Comments on: Essay: Europe’s hard borders

By: Hande Sogancilar

Hande Sogancilar — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:45:17 +0000

I think two of the commenters missed another aspect of the argument behind the “Europe needs migrants” thesis. Europe needs immigrants not as labour power but as new new taxpayers. Although the need for industrial labour is diminishing, the need for new financial resources for government budgets is increasing. They are necessary for the sustainability of welfare states of Europe; a ‘greying’ Europe means more resources are necessary for retirement funds and health care expenditures. However, the general European perception on immigrants more tend to ‘burden’ side, it is really hard to realise their contributions to economy. Politically, I would not argue for immigration just for the sake of Europe’s economic well being. I believe that people should migrate for the sake of their own benefits, so that they can cope with the global inequalities. One of the way of coping with these inequalities is to increase living standards in emigration countries. But it would bring no outcome unless this is supported by policy change. Global inequality is not only indicated by varying GDP levels but also by abilities and dreams. While a European couple can dream of spending their retirement years in an ‘exotic’ country and later on fulfill their dream since laws in these countries are much more receptive when it comes to Westerners, a couple in this ‘exotic’ country cannot even dream of it unless they are extremely rich. Or to give another example, a young adult in Europe can have a gap year to travel around the world only with a flight ticket and little amount of money because first of all she can get visa at the border by being a European citizen and secondly, she can earn her livelihood in the countries she visits by doing small jobs. Another young adult from a country located in the ‘black’ list of countries cannot do it because along with providing a return flight ticket she also should prove her finances for the entire trip. Even she manages to find finances only for the duration of visa process, when she tries to earn her livelihood by doing small jobs she would be deemed as an ‘illegal migrant’, an unwanted who steals the jobs of ‘citizens’. As these examples show, solving the internal issues of other countries may not translate into global equality. If we want global equality sincerely, first of all we should get rid off all the borders that divide us; not only the physical ones but also the ones in our minds. But obviously this is not in the agenda of developed world.

By: Peter Wilkinson

Peter Wilkinson — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 18:54:22 +0000

Three obvious points.
1. We do not need more immigrants to staff our health services or to care for the growing elderly population because so many industrial jobs are being destroyed by automation.
2. The real solution to the immigration crisis is to improve conditions in the majority world, then people would not be so desperate to emigrate.
3. Labour shortages tend to push up wages, so the bosses prefer to deal with them through mass immigration. Most working class people, including members of ethnic minorities, are smart enough to see this, and so oppose mass immigration.

By: Michael Kenny

Michael Kenny — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 09:49:21 +0000

Whether Mr Carr likes it or not, Fortress Europe is the one that ordinary people want, essentially for the reasons he sets out. And they certainly don’t accept the “Europe needs immigrants” argument. They see the age of mass industrial employment coming to an end and the drop in population actually eases the human consequences of that process. In so far as manpower is needed, there is a huge reserve in Eastern Europe, and not just the new Member States, but in places like Ukraine, Russia, Belarus etc. Precisely because they are European, those people are a lot easier to integrate than people from outside Europe. By the way, I’ve never heard anybody claim that the EU aspired to be a “Europe of asylum”.
In addition, What is interesting is the disjunction between the intellectual “left” and the “working class”, to use the old-fashioned marxist term. The former always saw themselves as “speaking for” the latter but have now become just nice, middle class people, sitting in their nice, middle class drawing rooms, dreaming nice, middle class pipedreams.