The EU design for Immigration is working VERY well. N. America could

easily adopt a similiar policy that would work just as effectively.

Te members of the EU have uniform money, employment rights, living rights and health care. (hose damn socialists!)

Imagine the US, Canada and Mexico all having the same uniform standards and rights on specific issues.

Then there would be no immigration fuss at all, would there? It's a SOLUTION that works for EVERYONE (but the racists, who are a minority, right?)

Thoughts, discuss?

I'll watch! :popcorn: I haven't thought idealistically in a long time; I kinda like it!

People are being send back that have been living in Eu for many years, speak the local language fluently, perform well in high school or sports.
While cheap workers from east europe flood the labor market. Supposedly europeans to don't want to do the job of plummer, carpenter etc - of course no mention of the issue of wages accompanies those claims.

is that I think wages will be driven down by more competition for jobs. If that problem was solved, I wouldn't be concerned about immigration at all.

to come to Ireland to work; particulary those workers from the east. There was a LOT of "OHMYGAWD we're being INVADED THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE OUR JOBS!"

However, just the opposite has happened... for the first time in centuries Ireland is a booming nation with an economy that is thriving and prosperous and becoming very, very stable.

Housing costs are what need to drop in the US, to become on par with wages.

Everything is going up these days. Wages are going up, too, but I think that would stop if we had a large influx of workers. We do have a lot of entry-level jobs available right now, but I don't see many new jobs for people to move up to. I just think that wages will stagnate for those entry-level jobs and there won't be enough higher level jobs for others to matriculate into. At least that's the economy as I see it now.

Ireland is now the fastest growing economy in europe.

I don't think much would change at all. I don't think there would be a significant increase in any migration; some, yes, sure. But you have to realize that most people don't want to move to the USA...

For another thing, you haven't thought of the fact that it's entirely likely that such migration will also bring new jobs with it, as people open up new businesses.

We can find the downside and make all the stories we want to about the worst things that can happen, but the fact is it's all highly unlikely, and recent history has proven otherwise.

as fucked up as the US economy?

I'm not so certain that immigration is being handled well in the EU. In France at least, the unions have such a such a stranglehold (a byproduct of union membership being hereditary) on decent jobs there that immigrants can't get a good job. Anti muslim sentiment is alot more virulent over there than here in America. By far. Or was that rioting indicative of something else? While they certainly have better programs for handling the immigration itself, I'm not certain life is better for an immigrant in total in the EU than in America, legal or otherwise. What we're doing makes little sense, but I still can't accept that it is just peachy in the EU.

While it's essentially true that any EU citizen can live where they want in the EU, it's also true that each country maintains its own immigration laws. A German can't just wake up one morning and decide he's going to pack his car and move to Monaco that day. You still have to apply for entry to the country you want to move to. What is easier now is travel between EU countries, with the virtual end of border checks between member nations.

As far as immigration by non-member citizens who claim refugee status, one overarching EU law is that you're supposed to apply for asylum in the first EU country you enter. But the first country of entry doesn't always do its job nor can it always handle the influx. Italy, for example, is the new destination of choice for refugees from war-torn N. African countries. (It used to be Spain.) This has created a crisis flood of refugees in Italy, which has had to apply to the EU commission for monetary support.

Undocumented migrants are another concern. Each EU member-state has different rules for admitting economic migrants. They each also have their own businesses who enjoy the cheap labor of undocumented workers. The EU is currently working towards harmonizing the rules while respecting each country's right to its own policies, but as you might imagine, it's even more complex a debate than the one the US faces because so many countries are involved.

When I lived in the UK, part of France's immigration policy was to keep its detained immigrants in detention centers right near their side of the chunnel, where many regularly "somehow" managed to escape and make their way into the UK (if they were lucky enough to survive crossing the tunnel). On being caught and interviewed in the UK, these immigrants were often deported back to France. This caused quite an argument between the two countries. I don't know where it stands now.

Germany still has a big headache trying to absorb the E. Germans; more than a decade on, their problem highlights the economic and social difficulties that result from too many people swamping a country's jobs market.

And just last week a man in the UK was sentenced on several counts of manslaughter for leaving 23 undocumented Chinese cocklers to die on a British beach one night when the tide came in. BTW, one of those undocumented workers is survived by his wife back in China who now has to figure out how to pay off the £15,000 loan he took out to pay for his illegal entry to the UK. He went because he wanted to send back money to buy a bigger house for them, in China.

So immigration in the EU isn't exactly the shining example you seem to think it is. It's dogged by many of the same flaws US immigration laws are...plus some new twists because now there are many gatekeepers, each with their own concerns and agendas.

US and Canada are merely three entities that could negotiate all of these issues based on the experiences now being endured by many nations in the EU... so that's a big benefit to installing such a policy for the North American hemisphere, it would be a lot more simple to enact with only 3 entities involved.

