Non-EU citizens will be able to work in Britain after Bulgarian restrictions lifted

[folium]

Here's an extreme example of part of the numbers problem facing the West . . .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25566868

If the trend in birth rate persists, Japan's population will have a third fewer people within the next 50 years and 40% of them will be over 65 years old by 2060.

And what is happening in Japan is already happening in Germany and Italy, namely collapsing fertility rates, increasing life expectancy and a shrinking economically active proportion of the population. Such an ageing profile will create a whole array of social, economic and political issues. Ironically immigration is one route to a successful outcome, both for those with ageing populations and nations with excess young populations.

[MJP]

Here's an extreme example of part of the numbers problem facing the West . . .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25566868

If the trend in birth rate persists, Japan's population will have a third fewer people within the next 50 years and 40% of them will be over 65 years old by 2060.

And what is happening in Japan is already happening in Germany and Italy, namely collapsing fertility rates, increasing life expectancy and a shrinking economically active proportion of the population. Such an ageing profile will create a whole array of social, economic and political issues. Ironically immigration is one route to a successful outcome, both for those with ageing populations and nations with excess young populations.

Which nations have excess young populations?

The ones that suffered civil conflicts?

[bundoi]

The most comprehensive book I've read about this issue is called "Bloody Foreigners" (the left-of-centre writer was using the term ironically). It was published about 5 years ago I think.

As far as I remember from the book, the immigration starting in the 50s and 60s began almost by chance, not by design, with a captain returning from the Caribbean with an otherwise empty boat. From then on for quite a few years the right of British citizenship which had been established in the 19th century, and which no-one had ever expected to be taken up, was exercised until successive UK governments, both left and right, introduced legislation to limit that mass immigration.

It's a great book and well worth the read, though I disagree with the author's view that the mass immigration of the mid-late 20th century is just the same as earlier waves of immigration - it is clearly not, either by number or by qualitative change within the UK.

Worth noting that the main sources of the mass immigration into the UK - Pakistan and India - were never colonised by the British, who simply arranged trading deals initially (later backed by big guns) with the local leaders. Even at the height of the Empire, the number of white British in India was measured in thousands not tens or hundreds of thousands, never mind millions; and as a percentage of the indigenous population was miniscule, nay - infinitesimal.

As regards the true colonies - for example in North America and what is now ANZ - I'm sure there are many here who have much better info on that than me.

You are confusing "colonization" and "colonialism"

Colonization is strictly to do with migration of people from place of origin to a new place. However the numbers are not stipulated and thus a small number of people can effectively "colonize" an area without the need for huge numbers of immigrants/settlers.

Colonialism is the establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition, and expansion of colonies in one territory by people from another territory. It is a set of unequal relationships between the colonial power and the colony and often between the colonists and the indigenous population.

Thus India most certainly was a colony (Pakistan did not exist as a separate entity until 1947 and was part of the Crown Colony of India). India was initially run by the East India Company until the Indian Mutiny 0f 1857 and then split approximately 50:50 between direct British rule from Calcutta/New Delhi and some 560 Princely states (see map below, direct rule pink, Princely states yellow)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:British_Indian_Empire_1909_Imperial_Gazetteer_of_India.jpg

The British Empire always majored on trade and being able to "wash its face" financially. Great use was made of local assets both in terms of leadership and manpower as it made economic sense to do so. During WW1 almost 1 million Indian troops served overseas and during WW2 the largest ever volunteer army was raised to fight for the Allies, numbering 2.5 million.

The classic colonial clash came post WW2 in the biggest battle of the Indonesian Independence campaign that in Surabaya in Nov 1945 and commemorated today as Heroes Day. This involved almost entirely Indian troops under British commanders attempting to crush Indonesian nationalist forces and not a Dutchman in sight!

Your points about definitions are valid and I agree with them. I was trying in a brief way to respond to an earlier post that seemed to suggest than mass immigration into the Uk was/is justified because of colonisation by white Brits during the Empire.

Mass immigration into the UK ocurred at precisely that moment in history (give or take) when Britain gave up its Empire; the age of Empire had come to a close (and not just for Britain). So this is another asymmetry: how could the inhabitants of an Empire as huge as the British Empire squeeze into a plot of land as small as the UK? The inhabitants of the former Empire should have lost their claims to British citizenship when their countries seceded from the Empire; but no politicians in the UK were envisaging such a mass influx, and in any event they had more pressing concerns at the time.

This is not in any way to denigrate the contributions that some Asian members of the former Empire made which is a slightly different issue.

Edited January 5, 2014 by bundoi

[samran]

The most comprehensive book I've read about this issue is called "Bloody Foreigners" (the left-of-centre writer was using the term ironically). It was published about 5 years ago I think.

As far as I remember from the book, the immigration starting in the 50s and 60s began almost by chance, not by design, with a captain returning from the Caribbean with an otherwise empty boat. From then on for quite a few years the right of British citizenship which had been established in the 19th century, and which no-one had ever expected to be taken up, was exercised until successive UK governments, both left and right, introduced legislation to limit that mass immigration.

It's a great book and well worth the read, though I disagree with the author's view that the mass immigration of the mid-late 20th century is just the same as earlier waves of immigration - it is clearly not, either by number or by qualitative change within the UK.

