The Migration Debate: a challenge for liberal democracies? | FT
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 май 2024
- As immigration looms large in a number of elections in western democracies in 2024, the FT hosted a debate on how to address challenges long seen as too sensitive for mainstream politicians to tackle. Here are edited highlights of the January 24 conversation and Q&A with readers featuring Martin Wolf, the FT's chief economics commentator, Ruvendrini Menidikwela, UNHCR's assistant high commissioner for protection, author and campaigner David Goodhart at the Policy Exchange thinktank, and Catherine Barnard, professor of EU law and employment law at the University of Cambridge.
#migration #unhcr #immigration #geopolitics #democracy #refugees #immigrants #immigrantrights
00:19 Martin Wolf: is it possible to work out optimal levels of migration?
02:50 Catherine Barnard: effect of EU freedom of movement on Brexit-voting Great Yarmouth
06:27 David Goodhart: immigration has not been the solution to stagnating economy but has been very dividing'
08:12 Ruven Menikdiwela: 'the issue is the conflation of refugees and migrants'
11:00 Ruven Menikdiwela: 'we UN folks have a reputation for admiring the problem but in this case we have been providing solutions'
12:24 Catherine Barnard: the refugee convention was an admirable product of its time but the world has changed dramatically
13:50 Catherine Barnard; the EU migration pact
15:24 David Goodhart: 'the problem is not the Geneva convention but our inability to control the flows'
17:28 David Goodhart: 'we select the most vulnerable instead of having a free for all
18:43: Ruven Menikdiwela Safe Mobility Offices set up en route to the US as one-stop shop for migrants and asylum seekers
19:53 Martin Wolf on effect of climate change on migration patterns now and in the future
23:24 Ruvendrini Menikdiwela: 'People displaced by climate change would qualify as refugees'
24:23 Panel answers audience question: how can we ensure the debate about migration is informed rather than driven by politically motivated rhetoric
27:08 Martin Wolf: migration 'is inherently political'
28:40 David Goodhart: 'If the good politicians can't sort out something as simple as [the boats] then people will vote for bad politicians'
See if you get the FT for free as a student (ft.com/schoolsarefree) or start a £1 trial: subs.ft.com/spa3_trial?segmen....
► Check out our Community tab for more stories: www.youtube.com/@FinancialTim...
► Listen to our podcasts: www.ft.com/podcasts
► Follow us on Instagram: / financialtimes'
The idea that decisions can be "depoliticised" is a misunderstanding of what politics is. Glad the speakers finished on that point.
The whole debate around immigration has become very toxic such that you can’t have a rational debate about immigration without being branded a racist, xenophobic etc.
i think we proved it does not have to be that way - and the highlights video ends with panelists thoughts on how to achieve that more broadly
If the cap fits, then wear it.
The reason is... Many were representing indirect racist or xenophobic opinions. If you review the history of Brexit and the talk about what the reasons of leaving the EU was, not many would tell you about any other benefits, apart stopping the immigrants. UK has always shouted loudly 'we want foreigner investment', but not many say how it can be achieved, what workforce will manage the jobs. Even now, the government is shouting about a bigger pie, but not saying how to really achieve it.
If you want new business to come in and invest, you have to have extra workforce to man the business. Does UK have the workforce? I'm not talking about the unicorns of zero employment. That will never happen and unless you decide to 'shoot' the one currently on social benefits, or lock them up, it will never happen.
And do you know who was locking up 'lazy' people? Commies.
New york , Chicago , Denver : migrant crisis
Switzerland never joined the EU. Smart!
A well-mannered discussion about migration is possible. Thank you
While saying deport people?
📝 Summary of Key Points:
📌 Martin discusses the complexity of determining the optimal level of migration, highlighting the differences in migrants, their contributions, and the impact on societies.
🧐 Katherine delves into the strains faced by communities in Great Yarmouth due to EU migration, emphasizing issues like housing conditions, lack of integration, and pressure on public services.
🚀 The discussion expands to cover the impact of climate change on migration patterns, particularly in regions like Africa, where population growth and environmental challenges may lead to increased displacement.
