Article

2007-07-10 International-UN-NGOs

UN Chief - we should welcome dawn of the Age of Migration

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by lotp 2007-07-10 00:00|| || Front Page|| [6 views ] Top

#1 Is that the PC of the post-Oil Cataclysm world - NOT A GLOBAL AGE OF BARBARISM, nor CONQUEST, nor DIASPORAS, but mere "MIGRATION", ala Radical Mullahs??? D *** ng it, its NOT a Dark Electricity-less World, WASHINGTON IS MERELY NOT MAKING ENUFF WAX CANDLES, NOR CLONING ENUFF WHALES FOR WHALE OIL!

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-07-10 00:31|| 2007-07-10 00:31|| Front Page Top

#2 As we enter the age of mobility, people will cross borders in ever greater numbers in pursuit of opportunity and a better life. They have the potential to chip away at the vast inequalities that characterise our time, and accelerate progress throughout the developing world.

No mention of how those "vast inequalities" are often imposed upon third world countries by their leadership. How much terrorism would be eliminated if MME (Muslim Middle East) rulers equitably distributed the oil wealth of their nations? Perish the thought that amidst such plentitude they wouldn't have The Great American Satan to blame for hobbling Islamic greatness.

To take just one example: last year migrants sent home £131bn, three times all international aid.

Anyone get the feeling a huge chunk of that cash is flowing out of America? I searched for numbers but they are not available. All I know is that America would be a lot better off if all that money stayed home. The more immigrants we let in, the more we will continue to hemorrhage financially.

In some countries, a third of families rely on these remittances to keep them out of poverty. Across the developing world, remittances underwrite healthcare, education and grassroots entrepreneurship.

Perhaps deposing the corrupt leadership of those impoverished countries might help to solve their dependency issues. Zimbabwe is a sterling example and Nigeria is another.

The freer movement of people oils the global economy.

Bush's campaign contributors certainly think so. I think Ban Ki-moonbat is just another muliculturalist, transnationalist, globalist snake oil peddler.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-07-10 01:25|| 2007-07-10 01:25|| Front Page Top

#3 To take just one example: last year migrants sent home £131bn, three times all international aid.

Yet another reason to end the flow of foreign aid paid for by US taxpayers, given away freely by Washington bureaucrats and the State Dept.

Posted by Besoeker 2007-07-10 01:42|| 2007-07-10 01:42|| Front Page Top

#4 We should welcome dawn of the Age of Migration by making every UN employee to migrate to the bottom of Marianas trench.

Posted by gromgoru 2007-07-10 02:29|| 2007-07-10 02:29|| Front Page Top

#5 Well, Zen, it's a bit more complicated than that. Case in point:

We send money every now and then to Babushka back in Moscow. It pays for some food, some meds, maybe something fun for her to brighten her day since her pension is kind of a joke. She gets to stay home where she's happy with her friends, she gets to take care of grandpa in their own apartment (he can't work because of health reasons) and we don't have to make space for them in the house. We've paid taxes on the money we send them....and how.

If we didn't send her the cash, she might have to come here to live, instead. Again, case in point from our lives as an example. Say we brought my mother-in-law and father-in-law here. Babushka i dyedushka come here, which is great for the Tsarevich, and would allow me to go back to full time work if grandpa's health isn't too bad. But if one of them gets hurt or gets sick, well....they're not going to be covered by the Tsar's insurance (we checked, not eligible), we can't afford a separate policy for them with the Tsarevich underfoot (ever check the cost for a premium for a couple not yet eligible for Medicare? It is fugly!), so, that means taxpayers would have to foot the bill not only for the treatment, but maybe even for a translator on occasion (the Tsar couldn't be at the hospital 24-7 since he has to work, and my Russian isn't up for complicated medical translation).

Does that money we send over help to "prop up" Russia's corrupt government? Maybe, maybe not. All I know is that it is, for now, the best situation for everyone concerned. Talk to me in five years, and we may be dealing with some other issues that will change the "send money vs. bring them here" issue in favor of setting them up here in the States.

Our situation isn't that unique where the Tsar works (lots of foreign-born employees). Believe me, it's cheaper on the US taxpayer and happier for the families to do it this way.

Illegals, on the other hand, in many cases haven't paid taxes on the money they earn. They send it back via Western Union, which holds back a little bit but nothing compared to the taxes they should have paid on it when it was earned. That's the hemorrhaging that needs to be stopped (not that it will, mind you....can't get Mexico pissed off at us for some reason that escapes me at the moment....)