Worth noting that the main sources of the mass immigration into the UK - Pakistan and India - were never colonised by the British, who simply arranged trading deals initially (later backed by big guns) with the local leaders. Even at the height of the Empire, the number of white British in India was measured in thousands not tens or hundreds of thousands, never mind millions; and as a percentage of the indigenous population was miniscule, nay - infinitesimal.

As regards the true colonies - for example in North America and what is now ANZ - I'm sure there are many here who have much better info on that than me.

You are confusing "colonization" and "colonialism"

Colonization is strictly to do with migration of people from place of origin to a new place. However the numbers are not stipulated and thus a small number of people can effectively "colonize" an area without the need for huge numbers of immigrants/settlers.

Colonialism is the establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition, and expansion of colonies in one territory by people from another territory. It is a set of unequal relationships between the colonial power and the colony and often between the colonists and the indigenous population.

Thus India most certainly was a colony (Pakistan did not exist as a separate entity until 1947 and was part of the Crown Colony of India). India was initially run by the East India Company until the Indian Mutiny 0f 1857 and then split approximately 50:50 between direct British rule from Calcutta/New Delhi and some 560 Princely states (see map below, direct rule pink, Princely states yellow)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:British_Indian_Empire_1909_Imperial_Gazetteer_of_India.jpg

The British Empire always majored on trade and being able to "wash its face" financially. Great use was made of local assets both in terms of leadership and manpower as it made economic sense to do so. During WW1 almost 1 million Indian troops served overseas and during WW2 the largest ever volunteer army was raised to fight for the Allies, numbering 2.5 million.

The classic colonial clash came post WW2 in the biggest battle of the Indonesian Independence campaign that in Surabaya in Nov 1945 and commemorated today as Heroes Day. This involved almost entirely Indian troops under British commanders attempting to crush Indonesian nationalist forces and not a Dutchman in sight!

Your points about definitions are valid and I agree with them. I was trying in a brief way to respond to an earlier post that seemed to suggest than mass immigration into the Uk was/is justified because of colonisation by white Brits during the Empire.

Mass immigration into the UK ocurred at precisely that moment in history (give or take) when Britain gave up its Empire; the age of Empire had come to a close (and not just for Britain). So this is another asymmetry: how could the inhabitants of an Empire as huge as the British Empire squeeze into a plot of land as small as the UK? The inhabitants of the former Empire should have lost their claims to British citizenship when their countries seceded from the Empire; but no politicians in the UK were envisaging such a mass influx, and in any event they had more pressing concerns at the time.

This is not in any way to denigrate the contributions that some Asian members of the former Empire made which is a slightly different issue.

Regardless of the status if the colonies, or whether they were effectively independent (such as Australia, NZ, Canada), British law effectively up until the the early 60's recognised all memebers of the empire, and later commonwealth, as British, with all the rights that went with that.

Indeed it was only with the Commonwealth immigration acts of 1961 (which was later revised in 63 I think) did these rights, particularly with regards to the right to live and work in the UK proper, get taken away. The final nail in the coffin of course was the Immigration Act of 1971 which opened the door to the EU and slammed the door shut on Commonwealth based movements of peoples.

My fathers Australian passport from the late 1960's had "Australian - British Passport" which says alot about the changes that were going on in the UK's orientation from Commonwealth the EU during that period, and reflects also the level of change in how places like Australia also had to deal with the loss of a priveledge place in regards to the UK.

I've read a few books and blogs where it was possible for a Brit to effectively turn up to Australia prior to 1972 and be given indefinete leave to remain on arrival, and I have read how Australian soldiers who fought for Britain during WWII refused to go through the 'others' line at UK airports while their former enemies and collaborators whizzed past them in the EU lines.

As a residual legacy of these laws, my understanding is that commonwealth citizens as well as Irish, aren't technically 'foreigners' under UK law and still enjoy rights such as being MP's and voting in UK elections. I was certainly allowed to vote in the UK when I lived there in the mid 2000's. But we have no immigration rights above others.

Its all a fascinating history, one which I guess many on this board hark back to under the 'kith and kin' approach to immigration. This occiasionally rears is head with brain explosions from people like Boris Johnson who has called for Australians to be allowed to live unrestricted in the UK (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/australians-should-be-allowed-to-work-freely-in-britain-says-mayor-of-london-boris-johnson-8784699.html)

Fact of the matter is, the world has moved on and you'll need to adapt to these changes, though difficult for some.

Edited January 5, 2014 by samran

[ravip]

Of course... there are weak comments and strong comments. Sometimes a statement should be interpreted in a broad way.The colonisers died a long time ago, absolutely nothing to do with me. That is a pathetic statement. Yes I am English but that's were the similarities end. If I was a coloniser, I would want the cheap labour to fill my big factories.
That really is a weak comment and to compare it to today's situation is stupid. Infact I don't know why I am wasting my time replying.

Basically the strong bullying the weak for their own advantage.

This IS a fact yesterday as it is today.

