The EU is full of countries with different currencies, customs, languages, and of course sovereign borders. To pretend like they are 'different' from Africa or ME is just a xenophobic argument, makes no sense. The degree of difference makes no actual difference to the argument that one country (say, Germany) seeing a giant influx of inter-EU and outside-EU immigrants has not materially impacted their unemployment in a significant way. That's just a fact that seems to run entirely counter to your notion that immigrant influxes are correlated with unemployment (or whatever it is you're trying to argument if it's not that).
Do you really think Germany and Syria have as much in common with each other as Germany and Estonia or Germany and Spain? But whatevs, this ignores the more important distinction which is that the EU operates as a two-way street. A Pole can work in the UK and make better money, a Brit can buy a vacation home in Poland for cheap. Anyone in a third-world country can come to America and improve their life dramatically, no Americans can try the same buying up dirt-cheap assets in Africa.
The difference between immigrants inside of and outside of the EU makes all the difference. EU citizens and nationals generally have very similar employment rates.That's intuitive since they always have the freedom to move back home or to another country when they can't find work. Non-EU citizens are always significantly less employed, and the gap is particularly strong in the most industrialized nations.
Though I will admit that Germany is something of a model nation. They've gradually incorporated Turks into their workforce for decades now, have an incredibly low unemployment rate and highly productive/industrial economy, and they've managed to avoid the kind of nationalism you see rising in nearly every other nation in Europe. I'd personally credit a superior brand of socialism within their nation for keeping them above most of the peers (plus their general position/power in the EU which makes them exporter-in-chief to all the poorer nations), and blame other nations for far less efficient governments that make work not worth it.
For one, like I said, no one argues for immigration at all costs and those arguing for resettlement (for those at risk of losing their lives) at all costs are a minority opinion. It's like arguing with 9/11 Truthers; yes there are some of these conspiratorial folk, but not nearly that many to matter enough to think about. Two, refugees by definition don't have permanent/reliable housing in a new strange country, so asking them to be employed immediately is of course impractical nonsense. That's what temporary safety nets are for.
There are some that have said so on this forum who are posting in this very thread.
If it was just immediate unemployment I'd agree, but it persists for many years. Even non-ethnic French (e.g. Algerians) face far worse employment prospects, even as second generation citizens, approximately double the unemployment rate (which is already quite high to begin with).
Huh? There are literally tens of thousands of immigrants employed in agriculture, most of them in CA. I'm not sure what makes you think technological change in ag takes away from my point that there are tons of low skilled jobs immigrants can do (and lots of high skilled too of course) that many native-borns will not, making Chirpy's point about immigrants taking jobs just nonsense.
Who work sub-minimum wage, or more than 40 hours a week, or without employers having to file as much paperwork, or without paying a federal income tax (withholdings possibly aside), or any other number of things that make them easier to employ and easier to make a living.
They are not limited, they are in every urban center and many of them are started by immigrants.
The BLS apparently says there are 40k valets in the USA. There are only so many openings for jobs built around driving the cars of middle and upper-class travelers/vacationers a couple hundred feet into a parking garage.
Wrong, on all counts. I'm not sure what reality you live in, but CA just by itself employs tens of thousands of housekeepers and caretakers. It is not a "tiny" percentage by any sane definition.
Correct, illegals. Joe making $100k/yr can afford to pay Maria and her daughter to dust the house for $20 and a few hours' work and come out feeling like a powerful man with servants, he probably can't afford to pay them at American prices. For that, Joe needs to be a 1%er. Californians live in a bubble, and a lot of that money goes back to family in Mexico.
Oy.
1. Uber
2. Lyft.
3. Etc.
OK, got me there.
I can't for the life of me understand what your point is here by downplaying the efficacy of these jobs that, in total, number in the millions. The fact that some industries are affected by technological change or just general competition does not take away from the core point; there is not a shortage of jobs due to immigrants, it's actually quite the opposite, their labor is badly needed due to shortages. Japan is a prime example of a xenophobic country that every economist can tell you would greatly benefit from immigrants to improve their labor pool, as there is a dramatic imbalance from their people/labor shortage.
Japan is another extreme, wouldn't want to emulate them either.
Facebook
Twitter