But I do know of something that would save the economy billions, and make up a little for the illegals not paying taxes! It's called cutting the UN off cold turkey. I mean, since Bark at the Moon (or whatever his name is) thinks migration is such a plus, he surely can see why we would need that money to offset the costs....right?

Posted by Swamp Blondie 2007-07-10 02:36|| 2007-07-10 02:36|| Front Page Top

#6 This article is coming from a guy who was raised in one of the most ethnically homogenous countries on Earth, and whose citizens are damned intent on keeping it that way. This is a particularly egregious example of "do as I say, not as I do." Moonie can stick it in his ear. The sooner we're out of the UN and it leaves our territory, the better. They can take Teddy Kennedy with them.

Posted by Mac 2007-07-10 03:56|| 2007-07-10 03:56|| Front Page Top

#7 I for one welcome the opportunity to walk through even more neighborhoods near my home where no one speaks English.

Posted by Kofi Throluth2328 2007-07-10 04:01|| 2007-07-10 04:01|| Front Page Top

#8 BTW, Blondie, there's no logical reason why we, as a country, should allow your dependent in-laws to come here. There's no economic benefit accruing to this country from their presence. If we looked at it logically, we'd be telling you that if you wanted to be with them, you should go over there. That's what the Singaporeans would do, and they're probably the most pragmatic government on earth.

Posted by Mac 2007-07-10 04:01|| 2007-07-10 04:01|| Front Page Top

#9 Well the turd has shown his true colors. Bleeding successful cultures to death. Hum. Ban Ki-moon should welcome the age of kissing my arse.

Posted by Icerigger 2007-07-10 04:34|| 2007-07-10 04:34|| Front Page Top

#10 Swamp Blondie, my argument is oriented more towards the illegal aliens that send home money. You have the absolute right to support whomever you please in any nation on earth. Please don't think that I was calling for a halt to that right.

There still remains the issue of importing so many people who almost guaranteed will begin siphoning off their earnings to other countries. I'm not quite sure about how to properly deal with this but the fact remains that previous generations of immigrants did not engage quite nearly as much in this sort of remittance.

I certainly welcome the input of others here in order to better analyse this issue. Meanwhile, Ban Ki-moonbeam is still a tranzi, multiculti globalist.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-07-10 05:58|| 2007-07-10 05:58|| Front Page Top

#11 I think Ban Ki-moonbat is just another muliculturalist, transnationalist, globalist snake oil peddler.

Of course he is, it's one of the requirements of the job!

Posted by Natural Law 2007-07-10 06:46|| 2007-07-10 06:46|| Front Page Top

#12

"How much terrorism would be eliminated if MME (Muslim Middle East) rulers equitably distributed the oil wealth of their nations?"

Ha! As if even Mexico would do something of this sort...

Posted by JSU 2007-07-10 07:32|| 2007-07-10 07:32|| Front Page Top

#13 Does this mean his home country will open its borders to the north and welcome the 'age of Migration'?

Didn't think so.....

Posted by CrazyFool 2007-07-10 08:35|| 2007-07-10 08:35|| Front Page Top

#14 My favorite immigrant move was watching eastern indians in my old neighborhood bring their 50&60 yr old in-laws over from punjab/banglades, etc, & then get them on our social security after only being in the U.S. a few yrs.

Our policies wrt immigration are stupid.

Posted by Broadhead6 2007-07-10 08:51|| 2007-07-10 08:51|| Front Page Top

#15 Zen:

I know a few weeks ago, the NY Times printed some graphs showing (percentage wise, not hard #s) the following info:

* Avg. annual # of migrants (both net gain and loss to all countries). Of course, the US is BY FAR the largest immigrant country, and Mexico is the largest "exigrant" country (people fleeing there). Surprising to me, though, was that China and India, as well as Pakistan and Iran (of all places) were close behind Mexico in losing population to other countries. I understand China, India and even Pakistan (engineering school anyone), but Iran? I was surprised that they were so close.

There were several other charts, including the world's share of migrant population (%), which the US is by far #1 (France and some other Euro countries are pretty big too), migrants as a % of the host countries' total population (here the US is pretty small), but the 2 biggest eye-opening graphs were:

* Money sent home by migrants (again, Mexico, China and India, as well as some parts of Indonesia were HUGE; France and Britain were pretty big too) and
* Money sent home by migrants as a % of the home country's GDP (here, the chart is surprising, Mexico is fairly small actually, but the biggest countries were in the Carribean (can you say Bahamian banks?), Latin America (can you say cocaine?) and even into the Middle East (Iraq, Israel, some of the "istans"). The big surprises to me were South Africa, Bangladesh and some of the "istans." Of course, in Bangladesh's case, where the GDP is probably in the millions of $, a few hundred thou goes a long way.