And of course illegal immigration from other nations is always a problem, but that's not the topic here.

Mexico could create a policy to deal with the people immigrating from nations south of them of course. Canada could deal with those pesky Greenlanders and Icelanders, right?

What you're proposing is a good idea...but there would be MAJOR hurdles to overcome. First of all, the EU has ecomonic criteria for entry into the union. The idea being you don't admit a country with grave economic troubles because those troubles then ripple throughout the union and weaken it. The economies of the US and Canada are compatible, but not so Mexico. Much work would have to be done to synchronize Mexico's economy with ours and Canada's before it could enter into any sort of positive union with us.

I didn't make that rule, but it's sensible and would likely be adopted in a US/Canada/Mexico scenario.

Then there's the need to standardize the currency. It seems a simple problem but it's not. The UK is for all intents and purposes a member of the EU, but it steadfastly refuses to move from the pound sterling to the euro. Never underestimate the power of the notion of sovereignty to make a country dig its heels in.

All of this assumes of course that Canada would agree to join us. Mexico would; they'd have much to gain. Canada, not so much. I'm not even sure that Canada's status as a commonwealth of the UK wouldn't stand in the way...and if not, I suspect it'll be some time before Canadians are interested in getting any closer to the US than they already are.

The US and Canada exist in the First World, Mexico and most of Latin America do not.

There is no comparable situation within the member nations of the EU.

Even of the poorest new EU members the economic disparity is not the same as between Anglo-America and Latin America.

competes very well on a global level. Especially considering that the new oil strikes in MX will further increase its economic standing globally, Mexico is a highly desirable place to live and work in the future.

While not as highly developed as the USA and parts of europe, it's certainly not as undeveloped as Africa and the soviet states, by any means. There are indeed comparable situations the EU; nations such as Romania (coming into the EU shortly) are far below other states in the EU, and even below Mexico on an economic and industrialized level, as is Poland, etc. The idea is to create a uniformity of economics, to help each other, and to stabilize regional economies. It all takes time and effort.

As an investor the ONLY reason I didn't move to and invest in the MX economy is that I don't care so much for tropical weather 24/7. I like my cooler winters, although without snow. I spent a lot of time in Mexico doing a good deal of research on investing and living there, and came away with a great appreciation for their way of life and for the people and its varied cultures.

I would say canada has the clearest and most effective immigration design of a western nation,
if you need an example. Its model alllows the equal assimilation of all sorts of foreign
persons in to a multicultural canada.

The european model, by contrast, sees immigrants as second class citizens who must ingratiate
themselves to their hosts, not coming in as equals. The shrinking-population european states
have an old-antique self image based on a lotta centuries where immigration was never en-masse,
never at the scale of US immigration except in time of war.

Another thing is that because of britain's home ownership sillyness, the population is very
not-mobile, and people will not up and move for a job, living rather on welfare payments.
Northern england has many an industrial-city where the industry is gone, and the residents
wait expectantly for the jobs fairy to come and gift them work.

Europe has no example that i can think of, not a single one, of an immigrant
coming to a european country and forming a successful startup *booming* company. Europe,
for all the talk, is very economically stagnant, and without that vibrancy,
immigration is in to social payments, housing estates and mediocrity, the
antithesis of successful immigration policies.

But until you break down the arrogant absolution of the british upper classes,
and thier small hearted long-term grip on kaptial and power, seeking no citizen
or middle class revolution to coopt their wealth, britain remains a monarchy,
with the operative word "monos".. one. The one-way, has become selfish and
small hearted. Immigration is spoiled and blamed on the back of that smallness.

In relation to the rest of Europe on things like immigration and their economy.

They have had strong and continued economic growth for more than a decade, and have one the lowest unemployment rates of any industrialized nation.

Britain has also dealt with immigration longer than many of her continental neighbors.

The real problems of Western Europe are found in countries such as France, Italy, and Germany.

I think all these countries are fine with small scale
immigration, when less than 5% of the population is
migrant, but the cultures have tremendous difficulty
with larger percentages as they are not assimilation-cultures
really, not like the US is, where an immigrant has truly
equal footing with a born resident.

I do agree that the UK has done marginally better, but
the good economy, much as with bush, is based on a huge
debt on the public credit card, one that is not backed up
by organic economic growth outside of the NHS.

Brown is now surrounding himself with great business leaders
like bill gates (gufaw!). Surely he'll be advised to keep
wealthy people even wealthier as the solution for economic
development.

The american business model has yet to prove that it can,
in a globalized environment, create long term wealth,
that is sustainable in other parts of the world. So far,
for all the talk, the wealth creation has been rather
one-sided, and the british model of american capitalism,
to dosh out the taxpayer's love on to state medical
instead of military, is just as fraught with troubles
and corruption, just in a different sector.