💡 Additional Insights and Observations:
💬 Martin emphasizes the political nature of the migration debate and the need for practical steps to manage flows effectively.
📊 Katherine highlights the importance of clear terminology and a broad spectrum of voices in the migration discourse.
🌐 The discussion touches on the conflation of refugees and economic migrants, the need for informed discussions, and the emotional aspects of the political debate.
📣 Concluding Remarks:
The video transcript sheds light on the complexities of migration, from economic impacts to social strains and environmental factors. It underscores the necessity of informed, balanced discussions and practical solutions to address the challenges posed by migration in today's world.
Generated using TalkBud
It's almost hilarious. You're trying to tell the people of Europe that their future is from Africa and the Middle East. Good luck with that he says while walking away.
The four people speaking about this issue are highly educated and are doubtlessly well paid, which is wonderful. I wonder if they see or understand the issues that mass immigration to many of the countries of the global west create for us of the hoi polloi, or if they even care about that. The WEF/UN/EU seem to want and appear to be facilitating mass immigration at the cost of lower wages and increased housing, food, etc...costs for us working class people aside from the destruction of social cohesion. I don't know if they have noticed but a huge number of the people coming will not assimilate and their protests are often and to the point of threats and violence. Wait until their numbers grow with further mass immigration. No worries it'll kill us working class first and the WEF/UN/EU want depopulation.
They have long educations. I’m not sure they have high ones.
Thank you for being the voices of reason in this world consumed by energetic shouting and name-calling. This was good.
First thing to solving immigration would be to create jobs, housing, prospects in the countries that these people are immigrating from. Let the UN help or global enterprises and sort out Africa and the Middle East forever and make it a desirable place to live, prosper and thrive. Stop the war in Ukraine and clear up the mess. Or this immigration will go on and on
I appreciate the sentiment, but this vastly underestimates Britain’s historical role as to why these places are in a position wherein people want to migrate. Look at wind rush, they came not through visas, but as citizens of the empire. Ignoring this historical fact is a dereliction of the truth.
One means of helping to achieve this is by allowing immigration here so that workers can send remittances home and thus grow the economies in their home countries.
@@euanmorrison11yawn.....you are so predictable and programmed it is hilarious . . sure you've got a Degree or Masters so you must be Clevva
@@Carroty_Peg Programmed? I think its just a recognition of historical facts and not putting our collective heads in the sand. I do feel sorry for people like you whose immediate reaction, instead of aiming to understand, is reflexive hatred.
@@euanmorrison11 More people came to Britain in the last 3 years than the entire wind rush generation
I'm always pretty horrified when I read people's takes on immigration. A lot of the time, the humanity and reality of it all is abstracted away and boiled down to speculatively based materialism. People aren't just fungible economic units that can be transplanted, swapped, and moved around on a whim. People have beliefs and desires - they have culture and traditions - and sometimes those beliefs aren't compatible with each other.
The reality of the situation is that the modern/postmodern Liberal order of the Western world that emerged after the second world war is in the process of a protracted suicide. The prevailing view of progressives in the West is that this problem can be solved by essentially doubling down on the ideas and systems that got us into this situation, while importing the second and third world en masse to bolster our collapsing birthrate and effectively act as a "menial" servant class. Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to have some level of awareness of the problems at hand, but they tend to lack direction and a cohesive idea of their own position.
Things will continue to degrade in the west, and the world more generally, because one side can't even conceptualize the problem, whereas the other doesn't even know to begin to approach it.
Bang on
the fact that you have said second and third world people tells me you shouldn't be in the debate
@@user-tj3rm9wk5i Why? has he not kept suitably up to date on the ever evolving Newspeak dictionary? Are you the guy tasked with removing and updating words like 1984?
@@MrRickytuk it's a bait post, best just to ignore it. But to actually address the point, because I know there are people out there who legitimately think like this, I'll say this...
If someone actually takes the time to look at global birth rates, they'll notice one thing immediately - poor underdeveloped/developing countries tend to be the only ones with birth rates above replacement level, and even those are falling. And why is that? First and foremost is the fact that urbanization tends to decitmate birth rates, and secondly, developed Western countries (note how I'm omitting developed Eastern countries such as Japan, Korea, and Taiwan) are effectively leeching the younger generations from poorer countries.
What the West has effectively done - and is still in the process of doing - is taken to importing peoples (usually around 20-40 years of age) from wildly different cultures and given them the role that teens and young adults should be filling because we (the west) don't have any. Not only does these keep grunt jobs filled, but it keeps the labour market flooded (suppressing lower and middle-class wages) and helps continue to feed the entitlement and pension schemes older generations benefit from.
@@MrRickytuk what? Cold war terms that had to do with alliances and not economic development?
line must go up foreverrrrrr
It seems the emerging consensus is that the majority of politically undesirable immigration is driven by instability in source countries and relative economic conditions. In other words, a story of relative success. It then flows, if this is a high priority to address, to contribute to peace and prosperity in the source countries or alternatively to make life for all those in destination countries worse than those in source countries.
There is no such thing as "Politically undesirable immigration". The Government makes the rules and would therefore fully support all immigration. Illegal border invasion is another matter, most certainly politically undesirable.
Some really great point,
however it's a shame about the audio,
it's mono, popping and low bitrate
would be a lot better if you used the original insted of from the webstream!
what are the conditions that cause mass migration?
Most countries are dysfunctional, many mainly export people instead of products, we make it easy for them to get in, we give them free money, we don’t punish their crimes (much). You also get some Muslims who believe it is their holy duty to colonize us.
Poverty and war
2:36 make the political economic structure one that people can afford to have children.
That already exists in countries such as Sweden and Finland and it hasn't changed a thing
I'd like to raise a question: do people choose to have kids, or kids are just a by-product of unprotected sex?
Cause birth rates just started dropping after condoms and pills were invented.
Maybe humanbeings are not interested in being parents...
How come free movement of labour is being ignored by the beneficiaries of globalisation. After all as per comparative advantage, the labour intense countries have manpower to export.
3:50 did she just claim an area of England in say 2016 had a poor housing situation because of bombings occurred roughly 70 years before.
Yes. Coz the government hasn't invested and that is the fault of the cheap EU labour.
Sure. You know in my country there’s a saying that goes as follows: “it’s raining, government is full of burglars”.
Canada uses Newcomers to pay pensions of old Europeans through tax
Finally a honest panel
When talking about immigration honestly, one would have to include the term "Illegal" at some point. Yet, it's not here. Very dishonest debate.
I appreciate a lot of the views in this discussion but I think there were a number of omissions to allow the topic to hold more clout.
Firstly, What about stopping the destabilization of developing countries in the name of "national interest". This has resulted in undesirable leaders in some cases puppets, who don't have any interest in improving the lives of their citizens in order to placate foreign powers with interests in those regions This would be a good start.
Secondly, a review of IMF and World Bank programs e.g. Structural Adjustment programs of the 90s which adversely affected the economies of many developing countries to the extent that most countries never recovered.
While collectively battling climate change is admirable, the fundamentals need to be met first before we can see any progress.
thanks for this @jonesing777 - we did discuss the effect on developing countries and the role of the IMF and World Bank but we could not go into great depth and we needed to keep the video of highlights reasonably short
Every immigration discussion always overlooks the destabilization of the home nation. Like if the home station wasn’t a chessboard for powerful countries than maybe it wouldn’t have so out flow migration.
@@Supremechairuserdude this isint the 1800s lol
@@Emiltecknardude countries are still playing a role in destabilizing. Look up free zones
@@Emiltecknarwhat does this even mean? Alot of developing countries till this day are used as pawn pieces for global politics. The problem is superpowers benefit more from the destabilization than they lose
Great debate...
Europe for the Europeans
Thanks to technology, developed nations may need fewer human workers than ever. What will developed nations do with all the surplus people? For example, the more people there are without a job, the less everyone's share of basic income likely be.
And there is already a housing shortage. Increasing the population only exacerbates the shortage.
And when climate change increases the number of migrants exponentially, what then?
This brings to mind the analogy of a fully loaded lifeboat with people in the water fighting to board the boat and swamp it thereby drowning everyone. There is nothing for the people in the boat to do but save themselves by beating back those in the water with oars and boat hooks.
There is a housing shortage becuase big companies have been buying houses and then making it unaffordable for everyone else. We still need agriculture that’s something technology by itself can’t do. It seems that Ai has only affected the arts so far. So to put it simply we still need workers and we are still below our birth rate.
If you have a surplus of labor that gives even more opportunity for jobs
Elites discuss: "Can we create a moral justification to non-consensually replace the ethnic majorities and indigenous of wealthy nations, in order to keep our infinite growth model going?"
Are you here saying that there's an intentional "great replacement" going on?
You also added the "indigenous" to make it seem as if you care about them.
If you read what llama wrote correctly then you'd come to that rational conclusion@@LiberalsTakingLs
It's crazy, I think Abbot should be in jail for putting people in buses so recklessly, and the issue has happened before in the US, not much different than previous waves. They will incorporate and help the country soon. @@LiberalsTakingLs
@@EbuzzNYC Even the ones shoplifting and beating up cops?
Do you really think that this kind of crime never occurred before in NYC? This just happens to be shocking because it's recent migrants @@MrRickytuk
This question is NOT for these out of touch economists or the clueless politicians to decide. The question of how many migrants to let in should be decided by the general population who will be the ones living with these new arrivals. That’s how democracy should work. Don’t decide that mass migration is a good thing and force it on the people. The only people that mass migration benefits are the rich and their corporations. The rest of the population who have to deal with the social and economic impact do not feel the benefit at all. How is more competition for limited resources like housing, education, healthcare and other physical and societal infrastructure good for the locals?
I can guarantee your old parents or grandparents are being looked after by legal working immigrants. I wonder how you feel about that
Angry , they should be taken care of by indiginous people. @@jeezy8360
More often a migrant is not as much a mouth to feed but a pair of hands to produce. The people taking housing, education, healthcare and infrastructure are predominantly the native born, those producing those things are the industrious migrants.
Did you even watch it before commenting? The first economist makes an excellent point already.
Again, you're missing the bigger picture. No one is arguing that some people will make money. Some of us value our indigenous people and culture more than money, America is wealthier now, ask Native Americans how well it worked out for them. Some of us care more about our society than the little bit of money we make. We survived before immigrants fled to our lands , and we will survive with out them. @@yunleung2631
It doesn't "stop aging", it keeps your population pyramid functional. For an alleged expert that first old guy doesn't sound like hes studied economics around migration at all
I also find it wild that the one guy is arguing Human Rights are bad actually and thinking its the correct take
On point! Migration is kind of kicking the population can down the road because for now there is no sound solution to the productivity problem, i.e. how to support an older non-working population with less workforce. Japan is a good example of silently admitting after decades of strong push that the automation/robotization doesn't yield (yet) sufficient results and they started importing foreign workers as "nurse interns", or "au-pairs".
8:55 (state) peanut butter demarcates blended realities, chairs or sitting on the floor is very different despite alot of humdum; social media generation heavy schadenfreude
UNHCR spokesperson was quite reasonable.
Great discussion
Zero immigration mass deportation.
Who should be deported?
Strong disagree. As an American I'm glad Steve Jobs and Sergey Brin immigrated here as children; having massive companies like Google and apple in the US is hugely beneficial to our economy
@@parkmannate4154 Steve Jobs was born in the US.
@@peakz8548 His father, Abdulfallah Janduli, was not, and that was kind of my point
@@sampotts9666 Everyone who did not enter via the immigration process, along with their children even if they were born here.
Really enjoyed this especially Catherine Bernard‘s points
So the idea is to put the entirety of the burden on the "safe third countries" who themselves have trouble staying afloat.
The idea of 'exporting' migration processing to poorer countries is so typical... As if these poorer nations don't have enough problems, we just keep exporting all our problems to them. Out of sight, out of mind
climate migrants
It's sad to see the choice of conservative studio guests by FT. They are getting too many things wrong. Couple of things struck me.
The net economic effect of migration is always a definite positive, although I cannot claim to know exact UK numbers. The migrants indeed do not prevent the graying of the nation, yet they maintain the status quo. Less workforce cannot sustain the rising amount of pensioners due to lack of efficiency. Automation and robotisation still has some way to go, before becoming a truly viable option. Lack of workers will simply spiral down the economy into a never-ending recession.
The example with the workers in the chicken farms who are not integrating because they work long hours is problematic. Partially, because it's due to vulnerable groups like migrants who (even in developed countries) are likely to be abused, albeit according to the local standards. Europe and US have shown that without a huge workforce like this in the gray zone (vague contracts, long hours, low wages, less days off, no health insurance etc.) is the one that keeps the inflation in some industries low.
Although it might sound odd, the low-educated migrants are the ones that will do a low-skilled laborous jobs. Too many locals consider such jobs below their level, even though they themselves can be on social benefits.
Deporting refugees to "other safe countries" is a disgraceful argument in a serious media like FT. To keep it civil, I'd say that the moment we start doing it, the whole world order shall be redrawn. Where the winners (or other countries like UK who do their best to rest on their laurels for the past 100 years) show their true face and refuse to participate in a globalized world because now they are the ones who feel"invaded" and lose the game whose rules they created themselves.
The lady from the Zoom call is not making a good point by asking more funds to be directed to developing countries either. It's the increase of the living standard up to a certain level that permits people in higher income brackets of home country to earn enough money in order to set off on a life journey to another continents.
The climate change argument is a bit of a silly one. The actual climate change effects will be gradual and not that easy to see. What we will see more and more often are local catastrophes caused by over exploitation of a given resource, be it water, forest, agricultural land. This is not climate change, this is a human negligence. Also, people who are more affected by such conditions will be the poorest one. Thank God, the poor people of Sahel can never reach the civilized world. They will barely be able to reach the neighboring country, but even then, after the disaster is over, the chance for repopulating the damaged area will be higher than a permanent long-distance displacement.
So, in conclusion, chill.
Just stop having jobs. Everybody without documents will voluntarily go away the minute they cannot afford housing and food. Actually, everybody will.
To the typical British the idea of a market force like "lack of jobs" resulting in the inability to pay for housing is undesirable. They want a welfare safety net. So your explanation is inevitably going to start an argument there.
@partydean17 I believe the answer here is simple.
Build more and/or better affordable housing.
This has nothing to do with immigration but with other state policies that have to be elaborated and enforced regardless of the reasons for population increase.
Weak government, strong property development cooperations and lobbies, and wealthy "investors" from exotic countries that UK is especially addicted to, are much more pressing issues.
Rhetorically: if the people who needed new houses were John and Mary, and not Agnieszka and Piotrek, would we have brought up this argument?
@mihailyonkov8988 yeah I'm also a believer that YIMBY deregulation with a mix of georgism would squash this silly "problem".
It's just your last paragraph said when the market naturally lacks job opportunities, over immigration will naturally go away. (Mind you I think an excess in labor just increases job opportunities all things being equal). But that's not what British people expect for Piotrek or John. They expect if someone can't find work the government will House and feed them. This expectation DOES seem to cause issues with ghettos forming and other drains
@@partydean17 I think I understand where your concerns come from. And this is where a politically charged discussion usually displaces the right terminology.
Immigrants are people coming from abroad.
Once they possess a passport, they are country's nationals, regardless whether country's majority likes it or not.
If you are talking about national's with migration background, this is out of scope of this discussion. They have to be treated as every other citizen of the country they live in.
The immigrants are people with nationality different than the host country.
If you ever worked like the chicken factory workers from that lady's proverbial example, you'd know that there is NO safety net for you. And you do not have savings like the locals, who, if things go south, can go back to their moms. Immigrants' moms are back in their home country. In a random village. With an outdoor loo.
I'm not aware of the details in the UK, but the safety net for immigrants has been trimmed all across the developed world. In the Netherlands, where I live, you become eligible for benefits after you worked for 8 (? or so) months. You get unemployment support of 1 month for every full year of working.
So yes, I can guarantee you that the moment the chicken butchers lose their jobs, they will go home. Including the good Lithuanians with bachelor degrees who were otherwise integrating very well.