Here's linky:
linky

Posted by BA 2007-07-10 09:00|| 2007-07-10 09:00|| Front Page Top

#16 Zenster, my understanding from my own family history is that some of my ancestors did send quite a bit of money back for a while, but it tended to dwindle down as they settled in more in America (it took a dip when they got married, and again as their own children grew and took up more of the family paycheck), and as the old folks back home died off. It might be the same for most people who move here, legally or not. I'll look and see if I can find some stats on that later.

------------

Mac, sure, my in-laws wouldn't provide much officially in an economic standpoint, unless it might be assuming some child care responsibilities so I could go back to full-time work (as opposed to my current part-time from home gig). But allowing in only people who might prove to be an immediate economic boon to this country isn't doable. Are you going to allow in a brilliant research scientist for five years, but tell his school-age kids that they can't come over here if they aren't going to become citizens and start paying back the cost of their educations?

Posted by Swamp Blondie 2007-07-10 09:00|| 2007-07-10 09:00|| Front Page Top

#17 Whoops. Goofed the link.

www.nytimes.com/ref/world/20070622_CAPEVERDE_GRAPHIC.html

Posted by BA 2007-07-10 09:01|| 2007-07-10 09:01|| Front Page Top

#18 We cannot hide from the fact that migration can have negative consequences.

Thanks, Banman. Didn't think you'd have the balls to put even that one line into this Kumbaya puff piece...

Posted by tu3031 2007-07-10 09:01|| 2007-07-10 09:01|| Front Page Top

#19 Ah, screw it. It was based on the NY Times, which relied on the UN for it's migrant charts anyways. Take with a grain of salt.

Posted by BA 2007-07-10 09:02|| 2007-07-10 09:02|| Front Page Top

#20 No, Blondie, that isn't what I think is logical. What is logical is to allow the nuclear family: husband, wife, minor children. Parents, siblings, adult children, inlaws, etc.--they stay in the old country unless they too can demonstrate sufficient economic benefit to THIS country to be as eligible as the first individual allowed in. We need to start looking at immigration as an extraordinary privilege allowed to certain very select foreigners who will benefit OUR country through being permitted to come here. All others--they're not allowed entry. The key here is that all foreigners considered for immigrant status must benefit the United States or be part of that individual's nuclear family. Immigration is for OUR benefit, not anyone else's.

Posted by Mac 2007-07-10 09:33|| 2007-07-10 09:33|| Front Page Top

#21 Au contraire, Mac. Those minor kids are going to use up our tax revenues by going to school. Nobody pays enough in property taxes to cover the cost of their child going to school, using the public parks and libraries, and so on. If those kids go to school here and never work legally in America, you better believe it's a drain on the rest of us who are paying taxes. s

Yes, the kids are probably cuter than my in-laws, but they will contribute exactly jack to the economy. My in-laws could at least sell their apartment and bring that money with them, so by a strict financial benefit analysis they'd be bringing more to the table, since most kids don't have any assets at all.

Posted by Swamp Blondie 2007-07-10 11:22|| 2007-07-10 11:22|| Front Page Top

#22 We all know how well uncontrolled migration worked for the Roman empire too.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-07-10 11:24|| 2007-07-10 11:24|| Front Page Top

#23 Vader, that's probably their point. They see it as a way to destroy the US and do it in a way that means we're unlikely to bomb them. The UN has been searching for decades for a way to destroy the United States and it's found one now.

All the more reason to slam shut the borders, deport all illegals and kick out the UN.

Posted by Silentbrick">Silentbrick 2007-07-10 12:01|| 2007-07-10 12:01|| Front Page Top

#24 No harm, no foul, BA. I ran across all of your same figures in an attempt to quantify the capital outflow from America in the form of foreign remittances. Admittedly, such a number is very difficult to pin down but nowhere were there even remote estimations of it.

I still suspect the USA is some 100 billion of that 131 billion worth of foreign remittances. As Mac noted, we need to concentrate on admitting people who are able to make immediate contributions to society. Importing scads of devoutly Islamic Somalis is begging for trouble. As INS official Harold Ezell of the Regan Administration said:

"We've done great on boat people. I see no problem with a few yacht people".

