To think Europen governments need to respond to immigration?

[Finlesswonder]

So the Netherlands is going to have a far right government.
Sweden has moved to the right.
Finland has shut its borders.
Countries that have traditionally been liberal are hardening and irrespective of the many issues listed its to do with immigration.

Ireland has seen violent protests last night following a series of stabbings.
In the UK we obviously had Brexit.

I think governments need to start responding to voters feelings on immigration as if they don't we will continue to see a general slide to the right in Europe, when actually these countries aren't right wing: it feels like a single issue is distorting the entire political landscape?

I am one of these immigrants and really, really don't feel "dehumanised". It's my choice to live somewhere and that obviously comes with negatives as well as positives.
Everyone profits. The host country AND the workers who would not come if they didn't.

You are a part of the society you live in even without social financial benefits, or a citizenship. If you are not and behave in a way that is not good for the particular society you live in (crime, disrespect to their customs etc) than why would they want to keep you. Even more, why would you want to be there. Now mind me, there is a difference if you pay income tax and something like NIN. Then you should have right to stuff. But in the UAE etc, you don't pay. There is job loss insurance you pay now for yourself. FIY many in UK have no access to public funds too, even though they pay into the kitty.

Everyone knows the game of the country they move to. If you are on short term visa, you are on short term visa. If you are an adult, you need your visa. It's not like it's suddenly sprung on people at the end of their visa period with a week to sort it. This is the case of all non permanent visa everywhere.

You will never be in same position like you would in your native country anywhere, unless you gain citizenship. Which is not an automatic human right. If someone is unhappy with that, then they don't emigrate.

around 8000 people died building the world Cup stadiums in doha.

37. 6500 in 10 years. Which is hella lot out of about 2mil, but it is not "8000 died building stadium". This is not to say Qatar is perfect before anyome jumps on it, it's not. Just correction of the misquoted "facts".

The situation in Qatar was appalling, I don't understand why you're seeking to downplay it.

I am not downplaying it. Claiming that 8000 people died building the WC stadium is simply wrong

I think you misread, they said world Cup stadiums plural, which is a fair enough shorthand for 'construction of the buildings and infrastructure associated with hosting the world cup'.

Quibbling over the numbers is an odd approach - the treatment of migrant workers and the injuries/deaths were fucking disgraceful.

I'm not accepting that as a model for UK migrant workers.

It's not quibbling to correct an exaggeration or a falsehood, though.

No one is asking you to accept that as a model for UK migrant workers 🤷
6500 in 10 years was overall, not just on building stadia and infrastructure. That would be like claiming all worker deaths in UK between 5th July 2005 and 2012 starting ceremony were related to Olympics.
It's simply factually wrong. Correcting wrong facts is not downplaying issues. It's simply just correcting wrong facts. If you want to make it into something else, that's your prerogative.

Those who say how great multi-culturalism is do not live in multi-cultural areas.

You only have to look at what happened last year in the US to see the blatant hypocrisy of it. The governor of Florida flew 50 migrants up to Martha's Vineyard and the residents there couldn't get rid of them fast enough.

If you want a solution to the UK's housing/migrant crisis I suggest a building loads of HMOs in the likes of Henley or Richmond. That will focus the mind.

When you seek to downplay deaths, people will wonder about your motives.

Where does your figure come from, is it the Guardian's estimate? We have no reliable documentation to review. Their figure was only for nationals from five countries.

There are other figures - think the highest is 15,000 in the Amnesty Report.

A figure has never been accepted by Qatar (for obvious PR reasons they won't get into the numbers).

I'm sure the construction of infrastructure for the 2034 WC will be a beacon for Health & Safety.

Shouldn't the leaders of the countries that are having people leave those countries because they have a shocking life actually get off their backsides and fix the issues and not be so incompetent and corrupt and stop leaving other countries to pick up the mess they are causing?

Geography, politics and history not your strong areas?

I emigrated 20 years ago. Thankfully I emigrated to a country that doesn't dehumanise immigrants. It sees us as equals. So when I became disabled they took care of me and my children. They didn't throw us out like a pair of worn out socks.

I think they are blameless on mn

But yes often funding stops at the top with corrupt states

Because it 'others' people, which dehumanises them. It tells immigrants that they will never be part of society. They are lesser. They're only there for what can be squeezed out of them, with no care for their needs or well-being. As for sending their children away once they turn 18, well that's just evil.

Everyone working there has made a choice to be there though. They are part of society while there but it's an understood agreement and there isn't a pathway to unrestricted permanent residency or citizenship.
Dependent children can remain until age 25 which allows time for tertially education and starting their own career.

Don't get me wrong, there is some less than ideal stuff that happens around the poorer paid and more vulnerable immigrants such as labourers and domestic staff, but I don't see the issue with the overall framework. You move to a country in the full knowledge that it will ultimately be temporary but that there are benefits to doing so.

As such no-one is really an immigrant there. I know that MN hates the term expat as they think it denotes British arrogance but that is how everyone is refered to. It keeps the distinction clear - you've not permanently immigrated to the country, you've come as a guest for a period of time to work and contribute.

@Sauerkrautsandwich that Qatar worker death stat drives me insane! Wasn't the methodoly simply to look at all deaths of a specific nationality across a period of time (I think probably Indian nationals) and assume it was related to construction accidents?
So you could have been a surgeon who died in a car accident, or an accountant who had a heart attack, and have been included in the stats.