They do a good job, criticism is not to be petty, but after seeing
better immigration systems, there's big ground for improvement.
Just any system that enfranchises immigrants as equals to the
locals, is one that local voters will not support in the
less generous parts of the rich world, and as such,
the objective of immigration policy is to disenfranchise
your immigrants, so you get a labour force without any
political voice or rights.

I think all immmigrants should be assimilated by offering
them equal franchise, then the society is a lot better off,
solidarity in diversity, goodwill and trust across cultures.
But rather the lashback against multiculturalism is the latest
propaganda effort to keep migrants disenfranchised. Along
with the drugs war (the primary source of income for migrants
who are not able to work above board), the whole system can
always criminalize any immigrant if it wants to hard enough.

Monarchists are not democrats by any stretch of the imagination,
and any new subject should keep their head down and join the
flag cult presuming forever that the edifice is above their
tiny personship... when in fact, the sovereign citizen is
mightier than any sovereign state. That the state is so
unhumble to the citizen, never ever having bowed down to the people,
as in the US, the cultural legacy of that, is the perception
that the property state is above and transcendes its citizens,
and their democratic free will, no matter how many elections
you hold, and how much unlistened to remarks they make in
parliament with unitary president blair not listening.

Where disenfranchisement occurrs is with visa status. THe home office
should presume that all persons coming to the UK are immigrants, as
all immigrants are tourists, indistinguishable, except not economically
enfranchised elsewhere... as a tourist is presumed to have a job "back home".
But when you set foot on UK soil, the world spins, and that job back home,
the farm, the wife, the husband, the church, are very far away, and can be
taken away in an instant by staying away for a few days without comms.
How long, if you stay out of country, before they break in to your apartment
and cart off your stuff? 1 month? 3 months? 6 months?

Nobody can sustain, unless they are rich, a house in one country and a life
in another, so then any person who is a tourist, is a snail carrying their
whole future life in a shell on their back, and when you let the tourist
in to the country, the shell is there as well.

Then that tourist is confronted with a million economic and social hurdles
that every born resident gets for free, and many of these are intrinsically
anti-immigrant, by the perception of franchise. Rather than investing in
these tourists, now residents of britain as equals, the new thinking pushed
is to keep them as "tourists" and force them to pay for services rendered,
cash on the barrel. Health tourism specifically. Some areas that are
culturally not immigrant, the army (the army should recruit immigrants
actively) (although, IMO, i believe the army should, like switzerland,
require all persons to do a year of service, and in this way, the country
has a universal cultural bond)

So the visa status of that tourist, if it does not enfranchise them, given
a reasonable following of the yellow brick road, to permanent residency
and citizenship, that on the first day, the person is on a slippery ground,
where they are easily preyed upon by unscrupulous business people, who know
that the person needs economic franchise desperately, and where such exists,
is the dirty business.

If people are just given the same right to work of any resident, given
the modern travelling world, and taxes deducted from paychecks, why not
give outsiders equal footing.

Here are areas where franchise for immigrants:

1. raising capital - even if it is just knowing "how" to navigate the system,
an immigrant will need to raise capital in thier life, even if it is to
simply morgage for a home.
2. crofting/smallholdings - farming groups and communities are culturally
closed to incoming residents, be they english settlers in scotland or polish
settlers in england... the arcane system of family-secure land titles that
are not traded on an open market, dissuades franchise.
3. banking - the standard of ID the bank account opening requires is sooo
rigourous that immigrants are at difficulty to obtain equal access to
"trust".
4. church - some areas of the UK, just a few mind, where religion and
church, are culturally cultish and that an immigrant is dropped in to a
complex situation they will never have franchise in, whether they would want
it its not about attending church, and it does impact life in smaller town
britain one's relationship to the dominant religious view(s), even if they
be secular and/or degenerate.
5. trades apprenticeships - to learn a UK ceritifcaion in trade, you need
to go to apprentice school, something that is not immigrant friendly, as it
is rather agist.. only children can learn a new trade in britain. If you
are 35 and want to learn joinery, you're out of luck, no entry.
6. children - many immigrants have children, and all areas of social access
one needs to provide for a child are intrinsically not immigrant. And based
on how the state meddles in parent's childraising, i wouldn't have a kid
in britain.

certification. Often immigrants have degrees, skills and attributes that
do not match UK standards. This gives the locals a step up, and getting
those precise certifications is often arcane, and hence the premiums of
local vs. Unlicensed foreigners in construction trades and so many other
areas. Its not immigration, but certification, but its immigration and
franchise obliquely.

apologies for /long, but just thought it worth sketching out more.