits would go to the wealthy business owners and the middle and lower classes would continue to get left behind. (see "per capita")
3. The report was comparing path to citizenship with business as usual--lots of illegal immigration, etc., rather than to enforcing the
10
I don't know. I suspect that this situation may play out much as it would in more micro terms. If a friend and his friends and their families decided to 'visit' my home for an indefinite period of time, eating my food, consuming my resources, after a little bit I would not be feeling the boon.
29
Another example of why the editorial board lacks credibility on this topic. The penultimate paragraph refers to a CBO report that allegedly referred to "giving undocumented workers a path to citizenship." Search that report--it doesn't once mention "citizenship." In truth, it refers to "legal status," which is a crucial difference. How can we believe anything from the board when it willingly misrepresents the report's contents (and when the misrepresentation is so easy to uncover)? And, as usual, the editorial board conspicuously dodges stating its position regarding immigration, which appears to be open borders for every nation state in the world. [If that is incorrect, please let your readers know.] At some point, someone on the editorial board needs to stand up and be the adult in the room on this topic.
36
This column would be a lot more credible if you replaced the word "Europe" in the headline and didn't wait to the penultimate paragraph to point out the U.S.'s own culpability in this
The EU, especially Germany, is committing cultural suicide. No culture can remain stable with this many people coming in this fast that have very different ideas on women, other religions and freedom of speech.
172
Please stop mixing legal and illegal immigration. You only do disservice to refugees and legal immigrants. Driving is necessary for many people, but driving without a license is harmful.
38
"Numerous studies have found that immigrants bolster growth by increasing the labor force and consumer demand. Rather than being a drain, immigrants generally pay more in taxes than they claim in government benefits. "
That may describe Hispanics in US. But in France that wasn't the case. What were all those recents riots about? Poor immigrants who didn't integrate after decades and then can't get a job and then feel disenfranchised.
That may describe Hispanics in US. But in France that wasn't the case. What were all those recents riots about? Poor immigrants who didn't integrate after decades and then can't get a job and then feel disenfranchised.
14
It certainly is NOT true in the US either. After generations, most illegal immigrants (NOT to be confused with legal immigrants!) are still poor -- their kids dropping out of school and not managing to learn English -- they still work menial jobs under the table for cash, while collecting welfare. They have a 65% rate of children born out of wedlock. They do not assimilate, but typically live in slums of their own making.
As in Europe, they would not be here at all except for the stream of welfare freebies, and stupid lefty liberals who create stuff like The Dream Act or sanctuary cities.
As in Europe, they would not be here at all except for the stream of welfare freebies, and stupid lefty liberals who create stuff like The Dream Act or sanctuary cities.
11
The solution to Western dwindling birth rates is an acceptance of less wealth per household. Instead of the larger houses, multiple cars, long holidays that are enjoyed by the current generation of Europeans, let the younger workers spend less on "things" and more on social savings. Of course current standards of living can continue only if foreign/guest workers are imported. Wealthy countries must make a choice: remain culturally sound, by not diluting their own numbers, or maintain their economic lifestyle while their 'western-ness' slowly disappears.
9
Wealthy countries like Germany or Sweden or France were hardly "going poor" even before this massive influx of Muslim migrants. And I have no idea what you mean by "social savings". I doubt Europeans are eager to give up things like vacations, cars, electronic gadgets and so on.
11
Yes, obviously a high birth rate is a boon for economies because it is plain for all to see that outside of oil, the economies of South America and the Middle East are booming. Gimme a break.
43
Actually low birth rates are good for the PLANET. We have SEVEN BILLION people and the planet is hurting -- think of global warming! The Editorial Board ridicules conservatives who deny global warming, but then turnaround and except countries to take in millions of migrant workers! who will all pollute and drive cars and take up lavish western consumption.
17
It's rather naive to make an entirely economic argument. A rapid introduction of a group that strains social resources, speaks a different language, brings a different religion and conservative cultural norms trumps modest economic gains. I suspect that I can demonstrate that allowing taller buildings on the upper east side of NYC would result in economic growth. Shockingly, the residents of the UES (some of whom are on this board) reject the idea of economics over preservation of their current lifestyles.
62
This article sees this as only a dollars and cents economic situation, and ignores the historical perspective and long-term social implications. European countries had to repel numerous Muslim invasions from the 8th century to the 18th century. Spain, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Serbia, Romania and others were in the forefront of what were wars of survival. Now the New York Times sees unfettered migrations as good economics.
I am much more concerned about my individual freedoms than dollars. Unfortunately, the Muslims religion appears incompatible with the ideals of individual rights that Western democracies cherish Therefore, so I see no reason to allow the seeds of destruction to be planted now - even if this does not become apparent until a couple of generations from now.
I am much more concerned about my individual freedoms than dollars. Unfortunately, the Muslims religion appears incompatible with the ideals of individual rights that Western democracies cherish Therefore, so I see no reason to allow the seeds of destruction to be planted now - even if this does not become apparent until a couple of generations from now.