Edit

Reply to #143

Edited January 5, 2014 by ravip

[MJP]

Samran,

How difficult is it to emigrate to Australia for a British national? The Australian government has a highly selective and rigorous acceptance procedure, I know this because I watched a friend go through this nightmare and he's a doctor. It took a over year to get the visa and this was even though he had an offer to work in general practice in a remote and desolate outback location with a dearth of medical personnel. His British wife went too, she's a specialist nurse.

You simply cannot compare what went before in Australian immigration policy to the open door policy of the European Union encouraging mass migration. I believe Australia has an open door policy (with vetting) for New Zealanders. This is very different to having an open door policy without vetting for countries with a serious organised crime problem like Romania and Bulgaria.

Anyway, too late now. We'll know the results of all this within a couple of years.

Edited January 5, 2014 by MJP

[samran]

Samran,

How difficult is it to emigrate to Australia for a British national? The Australian government has a highly selective and rigorous acceptance procedure, I know this because I watched a friend go through this nightmare and he's a doctor. It took a over year to get the visa and this was even though he had an offer to work in general practice in a remote and desolate outback location with a dearth of medical personnel. His British wife went too, she's a specialist nurse.

You simply cannot compare what went before in Australian immigration policy to the open door policy of the European Union encouraging mass migration. I believe Australia has an open door policy (with vetting) for New Zealanders. This is very different to having an open door policy without vetting for countries with a serious organised crime problem like Romania and Bulgaria.

Anyway, too late now. We'll know the results of all this within a couple of years.

It is about as hard as it is to migrate to the uk independently, which I've done.

The point of my post though was just to illustrate a bit of history, nothing more. I'm just not one of these 'stop the world, I want to get off' types. That's all.

[MJP]

And going the other way . . . .

Exporting Grandma to Care homes abroad

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25438325

In contrast, Thailand has a strong culture of looking after its elderly.

There's a worthy thread in this.

[bundoi]

Here's an extreme example of part of the numbers problem facing the West . . .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25566868

If the trend in birth rate persists, Japan's population will have a third fewer people within the next 50 years and 40% of them will be over 65 years old by 2060.

And what is happening in Japan is already happening in Germany and Italy, namely collapsing fertility rates, increasing life expectancy and a shrinking economically active proportion of the population. Such an ageing profile will create a whole array of social, economic and political issues. Ironically immigration is one route to a successful outcome, both for those with ageing populations and nations with excess young populations.

Well yes, but overbreeding is arguably at the apex of all the other problems....global overpopulation is the root cause (or one of) of many many very serious problems ... starvation, rapid urbanisation, deforestation, water shortages (we haven't really seen this one kick in yet), dare I say global warming. Some countries have a very much higher birth rate because that has been and still is the only effective social security. Ah Social Security, now we've come full circle again to Western Europe's fears about Eastern EU migrants.

[MJP]

Here's an extreme example of part of the numbers problem facing the West . . .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25566868

If the trend in birth rate persists, Japan's population will have a third fewer people within the next 50 years and 40% of them will be over 65 years old by 2060.

And what is happening in Japan is already happening in Germany and Italy, namely collapsing fertility rates, increasing life expectancy and a shrinking economically active proportion of the population. Such an ageing profile will create a whole array of social, economic and political issues. Ironically immigration is one route to a successful outcome, both for those with ageing populations and nations with excess young populations.

Well yes, but overbreeding is arguably at the apex of all the other problems....global overpopulation is the root cause (or one of) of many many very serious problems ... starvation, rapid urbanisation, deforestation, water shortages (we haven't really seen this one kick in yet), dare I say global warming. Some countries have a very much higher birth rate because that has been and still is the only effective social security. Ah Social Security, now we've come full circle again to Western Europe's fears about Eastern EU migrants.

It was oil what dunn'it.

http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html

Also demographic transition is a particularly strong factor in birth rates, as we've seen.

Mix it all up with a debt interest monetary system . . .

No easy answers.

[folium]

Here's an extreme example of part of the numbers problem facing the West . . .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25566868

If the trend in birth rate persists, Japan's population will have a third fewer people within the next 50 years and 40% of them will be over 65 years old by 2060.

And what is happening in Japan is already happening in Germany and Italy, namely collapsing fertility rates, increasing life expectancy and a shrinking economically active proportion of the population. Such an ageing profile will create a whole array of social, economic and political issues. Ironically immigration is one route to a successful outcome, both for those with ageing populations and nations with excess young populations.

Well yes, but overbreeding is arguably at the apex of all the other problems....global overpopulation is the root cause (or one of) of many many very serious problems ... starvation, rapid urbanisation, deforestation, water shortages (we haven't really seen this one kick in yet), dare I say global warming. Some countries have a very much higher birth rate because that has been and still is the only effective social security. Ah Social Security, now we've come full circle again to Western Europe's fears about Eastern EU migrants.

Neat series of short videos that addresses the whole fallacy of overpopulation. Simplistic but well founded, have a watch.....

Migration today, as it always has been, is akin to winds. They blow from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure. Migration moves people from areas of population excess to places with population deficits. Many of the poor sods who drowned off Lampedusa in the Med were probably heading to care jobs in Italy, where the ageing population means fewer people available to care for an increasing senior population. Japan's aversion to immigration presents an interesting challenge as to how it will cope.

The Malthusian approach to global demographics has been found wrong since 1798. Facts and statistics paint a different picture to the usual one of doom and gloom. The world, while certainly not perfect, is not as messed up as some people would have you believe.

[bundoi]

@folium I genuinely appreciate your views, as you clearly have knowledge and intellect :-) you probably won't believe this, but I thought it was more than likely that you would respond with Malthus (honestly), but I am not an apologist for Malthus so I'm not going to respond to that specific point.

Some observations:

• migration over the last 60 years has become rapidly accelerated due to quantum leaps in the speed, availability and affordability of international travel; it's actually a corollary of globalisation: the numbers are so vastly different from the past that (imo) it is not comparabe to the "winds" of yesteryear
• my initial study of global demographics began with ancient history (actually prehistory); looking at a graph of world population growth over the last 5,000 years say and then focusing in on the last 200 years would probably shock some people who have never seen these figures before; I believe that people who deny a linkage between population and some of the problems I mentioned earlier have a political agenda (or a fear) which clouds their vision (I am also happy for anyone to disagree with me about that)
• the idea that people from high pop density low value economies can transfer en masse to high value economies (which may have a very substantially different culture), just like pawns on a globalisationist's chessboard, without significant social disruption, is fundamentally flawed imo, as evidenced by some of the social problems we've seen over the last few decades.

Got to break for tea; this thread has been interesting.

[michaelbrear]

Agree entirely. In addition although slightly off topic, I think the Government creates more resentment needlessly sometimes by appearing to favour the non-native Brits

One of the many reasons why I left England to live here. The whole country has been sinking into a quagmire for at least 10 years now. That video is awesome !

Rubbish. Every country is changing and it is a "global" fact that most countries (there are a few exceptions) have many more foreigners in them then previous generations. The world is smaller and people are working abroad due to global trading and manufacturing.

As each country allows foreigners to work in their country there will always be people like you who see this a negative thing, sure there are downsides but what about the upsides? For example more taxpayers in the country, (I am sure I pay much more tax then the average Thai for example), new skills and shared learning, stronger trade agreements and basically support for the countries growth. Have you thought of those? Seems not..

It is also ironic that as you complain about the influx on foreigners in the the UK, which you site as one of your reasons for leaving, you have actually moved abroad yourself and plonked yourself in Thailand. It's hypocritical, it's a brave new world, get used to it, try and accept it because it's not going to change.

When the government is paying money printing leaflets in Polish language instructing them how to claim money on the dole meanwhile ignoring much more important things and claiming there is no money to pay for them, you know there is something wrong. I have no problem with foreigners as long as they don't try to chest the system. Don't try and pick a fight with me as I am not interested. Save your vitriolic speeches for someone else who gives a crap...There are many more important reasons why I left but this was one small part of it.

[7by7]

As has already been shown, the government do not spend money printing leaflets in foreign languages telling migrants from how to claim benefits.

As has already been shown, EEA migrants can't claim most non contributory benefits until they have PR after living in the UK for at least 5 years.

But, as the saying goes: a lie is half way round the world before the truth has got it's boots on.

[Steely Dan]

Here's an extreme example of part of the numbers problem facing the West . . .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25566868

If the trend in birth rate persists, Japan's population will have a third fewer people within the next 50 years and 40% of them will be over 65 years old by 2060.

Japan has also been singularly reluctant to encourage mass immigration, perhaps they will have the last laugh if robotics and nanotechnology plug the gap;- to the best of my knowledge robots don't do religion, vice or drugs.

[samran]

Samran,

How difficult is it to emigrate to Australia for a British national? The Australian government has a highly selective and rigorous acceptance procedure, I know this because I watched a friend go through this nightmare and he's a doctor. It took a over year to get the visa and this was even though he had an offer to work in general practice in a remote and desolate outback location with a dearth of medical personnel. His British wife went too, she's a specialist nurse.

You simply cannot compare what went before in Australian immigration policy to the open door policy of the European Union encouraging mass migration. I believe Australia has an open door policy (with vetting) for New Zealanders. This is very different to having an open door policy without vetting for countries with a serious organised crime problem like Romania and Bulgaria.

Anyway, too late now. We'll know the results of all this within a couple of years.

Just a small follow up. The UK has always had an open door policy of one sort or another. Prior to the EU commonwealth citizens could come and go as the pleased. This was amended slightly in the early 60's when you had the commonwealth immigration act passed to stop the the great non white hoards who started to take full advantage of the rights that other white citizens of the empire had long used.

Joining the eu must have been a relief for a while. While they might have been Huns and Frogs, at least they were White Huns and Frogs. And so long as you got to go live in the south of France easily and buy your BMWs for cheap, that was okay. But then, now you have to deal with the gypos and people who were basically russkies, so this the requisite whinges.

[MJP]

Samran,

How difficult is it to emigrate to Australia for a British national? The Australian government has a highly selective and rigorous acceptance procedure, I know this because I watched a friend go through this nightmare and he's a doctor. It took a over year to get the visa and this was even though he had an offer to work in general practice in a remote and desolate outback location with a dearth of medical personnel. His British wife went too, she's a specialist nurse.

You simply cannot compare what went before in Australian immigration policy to the open door policy of the European Union encouraging mass migration. I believe Australia has an open door policy (with vetting) for New Zealanders. This is very different to having an open door policy without vetting for countries with a serious organised crime problem like Romania and Bulgaria.

Anyway, too late now. We'll know the results of all this within a couple of years.

Just a small follow up. The UK has always had an open door policy of one sort or another. Prior to the EU commonwealth citizens could come and go as the pleased. This was amended slightly in the early 60's when you had the commonwealth immigration act passed to stop the the great non white hoards who started to take full advantage of the rights that other white citizens of the empire had long used.

Joining the eu must have been a relief for a while. While they might have been Huns and Frogs, at least they were White Huns and Frogs. And so long as you got to go live in the south of France easily and buy your BMWs for cheap, that was okay. But then, now you have to deal with the gypos and people who were basically russkies, so this the requisite whinges.

Drop the insinuations of racism. Sorry to disappoint but it's not about colour. The UK has had open door immigration before, such as the Ugandan Asians who sort refuge from Idi Armin and they integrated well into British society. But migration was never on the scale it is now. We simply don't have the housing for starters. It's the practicalities of accommodating the numbers.

The trouble is, so many people are going to end up in the UK, very poor and homeless and vulnerable to the predations of evil people. But those ivory tower policy makers never get to see the reality on the ground, whereas people like me do. We see the lack of employment opportunities people are faced with, we see the real cost of living, we see and give money to the homeless people from Eastern Europe living on the streets. We know the welfare safety net is also an illusion, it's not there for most people. Our understanding is based on the reality we see everyday.

The UK is not paved with gold, although many unsuspecting people form poorer countries think it is.

[folium]

Here's an extreme example of part of the numbers problem facing the West . . .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25566868

If the trend in birth rate persists, Japan's population will have a third fewer people within the next 50 years and 40% of them will be over 65 years old by 2060.

And what is happening in Japan is already happening in Germany and Italy, namely collapsing fertility rates, increasing life expectancy and a shrinking economically active proportion of the population. Such an ageing profile will create a whole array of social, economic and political issues. Ironically immigration is one route to a successful outcome, both for those with ageing populations and nations with excess young populations.

Which nations have excess young populations?

The ones that suffered civil conflicts?

A country with a youthful population has a high Total Fertility Rate and a low Life Expectancy.

See below for countries ranked by TFR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate

Taking the top 40, nine are affected by significant civil conflict scenarios (Mali, Somalia, Afghanistan, S.Sudan, Nigeria, DRC, CAR, Gaza Strip & Yemen), so that's not a requirement. More scarily only 3 (Afghan, E.Timor & Gaza Strip) are non-African (though geologically speaking the Gaza Strip is actually part of Africa, as is Israel and Lebanon, but that's a whole other story!)

Looking at low Life Expectancy, 38 out of the worst 40 are African (Afghanistan & Marshall Islands being the exceptions)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

To see how the 2 indicators combine to highlight countries with youthful populations, look at this:

www.bit.ly/1hwvYdh

So if you are looking at the migrants of the future look to Africa as there will be vast numbers of young searchng for better opportunities.

[folium]

Here's an extreme example of part of the numbers problem facing the West . . .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25566868

If the trend in birth rate persists, Japan's population will have a third fewer people within the next 50 years and 40% of them will be over 65 years old by 2060.

Japan has also been singularly reluctant to encourage mass immigration, perhaps they will have the last laugh if robotics and nanotechnology plug the gap;- to the best of my knowledge robots don't do religion, vice or drugs.

Japan has truly shocking demographics (see below), and its aversion to immigration (for none too pleasant reasons) means that the future for being old in Japan is pretty bleak:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/japans_population

http://www.dw.de/japan-turns-to-robots-as-population-declines/a-17270786

Diverting a nation's resources into caring for an increasingly elderly population with all associated ailments and diseases is not the best/most productive use of resources, time, energy or capital. There are some export opportunities to other nations that will face this ageing issue, but having a more open-minded approach to immigration might be a better answer. In the meantime would you fancy being an economically active Japanese citizen who will have to pay for the vast increase in pension funding, the restructuring of Japan's housing and infrastructure, and the exponential increase in health costs?

There will need to be a totally different approach to the elderly and the whole concept of being "old". Kids today in developed countries are unlikely to experience retirement before they are in their mid 70's. That's the downside of increased life expectancy. It will need some major alterations in mindset. The clip below highlights this superbly:

[MJP]

Here's an extreme example of part of the numbers problem facing the West . . .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25566868

If the trend in birth rate persists, Japan's population will have a third fewer people within the next 50 years and 40% of them will be over 65 years old by 2060.

And what is happening in Japan is already happening in Germany and Italy, namely collapsing fertility rates, increasing life expectancy and a shrinking economically active proportion of the population. Such an ageing profile will create a whole array of social, economic and political issues. Ironically immigration is one route to a successful outcome, both for those with ageing populations and nations with excess young populations.

Which nations have excess young populations?

The ones that suffered civil conflicts?

A country with a youthful population has a high Total Fertility Rate and a low Life Expectancy.

See below for countries ranked by TFR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate

Taking the top 40, nine are affected by significant civil conflict scenarios (Mali, Somalia, Afghanistan, S.Sudan, Nigeria, DRC, CAR, Gaza Strip & Yemen), so that's not a requirement. More scarily only 3 (Afghan, E.Timor & Gaza Strip) are non-African (though geologically speaking the Gaza Strip is actually part of Africa, as is Israel and Lebanon, but that's a whole other story!)

Looking at low Life Expectancy, 38 out of the worst 40 are African (Afghanistan & Marshall Islands being the exceptions)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

To see how the 2 indicators combine to highlight countries with youthful populations, look at this:

www.bit.ly/1hwvYdh

So if you are looking at the migrants of the future look to Africa as there will be vast numbers of young searchng for better opportunities.

A good friend is Nigerian, living in London. Gabriel used to be a policeman in Lagos. He's the one that told me all the horror stories of Nigerian's arriving in the UK only for the initial disappointment to turn to desperation as they struggle with the high cost of living (like an awful lot of Brits these days).

He told of how one family ended up utterly destitute with no way to get home. Others who were stuck in the UK, trying to get out and back to family they hadn't seen for a couple of years (I know that one well myself!). He was getting into real problems himself and I recommended getting out of London at least and look at alternatives around the country.

I think those better opportunities will be had in their own countries ultimately. Just look at what they're building in Lagos now . . .

[folium]

@MJP re above

Your friend's tale of the tribulations and regrets of migrants is a familar one since time immemorial.

Interesting that you highlight the Eko Atlantic land reclamation/development project currently underway in Lagos.

While an amazing concept, its role as a barrier against coastal erosion is somewhat debatable, as such efforts tend to become similar to stepping on lumps in a carpet. Namely the problem is not solved, just transferred elsewhere.

Also by the end of this century Nigeria is set to have the third largest population in the world, in excess of 750 million, and expensive real estate projects such as EA do not even begin to address the problems that this will bring. Now if a significant number of young, economically active Nigerians found opportunities elsewhere....

PS from an earlier post, the whole issue of developed nations "stealing" the human resource of population-rich poorer countries also massively overlooks the role of remittances. 2013 figures suggest funds in excess of $500 billion were remitted by migrants to their countries of origin. Tajikistan received at least 47% of its total GDP from remittances, while Moldova's remittances were 23% of total GDP to bring this back to the OP. See below:

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/Remittances-PovertyReduction.pdf

[folium]

And going the other way . . . .

Exporting Grandma to Care homes abroad

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25438325

In contrast, Thailand has a strong culture of looking after its elderly.

There's a worthy thread in this.

Perhaps that's the solution...

Send the aged from developed nations to less developed countries and the return trip brings young, economically active folk. Everyone wins,

[samran]

Samran,

How difficult is it to emigrate to Australia for a British national? The Australian government has a highly selective and rigorous acceptance procedure, I know this because I watched a friend go through this nightmare and he's a doctor. It took a over year to get the visa and this was even though he had an offer to work in general practice in a remote and desolate outback location with a dearth of medical personnel. His British wife went too, she's a specialist nurse.

You simply cannot compare what went before in Australian immigration policy to the open door policy of the European Union encouraging mass migration. I believe Australia has an open door policy (with vetting) for New Zealanders. This is very different to having an open door policy without vetting for countries with a serious organised crime problem like Romania and Bulgaria.

Anyway, too late now. We'll know the results of all this within a couple of years.

Just a small follow up. The UK has always had an open door policy of one sort or another. Prior to the EU commonwealth citizens could come and go as the pleased. This was amended slightly in the early 60's when you had the commonwealth immigration act passed to stop the the great non white hoards who started to take full advantage of the rights that other white citizens of the empire had long used.

Joining the eu must have been a relief for a while. While they might have been Huns and Frogs, at least they were White Huns and Frogs. And so long as you got to go live in the south of France easily and buy your BMWs for cheap, that was okay. But then, now you have to deal with the gypos and people who were basically russkies, so this the requisite whinges.

Drop the insinuations of racism. Sorry to disappoint but it's not about colour. The UK has had open door immigration before, such as the Ugandan Asians who sort refuge from Idi Armin and they integrated well into British society. But migration was never on the scale it is now. We simply don't have the housing for starters. It's the practicalities of accommodating the numbers.

The trouble is, so many people are going to end up in the UK, very poor and homeless and vulnerable to the predations of evil people. But those ivory tower policy makers never get to see the reality on the ground, whereas people like me do. We see the lack of employment opportunities people are faced with, we see the real cost of living, we see and give money to the homeless people from Eastern Europe living on the streets. We know the welfare safety net is also an illusion, it's not there for most people. Our understanding is based on the reality we see everyday.

The UK is not paved with gold, although many unsuspecting people form poorer countries think it is.

The insinuation wasn't directed at you. Nevertheless immigration policy in the U.K. was certainly shaped by good old xenophobic concerns rather than any concern about population control. No stretch to say governments still have to deal with far right pressure on it.

Suggest you do some reading as to the debate around the commonwealth immigration acts (especially in light of the influx of African Asian from Uganda) and then later the current immigration act and tell me that those forces weren't in play.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/jan/01/uk.race

Edited January 6, 2014 by samran

[wolf5370]

If they're working what's the problem? They'll pay tax and contribute to the economy just as the Poles and other EU citizends have done.

Depends which jobs they take. What do our unemployed do? Move to Eastern Europe?

If British people took the jobs, they wouldn't be there for EEA migrants to take!

A short while ago I was talking to someone high up in the street cleaning department of a large London Borough and I asked him why most of his street cleaners were Poles.

He replied that they all were; because British people wouldn't take the job!

This is an old trick used by employers, especially councils. What they really mean is that no British person would take the job for the wage they offer, hours they have to work, and contract they have to work under. Many of these types of jobs are now zero hour, that is they do not have to guarantee hours per week, just an hourly rate - therefore, with respect to street cleaners, they can over hire to cater for events where numbers are needed, and the rest of the time they just lower the hours and keep the costs down. People can not guarantee their income. British people are like to have British families and all the costs involved therein; Poles often come, leaving the family behind, and live in shared accommodation - they can afford to cope with such employment that residents simply cannot.

There is also a requirement that foreigners can not be hired if the job can be filled by a suitably qualified Brit - which makes sense. Companies often find ways around this (as a decimated IT industry attests to in the mid noughties). However, under EU rules this is not the case and freedom to hire without such a requirement allows for employers to push the bar so low that domiciled people in the UK (whether citizen or immigrant) can not afford to take it. At this level, benefits also become a barrier - when taking the job gives the same, or possibly less, income but also sees an end to free dental, free school meals, certain travel, and a myriad of other benefits and allowances, it is not difficult to see why people do not take the job.

[7by7]

The London borough in question pays it's street cleaners the London living wage of £8.80 ph. They do employ temporary cleaners via an agency to clean up after special events, but as they clean their streets every day the regular staff are all on full time contracts, not zero hours.

I work for a traffic survey company and we regularly employ agency staff. The work usually involves being on site by 6:30am and being there, apart from breaks, until 7:30 pm. It's not hard, physical work, but is usually outside work in all weathers.

The vast majority of staff sent by any agency are East Europeans, and when asked why they say that when they explain the job to British people on their books, they turn it down.

The last time we had a Brit, as soon as it started to rain she suddenly decided she was ill and went home! That's never been a problem with East Europeans. They turn up on time, do as they are asked for as long as they are asked.

Obviously we never specify nationality to the agency. All we ask is that anyone they send us can speak English.

As I said earlier, the largest EEA nationality coming to the UK to work are Irish. Like some East Europeans they are often young men living in shared accommodation and sending money home. Yet the people who complain about East Europeans don't complain about the Irish!

[folium]

Another anecdotal piece of evidence. Many of the neighbouring farms to my place in the UK employ E.Europeans. Was speaking to a Bulgarian 2 days ago and he told me that most sensible, ambitious Bulgarians left around 2007 to work elsewhere/anywhere in Europe. So far he has saved up enough to buy a decent 5 series BMW and has almost sent enough home to buy the place he has his eye on. To quote him directly the only people left in Bulgaria are "dumb, lazy f***ers or anyone working for the mafia", so no reason to expect any great movement now seven years after EU membership.

Shhhh...don't tell the Telegraph or "Bears S**t in Woods" Mail......

[Steely Dan]

Here's an extreme example of part of the numbers problem facing the West . . .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25566868

If the trend in birth rate persists, Japan's population will have a third fewer people within the next 50 years and 40% of them will be over 65 years old by 2060.

Japan has also been singularly reluctant to encourage mass immigration, perhaps they will have the last laugh if robotics and nanotechnology plug the gap;- to the best of my knowledge robots don't do religion, vice or drugs.

Japan has truly shocking demographics (see below), and its aversion to immigration (for none too pleasant reasons) means that the future for being old in Japan is pretty bleak:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/japans_population

http://www.dw.de/japan-turns-to-robots-as-population-declines/a-17270786c

Diverting a nation's resources into caring for an increasingly elderly population with all associated ailments and diseases is not the best/most productive use of resources, time, energy or capital. There are some export opportunities to other nations that will face this ageing issue, but having a more open-minded approach to immigration might be a better answer. In the meantime would you fancy being an economically active Japanese citizen who will have to pay for the vast increase in pension funding, the restructuring of Japan's housing and infrastructure, and the exponential increase in health costs?

There will need to be a totally different approach to the elderly and the whole concept of being "old". Kids today in developed countries are unlikely to experience retirement before they are in their mid 70's. That's the downside of increased life expectancy. It will need some major alterations in mindset. The clip below highlights this superbly:

When to you write Japan has 'an aversion to immigration (for non too pleasant reasons)' it reads like an accusation of racism. Wishing to preserve ones cultural identity is not necessarily racist. It does reveal however that having policies to limit immigration, explicit or otherwise seems to attract such insinuations at the drop of a hat, which are never leveled at some other insular Countries, providing they are deemed oppressed rather than the oppressors.