@mihailyonkov8988 gotcha yes it for sure matters the extent of the safety nets
It's really an opportunity to avert demographic collapse and succeed by brain drain of the best people from other countries.
The challenge is to manage it enough that the nativist forces don't destroy their democracies out of xenophobic demagoguery.
-also, the argument that immigration is a temporary solution is dumb. Everything is a temporary solution, but if that solution lasts for generations as you attract primarily people under 30 that then statistically have more kids than natives, that makes a huge difference for two generations, which is nothing to sneeze at
Building enough affordable accommodation is the challenge when the political class wants to keep prices high by restricting supply.
@@richardamullens Omds housing isn’t our biggest issue our biggest issue is ensuring that our kids, grandkids and great grandkids inherit what we inherited from our parents our culture will dilute or go non-existent thanks to immigration and government replaced by some dysfunctional government ran by people with dual citizenship working for the interests of their nation of origin. Or even worse the nation balkanise into mass civil war.
@pretty7995 but how can immigrants "take" from your culture? They will move into areas the natives already considered blighted and maybe set up "chinatowns" there, but that just means natives have the advantage of doing the same in their own areas. If you believe the positive values are being transmitted from parent to child so poorly that Chinatowns are a more attractive pull then I think the problem is in the parenting or the perception of those values, not on the Chinatowns providing alternatives
@@pretty7995 Can you write proper English ? What does Omds mean ? Also, your sentences are poorly structured and punctuated. Do this out of respect for your readership. Later I may take the trouble to address your issues.
@@partydean17 Ignorance is bliss English people only make up 1/3 of new born children in England and here you are talking about at most they set up ethnic conclaves. I never said take I said dilute stay on track
The solution is very simple free movement of people. Allow people to move, pay taxes freely. Most people going to Europe and the US want to leave those places but can't because it cost them too much to get there illegally, they can't go back to thier home country empty handed.
If EU doesn't want immigration from certain countries then maybe they shouldn't be starting wars in their countries either.
I find this video ridiculous! Although illegal immigration is high and control is needed, immigration seems to be a problem due to the pressures it puts on the country. That is purely a reflection of the underfunding of the NHS, schools or lack of housing, problems that affect all citizens. Blaming immigrants for these problems seems to be good in elections but has not resolved the problem. Britan overall needs to get to grips with its own problems instead of blaming immigrants. It would be much more beneficial to shift the discussion towards how to make the most of new immigrants and make sure they contribute to society, instead to thinking of Rwanda schemes which do not respect basic human rights! I also find the comment of portuguese cafes quite amusing, when anywhere in the word a person can find an (Irish) pub and that doesn't seem to be a problem! Britain, please wake up and stop this xenophobic immigration conversation!!
This old economist clearly doesn't know the importance of migration for highly specialized technological companies.
He's literally a veteran of the FT. Who are you?
I'm a high tech researcher with a PhD in STEM and working in one of the most crucial tech companies in the world, researching on technology that will impact literally billions of people... Who tf are you? If you are impressed by authoritative figures and not by arguments you are out of your league.
You're a dude on the internet. You can claim whatever you want. And I don't care if something impacts billions of people. I only care if something impacts ME.
lol
TAKE THE REST OF MUSK'S MONEYU TO PAY ALL OF THE UNIVERSITIES IN THE USA TO TRANSITION TO ALL COURSES ON THE INTERNET & ISSUE ALL DEGREES OVER THE INTERNET .
Christ divine nature central authority unity save from political government cross separating people from God
You guys are insane, debating what is the best economical way to be conquered...WTF?
The Financial Times to National Front pipeline
The four people speaking about this issue are highly educated and are doubtlessly well paid, which is wonderful. I wonder if they see or understand the issues that mass immigration to many of the countries of the global west create for us of the hoi polloi, or if they even care about that. The WEF/UN/EU seem to want and appear to be facilitating mass immigration at the cost of lower wages and increased housing, food, etc...costs for us working class people aside from the destruction of social cohesion. I don't know if they have noticed but a huge number of the people coming will not assimilate and their protests are often and to the point of threats and violence. Wait until their numbers grow with further mass immigration. No worries it'll kill us working class first and the WEF/UN/EU want depopulation.