The truth that scremes to migration

LUNGERS ʹSociology, Anthropology, and history have widely clarified the issue of migration. It seems that Homo Economicus, who lives alone to eat, has given way to a being that has a sense of belonging, which is as important as eating.

This leads us to doubt that hostility to mass migration is simply protest against job loss, lower wages, and increasing inequality. The economy has played a major role in increasing ID policies, but it is clear that the identity crisis will not be extinguished solely by economic reforms. Economic prosperity is not the same as social welfare, dear readers.

Let's start, however, with the economy, using the United Kingdom already emerging from the EU. Between 1991 and 2013 there was an entrance of 4.9 million migrants to the country.

Economic theory tells us that the entrance of migrants also benefits local populations after a while. The point here is that if you increase the quality of the job, its price [rogues] falls. This will increase profits. The increase in profits leads to more investments, which would increase labour demand and thus reverse the initial drop in wages. Emigration allows for a greater population to have the same living standards as there was a smaller population earlier: a clear improvement in total well - being.

A recent study by Cambridge University economist Robert Rowthorn, however, has shown that the argument is very flawed. The so-called temporal effect that displaces domestic workers and that will lower wages of five to ten years is made to mean a lack of recession as a positive effect. And even without recession, if there is a steady increase in migrants, and with that increased labor force, job demand can constantly be avoided by focusing on consumer growth. The claim that migrants take the jobs of local workers and the claim that they cut their salaries,” argues Rwthhorn, “may be a little bit extreme, but it's not all a fake, or a fake. ”

A second economic argument is that migration will enhance the workforce and stabilise public finances, as the new workers coming from abroad will generate taxes required to support the increase in the number of pensioners. The population of the United Kingdom is designed to reach 70 million before the end of the next decade, an increase of 3.6 million, or 5.5%, which is due to the arrival of migrants and their high state.

Rowhorn denies this argument. “Restore through migration is an endless process,” he says. The “for a permanent cut in addiction rations requires an endless flow of immigrants. When the flow is complete, the structure will be restored to the original trajectory.” A slow down and an increase in retirement would be a much better choice for the aging population.

Thus, even with optimum incomes, even with the eventual avoidance of recession, economic arguments to a high degree of migration are hardly final. So the bottom line is on the social impact. Here, the benefit from diversity is confronted with the risk of losing a social cohesion.

David Goodhart, former editor of the Prosper newspaper, has argued the case for cuts from a Social Democrat perspective. Goodhart doesn't take a position in that if cultural diversity is essentially either good or bad. He simply takes it as a guarantee that most people prefer to live with their people, and that policymakers have to follow that preference. Attitude laissez-phire the composition of the people of the land is as unconvinced as the indifference in its size.

For Goodhart, liberals' hostility to immigrant controls is society's individual forecast. Failure to include attracting people to stable communities, they make hostility with immigrants as irrational or racist.

The liberals' excessive optimism to facilitate the integration of migrants stems from the same source: if society is not more than a collection of individuals, integration is not an issue at all. Of course, says Goodhart, immigrants should not completely abandon their traditions, but “exists something like society,” and if there is no attempt to unite, local citizens will have difficulty seeing them as part of the “an imaginary community. ”

The very rapid growth of migrants weakens the bonds of solidarity, and over the long term, it undermines the environmental ties required to support the welfare state. <x) ”

Economists and liberal politicians are the hardest to prevent migration. Liberal economists see borders as the irrational obstacle to integrated global markets. Many liberal politicians demand states that are not loyal to the interests of their countrymen in order to have a broader integration of humanity. Both appeal to the moral obligations that extend far beyond the cultural and physical boundaries of the nations.

This issue is part of the oldest social science debate. Can communities be created by policies and markets, or do they predict a sense of belonging?

It seems to me that anyone who thinks about these issues should agree with Goodhart that citizenship, for most people, is something they're born with. Values are developed by a specific history and geography. If the structure of the community is changed very quickly, it will take away people's history, presenting them as invisible. Liberal anxiety about not being a racist hides their truth from them. An explosion of what we are calling populism is the inevitable result of all of this.

To withdraw the political conclusion may be trivial, but it is worth doing. A tolerance of people for change and adaptation should not go beyond its limits, however it will be in different states. In particular, migration should not be delayed too long, because it will be certain to increase hostility. Politicians who fail to cross “do not deserve people's trust.

Subtitles by LeapinLar