Their families live below poverty in humane living conditions with bad drinking water that is unsanitary to bathe in. Their lives are threatened. Girls and boys raped. America is better life. Unfortunately, the Economist naturally only seems at moments like this to attribute value exclusively to economic considerations. If the sole aim of life was to raise economic gains and productivity in society, then immigration is a no-brainer.
But what is missing in simplistic formulas like this are the cultural and historic contexts that make up a society and largely make it what it is. Being a British magazine and I am not British it is odd that no value is put on what makes Britain the successful society and economy it has been for so long.
Those values can certainly rub off on others, but there is scant evidence that they replace other cultural values for immigrants even after long periods. It is very easy to see that many of the core values and behavioral traits of many immigrants persist indefinitely. Including in the UK. Both good and bad characteristics.
It seems to me one has to be wearing special glasses to believe that any 'raw material' from any country and from any economic class can be dropped into another country and be assimilated fully.
Comments on Open Essay: How to convince sceptics of the value of immigration? | The Economist
I don't see much evidence of this. People who highly-value their culture on not racist. The trouble is the anecdotal approach to getting to know individuals is not the same as bringing those same larger communities and their values to live in large numbers in your neighborhoods. Is there something that is intrinsic about being British, or German, or Italian? Or is it just about growing up in a certain region surrounded by a larger group with those values? Is it true that all we are comes from where we grow up? It's funny that we don't expect Dobermans raised by Collies to just assume the characteristics of their pack.
Or parrots raised with pigeons to adopt their behavior. Under the skin, presumably all dogs are related to each other at much the same DNA level as humans to each other. Yet some argue that we are all essential creatures of our environments. We must be the only species on the planet then where this holds true. The Japanese seem content with protecting core Japanese values at the expense of a population decline and declining GDP.
The same really holds true of Asian countries in general. In fact, outsiders aren't especially welcome in all of Africa, and not especially so in Latin America. They are quite happy being who they are. All attribute great value to preserving their social customs etc. Why is it then that the West feels is must host the world except to do some virtue signaling and to feel morally superior? Is it really likely that the Canada of will have much in common with the Canada of ? Will Australia, the US, and Canada also change beyond recognition, and are we so certain that what will be produced will truly be better?
We like to think our democratic and inclusive attitudes are shining examples that are spreading throughout the world, but these days it isn't hard to see that they are declining around the world. Other countries have different pre-dispositions to political behavior.
- Essay on Immigration in the United States.
- dissertations on the need for character education in our schools!
- thesis on climate change.
- Recent Posts.
- Need Writing Help?!
Asians seem rarely to really fight for what we would call democracy. I don't recall Hong Kong fighting for political representation throughout most of its history, but it was always an issue in Ireland. Are Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and China really going to evolve into liberal democracies with their cultural proclivity for top down hierarchies?
The west has a real choice to maintain what it has developed over centuries and centuries, and it remains to be seen that it won't be overwhelmed over time with other values resulting from massive immigration. How Roman is Rome with its historic open door policy during its empire?
Where is the discipline, the art, the incredible administrative capabilities. Will London look like Rome some day for the same historic reasons? People are very tribal, and more than ever encouraged to be so in this political age. Is diversity really a strength when each tribe is encouraged to fight for its rights at the expense of others? When we now encourage an acceptance of different values and outcomes for legal justice, for even basic approaches to how scientific processes work in the world?get link
IELTS band 9 essay: immigration
All in the name of what goal? When the next truly social stress in the form of war, economic depression, catastrophic environmental events happen, will a tribal-based society really stand together for the common nationality? What would the Battle of Britain look like if it took place with the same rifts in society as today? The argument immigrants contributes assume they get jobs.
Some don't because the labour market doesn't need their skills. Open immigration only works on a selective basis - where the country of destination gets to choose. I agree, may be in the short term. Overtime, immigrants kids work harder I can see that around in the schools and thus hold higher paying jobs,leading to higher taxation revenues for the government. There are numerous other examples.
- Popular Essays.
- essay about the writing process;
- Why Do People Immigrate?: [Essay Example], words GradesFixer!
- Pros and Cons of immigrant Issue Argumentative Essay - cendacoda.tk.
This is just political propaganda sold by politicians to secure votes. A country can let migrants in on a 'need' basis. But in the very fast changing world needs are also changing very fast. Therefore an immigrant who has a job today, may not have it tomorrow. Overall statistics show that immigrants in most discerning countries have a higher then the average rate, for immigrant employment the average for immigrants is higher then the population at large.
In other words you are right -non-selective open immigration gets to be a problem. They will change jobs and careers depending on the needs of the market. Scepticism of immigration is sadly often a more acceptable way to express fear of 'the other', i. You quote a 'liberal' commentator who says she 'sees no value in some Muslims attitudes towards women and homosexuals'. Yet in the US today, some Christians attitudes towards women and homosexuals are the cause of most discrimination e.
No liberal westerner says 'we should not allow Christians into our country because they don't share "our" values', even though the views of illiberal Christians and illiberal Muslims are virtually identical. Racism under a gentle cover. And racism just the same. This is the unavoidable part of the human condition that will always cause people to fear immigration, whatever rational arguments you use.
Unless they acknowledge and address the underlying racism, they will never see value in immigration. For the uninformed and ignorant unfamiliar concepts all appear the same. Hence the tired old canard all religions are the same. However they may be superficially similar, they are fundamentally different. In what way is Islam a race? Or do you mean that it's racist because they can't choose whether or not to be Muslim because the punishment prescribed to apostates is death? Quran Because you're such a great moral authority and you use it righteously smite the morally deficient illiberal, how do you define right and wrong?
I suspect you support human rights, but when is it right to be human? What would you do with a pervert who enters female locker room and identifies as female as his defence? The issue that I suspect most people have concerns in Islam is with the doctrine of unlimited and violent Jihad, which is well supported in the Quran e.
Quran , etc. Conversely, Christianity didn't develop the doctrine of limited just war until Augustine, around years after its founding. A doctrine that can't be found in its holy book, and is still contested today. Invariably comes the "what about the crusades? No one condones its violent excesses, but if defensive wars from hundreds of years ago are relevant then it's also worth remembering that those lands were originally Christian before they were conquered by force by the Muslims.
Immigration can help to reduce population decrease in countries were the fertility rate is under 2 children per couple.
Immigration And The Issue Of Immigration
Please tell me how immigration worked in the U. How is the U. Through immigration! Honestly, there are only two reasons people oppose LEGAL immigration, they are low-skilled or racist? Now the developed world's labor needs are much different. Temporary guest worker programs exist to serve these types of job needs. The meta picture is that the elites want mass immigration irregardless of cost or impact, as they constitute a fresh market to sell crap to.
The moral, ethical, economic, and cultural benefits seem clear. What also seems clear is to maximize those benefits, there must be controls on the flow that allow an immigrant to contribute by learning the common language and adopting the "national" concepts that bind us as a nation. It is not mutually exclusive to maintain your culture and adopt the aspects of our system that give us common goals.
Re: Reasons for Migration (Essay)
It seems the current legal and assimilation approach leaves a lot to be desired in those respects? Mass migration is not morally good - it is not morally good to be completely unguarded as to the threat that other people pose to you. Instead that is bad and stupid behaviour which is likely to result in harm to you. Mass migration of people who have very low potential to assimilate clearly presents an existential threat to any host group. Re: Europe, this is most likely Muslims and black Africans. Here's a question that I don't hear discussed enough in debates on immigration; Does it benefit struggling nations to have large numbers of their young population suddenly up and leave?
Related essay about why people immigrate
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved