Sienisoturi wrote:I hope you did not miss the part in the start where I said how my post was mainly about refugees, and I do apologise any confusion.
You specify refugees, but then you mix your points up. Arguments like 'brain leak' are arguments against economic migration - they make no sense when used against refugees, where the scale is tiny and the people in question are removed from the political and economic structures in which their brains would have been put to good use.
Which extends to your greater confusion of challenging refugee intake on economic grounds - when the issue is effectively immaterial to the economy as a whole. Plus or minus 5,000 people is irrelevant to GDP, and to infrastructure and service demands. Discussing immigration on those levels makes sense, as it works on that scale.
This arguably is mainly caused by the differences in societies, as when US was built any imigrants that arrived were only given land, and therefore they were forced to work hard in order to survive, and most likely in order to do this they also had to integrate quite well, as often they were the only people that could speak their language for a couple of miles.
This is horrifically simplistic and factually wrong. Land drives were an important part of migration nation building, but they were only for short period, and only impacted few migrants. Most migrants, refugees or otherwise, did the same as they do now - move to the major cities, into boroughs of similar culture & language. Read your history - start with the German and Dutch quarters of New York.
On the claims of services handed out to refugees - well personally I've never seen a case where the services people claimed refugees received weren't wildly exaggerated. Sure, there's basic health & dental like any citizen would get, but beyond that there's very little.
Could you please elaborate a bit on what is so wrong with opposing imigration, when I clearly pointed out how it realy brings no good.
Except, of course, that you didn't point that it brings no good.
For Japan and other countries with an aging population, the problems that are coming with that are exagorated. Often it is mentioned how the larger generation that were born post WWII will crash the economy, but most countriews have already entered a stage at which these people are no longer in the working population, and instead need medical help to survive, and yet these countries are doing reasonably well still.
First up, don't claim the claims are exaggerating, and then do the exaggerating yourself. It won't 'crash' the economy, but it is a serious headwind lasting multiple generations. And there's no prediction to this - Japan's 'lost decade' is now pushing 20 years.
Automatically Appended Next Post: 
Bullockist wrote:The main difference between refugees and immigrants is the amount of rescources it takes to fit them in. MY first inKling of this was talking to a Sri Lankan Tamil and he said "the secret of the Sri Lankan community is the amount of us that are under counselling" the more i thought about it the more it made sense. The longer a country is in chaos the longer the people need to take to adapt to an ordered society and the experiences they suffered. This is the real cost of refugees.
Australia benefits from taking Immigrants. Refugees just have a larger cost associated with them.
Definitely. The point here, though, is that general immigration is primarily an economic issue - does the person applying have skills that are valuable to our country? Whereas refugees are primarily a moral question - does the person applying really need refuge, and is granting refuge to these people the best way to spend our scarce resources?
IF the first generation have little incentive to integrate then the 2nd or 3rd makes them.
That's always been my belief, but I wonder if its changed with the growth of private religious schools.