Nobody can tell me that America hasn't done a great job of sharing its wealth with this world. Our expenditures to provide military security around this globe have been huge. It's time for the USA to begin looking after its own interests. Especially so when it is under direct assault by multiculturalist tranzis both here and abroad. As CrazyFool so tersely observed, Ban Ki-moonchild sure as hell isn't pushing his native Korea to accept slavering hoardes of barbaric savages from every mismanaged rundown third world shithole, so why should we? America needs to adopt a "you first" policy with those that continue to suggest we commit national suicide.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-07-10 14:51|| 2007-07-10 14:51|| Front Page Top

#25 Au contraire, Mac. Those minor kids are going to use up our tax revenues by going to school. Nobody pays enough in property taxes to cover the cost of their child going to school, using the public parks and libraries, and so on. If those kids go to school here and never work legally in America, you better believe it's a drain on the rest of us who are paying taxes.

I find that statement leaps a logic block. It's difficult to presume that a child immigrating legally would work here it's entire life illegaly.

Posted by Mike N. 2007-07-10 15:39|| 2007-07-10 15:39|| Front Page Top

#26 You're reaching now, Blondie. Parents have a legal responsibility for their minor children and cannot realistically be left behind. Their admittance is legitimate. All others I mentioned are adults and by definition responsible for themselves. They don't get in on the first guy's coattails. They would have to show threshold-clearing value in themselves to gain admittance. In a pragmatic immigration policy your aged in-laws could not be considered as adding value to the country. In that case, America's interest (as opposed to your own personal one, which is where you're going astray) dictates that they stay where they are or go someplace else other than here.

Posted by Mac 2007-07-10 18:23|| 2007-07-10 18:23|| Front Page Top

#27 Not reaching any more than you are, Mac. You're just looking at the age of a person and assuming that they would automatically be a drain on the economy. Ain't necessarily so. They might be a drain on an individual family's finances, but not the economy as a whole.

And as for the legal responsibility for a family member, that doesn't only apply to children. Plenty of people have legal responsibility for parents, siblings, and other relatives. If they are willing to pay their bills without putting the burden on taxpayers, what's it to you, anyway?

It's not nearly as black and white as you are attempting to make it. Try again.
--------------------

Mike N, maybe I didn't make myself very clear. What I was driving at is, if we spend tax dollars to educate these dependent children for, say, five years, and then they go back home, that's money out of all of our pockets that we will never recoup in taxes on their future earnings. Those taxes will go to their home countries, and there's not a snowball's chance in hell that they're going to share any of that with us.

Posted by Swamp Blondie 2007-07-10 22:27|| 2007-07-10 22:27|| Front Page Top

#28 I'm backing Zenster & Co on this one. When Ban says "we" he's puking. He only means the U.S. Period. Shut that crap hole down now.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2007-07-10 23:18|| 2007-07-10 23:18|| Front Page Top

#29 what's it to you, anyway? You're wrong on this one, kiddo, and you're verging on personal attack because you can't make a legitimate argument. It IS as black and white as I'm making it; you just can't see it due to your personal bias. Check out what the Singaporeans would do in this situation--as I said before, they're the most pragmatic government on earth. They'd say the in-laws don't get in--you want to live with them, go where they are. It's that simple.

Posted by Mac 2007-07-10 23:42|| 2007-07-10 23:42|| Front Page Top

#30 As for Moonie, his country doesn't even want NORTH KOREAN REFUGEES in their cozy little haven down south, and they're people of the same ethnicity and culture. He's got a hell of a lot of nerve telling ANYONE else to open their borders coming from one of the most racially exclusive countries on Earth.

Posted by Mac 2007-07-10 23:46|| 2007-07-10 23:46|| Front Page Top

23:57 Angaiger Tojo1904
23:55 Angaiger Tojo1904
23:49 Angaiger Tojo1904
23:46 Mac
23:42 Mac
23:22 JosephMendiola
23:21 Rex Mundi
23:18 Rex Mundi
23:08 Anonymoose
23:01 Ol Dirty American
22:41 JosephMendiola
22:41 Squinty Unoluger4458
22:29 Fred
22:27 Swamp Blondie
22:23 JosephMendiola
22:12 Zenster
22:09 Mac
22:04 Zenster
21:56 Gary and the Samoyeds
21:53 Gary and the Samoyeds
21:46 Gary and the Samoyeds
21:45 Gary and the Samoyeds
21:40 Jerry Springer
21:40 gorb