From a CO2 standpoint wouldn't it be good to stop subsidizing immigration to the first world? It's not just delta-population it's people moving from a low consumption environment to a high consumption one.
"The average household headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) costs taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare benefits, which is 41 percent higher than the $4,431 received by the average native household. The average immigrant household consumes 33 percent more cash welfare, 57 percent more food assistance, and 44 percent more Medicaid dollars than the average native household. Housing costs are about the same for both groups." https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native...
Having worked in the landscaping industry I know that paying under the table is not uncommon for immigrants.
Is this really "subsidising immigration?" I mean, immigrants have costs too, and most of the few remaining things they are eligible for are emergency assistance of one sort or another. What this argument turns into in practice is "people who have resided in the first world for years as workers who hit economic trouble should starve or be deported".
Hardly anyone comes to the first world to live off public assistance. It's either a matter of survival/safety or a search for opportunity.
This is objectively wrong though. If they were to use the actual law for refugees, they have to seek asylum in the first country they arrive in, yet they all travel onwards to the EU, to the 4th or so European country, and they do get on welfare and live off public assistance.
If they were seeking safety, they would stay in the first country, Turkey. But obviously, Turkey does not have generous free packages, so they - as you said -, search for opportunity to receive free stuff, i.e. move to far away countries where they would be eligible for welfare (public assistance).
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/non-citizens-u...
https://cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen-Households-Access-Welfa...
63% non-citizen households are on welfare. This is not hardly anyone.
Note: I realize that the statistics above are concerned with the US and not the EU, but it refutes the quoted statement.
---
This does not necessarily apply to immigrants from other European countries migrating to the UK, for example. They are the ones searching for opportunities alone[1], and not safety. There are many definitions of safety, and in this case I was referring to safety in terms of fleeing from war zones, and as far as I am concerned, those European countries these people (from this example) are migrating from are not a war zone.
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7...
[1] Of course one could migrate to another country simply because they offer more free stuff. I do not deny that.
On the other hand, in Germany:
> In April 2018 more than half, at 55%, of the recipients of unemployment benefits had a migration background. According to the Federal Employment Agency (German: Bundesagentur für Arbeit) this was due to the migrants lacking either employable skills or knowledge of the language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Germany
http://www.dnn.de/Nachrichten/Politik/Jeder-zweite-Hartz-IV-...
Note that they may take into account people from other European countries, too, i.e. not refugees.
---
> I mean, immigrants have costs too
Do immigrants who work have a cost? I could migrate to the US from a non-warzone and I believe it would not cost the US anything, but would make money off of me.
> receive free stuff
I do with people who said things like this had to live on the actual level of public assistance for a month or so. It's really not a lot. £37.75 a week in the UK, just under £2k a year, not including housing.
I agree that Turkey does not necessarily count or be perceived as safe to non-Muslim refugees. I am not sure of the percentage of such refugees either. Regarding safety, I can only assume that it is safer living in Turkey than living in an actual war zone, even if you are a non-Muslim. So since Turkey is not a war zone, if you are looking for a way out of a war zone, for safety, then you will settle down in the nearest safe place, unless of course safety is not the only criteria.
I would also like to say that Syria is safe outside of certain areas thanks to the Syrian army and Russia liberating it from the "moderate" rebels (terrorists). If I am wrong, do not hesitate to correct me.
Asylum is to protect someone from immediate harm, they do that by going to the nearest safe place, otherwise, if they want to pick and choose, unfortunately they need to apply for a visa like everyone else and likely would not be entitled to public assistance (free stuff) down that route, so it is not attractive to them. Especially considering the migrant-intent visas or dual intent visas have a high threshold for skills which they likely would not meet and would have to rely on the other visas that prohibit seeking permanent residency, so instead these people from non-war zones just go to whatever country they want, burn their fingertips, and apply for asylum in the place that gives them the most free stuff. EU knows this, hence why they are now paying said economic migrants a way back home where it was safe in the first place.
People are fleeing safe countries, to very specific countries based on their high benefits payout. Such as: being in some areas of Syria is safe, travelling to Turkey, safe, travelling all the way up the EU area to France where they were safe at all points, endangering everybody on a raft to illegally enter the UK, etc. There is no other reason than welfare. If they had family in that country, they can apply for a visa on that.
We also have to note that "immigrants" and "refugees" are not exactly the same thing, but seemingly have used it interchangeably. :/
Looks like the report in your second link is more propaganda than science.
In any case, I do not think that UK records the information in terms of non-UK and UK citizenship (or from European countries vs non-European countries), but if you can find it, please let me know.
Given the Developed countries have the money and the means, the best thing from a global CO2 standpoint would be if the Developed countries led the way on reducing their emissions.
My idea of a solution to global warming is no solution: accept that the global warming will happen, discover its consequences, and make them a part of economic planning on both government and corporate level. Make people educated about it. That's it.
what regards "no solution" this is so shortsighted that it's even difficult to decide where to start in disagreeing :)
it's easy to say "screw it, let's see what happens" but take this angle: let's say EU will make everything to reduce climate change effects, but other regions not. In event of radical climate change people will start migrating to more safe regions, including EU, so EU will pay partially price for those regions who did not do any effort to reduce climate change. I don't want to pay price for sea level rising just because USA wanted to gain some short-term gains.
also trading your life safety for economic gains sounds ridiculous.
And for me, as an outsider, it seems ridiculous to consider the US as a country of "subsidies for living expenses". Isn't the US notorious as being basically the only developed country without a welfare state? :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_S...
>Isn't the US notorious as being basically the only developed country without a welfare state? :)
The US spends $10,203 per capita on public expenditure. That's dead set with Switzerland ($10,412), not that far behind Finland ($11,858), and much higher than Canada ($7,352).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#Effects_of_socia...
Glad I could help you become a little less ignorant :)
I'm glad for your expenses, but you're not getting your money's worth.
This has led to a spiral self-medicating with alcohol and illegal drugs and of dealing with the mentally ill through the criminal infrastructure or through rampant homelessness.
There are other drivers of course, but I believe the vast majority can be traced to the inability of the state to force treatment on those who are obviously ill.
These are obvious non-starters. It’d be rich people saying “fuck you, got mine”.
I think a lot of people view money as a way to buy stuff. That's true but they'd be better off view money as magic. Making it creates problems but on the upside: magic.
* Global programme to drastically reduce birthrate.
* Global development programme based on good governance and actual results, not just "sending money".
there should be a global program to give welfare payments for those willing to participate in a birth control program
Educating them (especially women), giving them contraceptives, etc., is the positive approach to this, in my opinion.
The issue here is to make those who have a lot of children have less children. Giving money, and contraceptives, and free sterilisation, and education should all be done.
Edit: Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#Affec...
> Funding of welfare mothers by HEW (Health, Education, and Welfare) covers roughy 90% of cost and doctors are likely to concur with the compulsory sterilization of welfare mothers. Threats to cease welfare occur when women are hesitant to consent.
If we don't make things happen, education by itself might take 20 years for the first results. We need to change things very quickly. We're already very late and made things worse by improving survival rates without enforcing birth control.