IVF has made great strides of late and governments do have the prerogative to change their tax and benefits system to increase birth rates, and as you mentioned the old and infirm can be outsourced, in Japan's case I would suggest Thailand could be a hub.

[Steely Dan]

Here is a good article on UK migration, nobody comes out of it smelling of roses and blinkered factionalism and childish name calling don't help matters one jot. It reminds me of the 'debate' about global warming; he types as the U.S suffers the biggest freeze on record.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4571/migration_and_identity

Migration raises an existential issue that gets lost in the legal labyrinths and headline-grabbing of specific cases and categories. The issue is as simple as it is rarely discussed. Are states and their populations entitled to maintain their identity? If so, how?

[7by7]

An interesting article.

To stick to the actual topic of this thread; EEA migration.

The author makes several valid points which the anti EU/EEA people would not agree with, for example

EU migration boils down to a deal people can understand. In return for accepting Poles and Romanians arriving here, Brits get the right to live in France, Spain or Poland with access to health/welfare services there. Poles, Czechs and Romanians are part of a shared European cultural and political space.

Some thoughts on that:

The freedom of movement rights are enshrined in EU/EEA treaties, the only way the UK can change them is with the agreement of the other member states; unlikely.

There is no opt out; if the UK wants to control, limit or even stop migration from the EU/EEA then the UK will have to leave both organisations.

Now, there are many people who would argue that would be a good thing; but were it to occur, what would happen to the million plus Brits currently living, working or retired, in other EU/EEA states?

Would those states say to them that nothing has changed? Very unlikely.

What's more likely is that they would be told that if they wanted to stay then they would have to apply to remain under the requirements of the relevant state's immigration rules; whatever they may be. Any that couldn't meet those requirements being told to leave.

So many of those currently working in another EU/EEA state could have to return to the UK and then be looking for work

Those who are retired would be returning and placing an extra burden on the NHS and welfare services. Pensioners are far more likely to use these services than fit, young Poles, Romanians, Bulgarians etc. who are currently coming to the UK to work.

The UK has more to lose by closing the door on EU/EEA migrants than it has to gain.

[folium]

Here's an extreme example of part of the numbers problem facing the West . . .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25566868

If the trend in birth rate persists, Japan's population will have a third fewer people within the next 50 years and 40% of them will be over 65 years old by 2060.

Japan has also been singularly reluctant to encourage mass immigration, perhaps they will have the last laugh if robotics and nanotechnology plug the gap;- to the best of my knowledge robots don't do religion, vice or drugs.

Japan has truly shocking demographics (see below), and its aversion to immigration (for none too pleasant reasons) means that the future for being old in Japan is pretty bleak:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/japans_population

http://www.dw.de/japan-turns-to-robots-as-population-declines/a-17270786c

Diverting a nation's resources into caring for an increasingly elderly population with all associated ailments and diseases is not the best/most productive use of resources, time, energy or capital. There are some export opportunities to other nations that will face this ageing issue, but having a more open-minded approach to immigration might be a better answer. In the meantime would you fancy being an economically active Japanese citizen who will have to pay for the vast increase in pension funding, the restructuring of Japan's housing and infrastructure, and the exponential increase in health costs?

There will need to be a totally different approach to the elderly and the whole concept of being "old". Kids today in developed countries are unlikely to experience retirement before they are in their mid 70's. That's the downside of increased life expectancy. It will need some major alterations in mindset. The clip below highlights this superbly:

When to you write Japan has 'an aversion to immigration (for non too pleasant reasons)' it reads like an accusation of racism. Wishing to preserve ones cultural identity is not necessarily racist. It does reveal however that having policies to limit immigration, explicit or otherwise seems to attract such insinuations at the drop of a hat, which are never leveled at some other insular Countries, providing they are deemed oppressed rather than the oppressors.

IVF has made great strides of late and governments do have the prerogative to change their tax and benefits system to increase birth rates, and as you mentioned the old and infirm can be outsourced, in Japan's case I would suggest Thailand could be a hub.

Free trade and the freeing up of the movement of capital, ideas and people have been the hallmarks of most successful nations, with the US being the classic example of this.

Japan' s now multiple decade "funk" illustrates the corollary of this positive cycle. You mention IVF and tax breaks but please name a single nation where such approaches have had any material impact on fertility rates. By contrast allowing the migration of young, fecund workers would address 2 key issues in Japan's ageing population crisis, namely a shortage of economically active to shoulder the costs of the elderly section, plus producing the babies that will perform a similar function for the next generation.

Funny that you should jump straight on the "racism" card, as Japanese tend to have a similar view of say Koreans as they do western folk. Thus "xenophobia" is probably a more accurate description.

"Preserving cultural identity" is an interesting concept. Perhaps we should bring back slavery to allow Confederate types to really enjoy there "cultural identity", or perhaps a few serfs in European countries to allow the wealthy to enjoy that authentic feudal experience. Cultural identities cannot be set in aspic or they will die the death of irrelevance and inefficiency.

Change is not a dirty word and historically has been the hallmark of nearly all successful nations. A fear of or reluctance to embrace change has similarly doomed many nations. Creative destruction requires the right attitude and adaptability and like anything in life produces winners and losers but the focus is typically in favour of the former group as they create the conditions for further improvements.