What are the consequences of the inflow of refugees and asylum seekers?
What are the consequences of the inflow of refugees and asylum seekers into countries with developed economies?
Could someone give me a few notes about this please so i can use them to structure an answer.
well my local high street in 10 years has turned into downtown mogadishu, thats not daily mail propoganda, thats my own high street.
A bigger bill for the taxpayer.
References :
You gotta see this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ
I got it from that question.
Is illegal or legal immigration good for America?
Here goes another good one
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002700.html
I got that one from this question
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ak6lNNSOAg0ZAEC5s9jRyOimDH1G;_ylv=3?qid=20100227230011AAGyAKm
I hope that helps
References :
Immigration is good for any countries wishing to expand and fill gaps in expert knowledge or increase amount of workers into thriving business. A mix of cultures can be a good thing for opening up and changing restrictive social, religious and moral practices.
Immigration only becomes a problem when it is uncontrolled.
This results in:
1 Lower wages overall to both new and existing citizens as supply of workers exceeds demand.
2. Higher taxes are required to pay for extra users of schools, roads, housing, medical treatments, social workers and police services for problem families unable to integrate or are leaving their homelands due to mental or criminal problems.
3. Resentment from the ideginous population who percieve any non–working influx as economic migrants not paying taxes and draining resources.
4. Racsim grows due to non-integration of migrants who come from very insular and protected cultures – fear grows of the unknown cultures.
References :
IN SHORT
Political conflicts all over the world have caused an ever growing stream of refugees (growing from 5 to 20 million or even more during this period), some of which attempt to enter a rich Western country and of which only small number succeed. The rich countries however feel like they are overflowing and, with the occasional exception such as the adoption of refugees from former Yugoslavia, increasingly close their borders.
References :
Well three generations back it meant my family got the hell out of the Ukraine. Your ancestors did the same at some point. Dig deep and everybody is a migrant.
References :
consequences? the lock smiths get more business from people taking extra measures to secure their own homes against the influx of people they know nothing about. that is the only positive the local economy gains from refugees and "asylum" seekers. apart from that the areas go to pot, house prices drop the locals have increased street crime. the refugees and "asylum" seekers take much needed resources away from the local community by getting special treatment with our tax money. it costs 30,000 a year to house an "asylum" seeker in lodgings including living allowances. 100 "asylum"seekers in one estate equals 3 million quid lost to the people. thats only in one area alone
References :
well my local high street in 10 years has turned into downtown mogadishu, thats not daily mail propoganda, thats my own high street.
References :
Better music, better food, more convenience stores, a hard working work-force, cultural diversity, better education, (for most of us anyway), and it helps to undermine the racism that far right groups such as the BNP tend to spout.
Personally I favour immigration. I believe that workers should be allowed to travel anywhere in the world without restrictions. Rich people can so why shouldn’t the rest of us?
Western capitalism creates poverty throughout what has become known as the 3rd World. Immigrants and asylum seekers tend to flee from poverty and war torn areas of the world. As long as the arms industry are happy to arm oppressive regimes and capitalists force workers in foreign countries to accept low wages and poverty conditions then workers in the West should welcome these victims of oppression and poverty.
Having worked in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sri Lanka let me assure you that the last thing people want to do is uproot and go to a foreign country. They would much rather stay where they are and live peaceful and productive lives!
Capitalism is to blame…not immigrants!
References :
why not ask jad152 he seems to know it all
References :
Better music, better food, more convenience stores, a hard working work-force, cultural diversity, better education, (for most of us anyway),
if thats the only benefit Wolfie then u can keep it
better music………..i can buy the cd
better food……..i can buy a cook book
more stores………..selling special food to immigrants mostly
better education……….cant see how that works
cultural diversity…how does that benefit the indigenous population
basically u have no argument …….vote BNP..u know it makes sense
References :
Asylum seekers can’t really be compared to someone who emigrates to a country with a high level of skills and experience and a work permit, for example.
Lets say a doctor comes to the UK from India on a work permit. He will have to prove before he can come here that his skills will fill a gap in the job market and that he can support himself without recourse to public funds. He won’t cost the British Taxpayer anything and won’t be taking away work from a British person as his skills are in high demand. So his presence is beneficial in many ways. He is actually doing a lot for the UK.
An asylum seeker usually comes to the UK with nothing. No money, no job, nothing, and they throw themselves on the country’s mercy. They usually need Government support whilst their case is decided, and Government sponsored housing etc after it is decided, so that they can settle. Many will also need to claim benefits, especially those who bring with them family members who are unable to speak English and therefore would not be able to work. He may not be skilled in any particular area, he may simply end up competing for work with local people – hence, his presence is not as beneficial to the country as the first immigrant is.
However, the difference is that the asylum seeker is accepted into the UK for humanitarian reasons rather than because his presence will beneft us.
References :