154
Add Greece to the top of that list, a country that went through a series of wars from 1821 to the 1920's to finally expel the Ottomans and reclaim some of its stolen land.
1
Good luck with that
on that basis, set up a shuttle and bring them all in
on that basis, set up a shuttle and bring them all in
13
I think any country would be intimidated by a group of people who in general do not share their secular beliefs, coming in a mass of millions, and now starting to attempt to force their way in, if they are not allowed to enter in totally unlimited numbers. This is a cultural as well as an economic issue.
453
The admission of and settlement of a million barbarian refugees within the Empire's borders that led to the fall of Rome. The complaints of Roman citizens of the time sound remarkably like the complaints of Europeans today.
9
No - we should just stick to our gut feelings of xenophobia and racism. Who cares about economic studies?
Yup, it's scary. But it's worked for the USA
Why? There are large colonies of Muslims in France. They do not benefit France. Are they vibrant, welcoming communities or are they holtile, sullen crime ridden blights? Is that the Europe you want to see developed in the future?
319
Totally, anybody living in a northern European country knows that it is a fairy tale to say that massive immigration of Muslims is actually working out. It is a ticking bomb!
49
Actually, they ARE vibrant welcoming communities. I've been to many and find that they are suspect of Westerners (talking heads in the U.S. do sometimes advocated rounding them up like the Germans did to the Jews), but once you are "in" you are welcomed with open arms and hospitality. Again I ask, Maureen, have you ever ever spent any time in these communities?
Once you are "in"? That is not a welcoming community in my book. Tell us what you have to do in order to become one of the "ins"! A friend of mine became lost in London recently and had a extremely bad experience in one of these "colonies".
1
I read an article today about the difficulties and aspirations which some of those migrating have expressed, it is hard not to feel empathy for so many who wish to escape dangerous places and times. I admire the Times for its compassionate concern for these many travelers.
For those who have expressed grave concerns about this unprecedented migration, those concerns should not be dismissed as cruel or unfeeling. European countries have undergone significant transformations over centuries, slowly working toward freer, non monarchical and egalitarian societies.
Those victories for all people in Europe and other democratic nations have slowly evolved toward greater acceptance of individual differences and over time, toward less patriarchal societies, toward ones with more acceptance of equality at work and home for women and men, toward expression of different ideas and sentiments, a more free press, more tolerance, and more acceptance of those along the vast array of the sexual rainbow.
Many understandably fear the intrusion into Europe of hundreds of thousands of immigrants, mainly Muslim, whose creed teaches far less flexibility to the open expression of ideas, and for some who openly teach antagonistic and violent approaches to be vented toward democratic societies, whose values are often antithetical to the teachings of their holy book and prophet. How will so many of these new people be assimilated into their host countries, or will they ever wish to be?
For those who have expressed grave concerns about this unprecedented migration, those concerns should not be dismissed as cruel or unfeeling. European countries have undergone significant transformations over centuries, slowly working toward freer, non monarchical and egalitarian societies.
Those victories for all people in Europe and other democratic nations have slowly evolved toward greater acceptance of individual differences and over time, toward less patriarchal societies, toward ones with more acceptance of equality at work and home for women and men, toward expression of different ideas and sentiments, a more free press, more tolerance, and more acceptance of those along the vast array of the sexual rainbow.
Many understandably fear the intrusion into Europe of hundreds of thousands of immigrants, mainly Muslim, whose creed teaches far less flexibility to the open expression of ideas, and for some who openly teach antagonistic and violent approaches to be vented toward democratic societies, whose values are often antithetical to the teachings of their holy book and prophet. How will so many of these new people be assimilated into their host countries, or will they ever wish to be?
44
Have you looked at Sweden? They thought educating the youth would integrate them. Now most of the refugees are still on welfare, unemployed and not integrated. Europe isn't America. You can't assume that what happens in America will happen in Europe. We are a nation of immigrants.
Have you looked at France to see how integration is proceeding? What about Germany with sky high anti immigration protests? The European economy is very unstable and volatile right now.
Have you looked at France to see how integration is proceeding? What about Germany with sky high anti immigration protests? The European economy is very unstable and volatile right now.
35
Your reporting on the migrant/refugee crisis has been largely one-sided to your readership. It's clear where you stand on this issue.
No one argues that there aren't any upsides to immigration. But many people have growing concerns about open door policies and want to restrict asylum for legitimate reasons. Take a look at your reader comments to find some of them. This doesn't make us racist, nor does it make us Trump voters.
We have an enormous amount of problems here at home in America: debt, homeless veterans, dwindling middle class, crumbling infrastructure, public school failings, the greatest amount of people on food stamps ever. And yet despite this, we still spend 4 billion of taxpayer money on humanitarian aid worldwide.
Any country has a right to question the sanity of bringing in thousands of people from countries that have not lived within a democratic society. I'd like to see NYT bring additional perspectives on this crisis to its readership including those of Rep. Michael McCaul, Chair of the Homeland Security Committee to share the national security challenges that absorbing large numbers of refugees from the Middle East presents.