Plus most of the site construction is Western companies, including senior management, it's not like they're state-run. They sub-contract. You'll know this obviously but clearly many don't.

It’s interesting to hear how other countries set up. The guest part is different and as a kind of contract it works

Some people are attracted to low tax rates so they take the risks to earn

It doesn’t work as well for poorly paid

I don’t think we’ll switch to the same approach, not sure if even possible due to demographics

I don’t think we’ll switch to the same approach, not sure if even possible due to demographics

Yes I agree, I wasn't really seriously suggesting that the UK or European countries should or could follow that approach, just throwing ideas out really.

Ultimately I think most people embrace immigrants who work and integrate, and resent those who receive benefits and do not. I appreciate that's a simplistic divide and the reality has more grey areas to it.
I also think asylum seekers are a particluarly thorny and divisive issue. The Gulf countries keep that one simple by not accepting any.

@EasternStandard no, I don't think Europe will switch to that fully. It doesn't work everywhere. I think such systems have to be in use since the begining. Changing into it would be incredibly difficult without disadvantaging current immigrants. Unless it would be 100% done only for new ones, but even than change would be difficult to pass and implement. Same way like changing the other way round would be hard.

@SomeCatFromJapan I wanted to say expat, but didn't want to be accused of being "better than others Brit", even though I am not a Brit... Every is using that. Expat or resident.
And yup about the numbers. It's not to say, there are no massive issues (there absolutely are), it's just not factual claim.

@SomeCatFromJapan

The houses are hmos, crime is everywhere, the streets are litter strewn and filthy...It's dangerous. All around There is division. I don't see harmony and different communities mixing. No one knows their neighbours. The council might wheel out the annual mela as a display of the diversity in the area, but it's smoke and mirrors, it has zero impact on unifying people.

Sounds like our town, sadly. Not much mixing between various groups, just some sort of parallel existence.

One of my kids has friends at school who are immigrants (as are we) and whose parents keep them from socialising outside school. Why? How are these kids supposed to integrate into this society if they’re not allowed to hang out with other local kids? They’re teenagers and will probably rebel at some point, but why keep them away from the society you chose to live in in the first place?

I used to live in a different place previously, in a very international neighbourhood of a big city.
Economically diverse to a certain extent, but over all more prosperous than the town I live in now. There was much more mixing between immigrants from different places and also the locals.

Singapore pays less to its immigrant worker nurses than it does to its Singaporean nurses.
I doubt you could do that in the U.K. - human rights or something.
But it would be nice to pay more to our U.K. nurses if that’s what it meant.

The government need to address the decline in living standards and services in this country. You can see why when people can't afford to eat, can't access healthcare or school buildings that aren't crumbling there's more resentment to people coming over and getting the bare minimum. There is also a cultural aspect that people are loathe to mention for fear of being told they're racist or xenophobic; but realistically young men who have spent their formative years in countries where women are treated as less than property don't just shed that as they cross the channel. Of course I'm not saying that means all mistreat women, but large groups of these men in small communities is concerning for women and girls, and we shouldn't be scared to mention that. I agree with PPs a lot is well it doesn't affect me so I don't care also, move some over to these leafy affluent areas and I'm sure the mood would change.

What the government needs to address is how to increase and simplify safe channels to those who are truly vulnerable, and to treat everyone in society here better- be them native, immigrants or whoever by investing in public services and housing.

It's never going to be lawful in the U.K. to have some sort of blanket "we don't take you if you are from x country" and nor will it be to have an unspoken rule that the UK doesn't accept people for visa applications from particular countries.

What would be, assuming you wanted to reduce the immigration rate is to change the amount required by means of a fee to apply to charge more, to insist on a declared amount in funds to meet medical costs by way of insurance, changing the point at which employers can seek visas so that lower paid jobs are excluded, dependents cannot come, age limits are imposed so you must be under 40, educational requirements are to UK standards, no recourse to benefits, and no route to citizenship.

All of these things are possible. They would make employers pretty unhappy. But they would also make the UK very unattractive for someone who had very little but wanted to work their way up.

The other half of the debate which is being discussed and I don't think that is a coincidence, is welfare and an ageing society. The migrant is younger, fitter, probably uses public services less than an ageing British person. The amount of investment this country would need to turn around its issue with sickness and long term economic activity hasn't been done. It's cheaper to get in people from overseas. And if you are a laissez faire Conservative who is already pretty well off then you will be happy with that.

And underlining that is something even worse; that most working Brits do not contribute tax unless they are paying higher rate tax. That is 10 percent of our working population.

I'm not pro immigration or against. But there does need to be a real discussion of the economic reality of why we have it, what our own problems are in terms of productivity and this feeble tax take we have, and then what can be actually afforded for public services. I hear people saying they want better services and living standards; good idea but it all rests on the people we have working harder, and more of them, and paying more tax. That is what the boomer generation did. They paid far more tax. They worked longer hours. They had lesser public services and they had housing subsidized by the state via social housing or tax relief for mortgages.

Yes it’d have to be from the start

Ime Aus has a good set up for immigration. Citizens seem happy and neither party will change it now.

The vast majority of nurses are amazing but as a doctor who spent many years on the wards, Filipino nurses were just phenomenal. The suggestion that they should be paid less because of their passport, nevermind the outstanding care and experience they provide, is unfair and just silly. These highly skilled individuals would just up and go to Canada or the States in the face of this sort of inequality.