- Convicted criminals 55%
- Immigration fugitives 3%
- Other removable aliens 4% (Did some hard core fan of MIB invent that term?)
- 69% in UK thought immigration affects negatively (32% in Poland, 37% in Sweden, 56% in Italy thought the same)
- 71% in UK think there are too many immigrants in the country (29% Poles, 46% Swedes and 67% Italians agree)
- 67% to 26% of UK working-class people would ban all immigration while 49% to 46% of middle class in UK would not do so.
- Anglo-Saxon invaders in 5th century AD used ethnic cleansing to wipe out between 50-100% of the indigenous population and segregated themselves from the native Celtic Britons, restricting intermarriages. Effects can be detected even today. In 2002, BBC reported “English and Welsh are races apart”.
- The Native Americans, the First Nation in Canada, the Australian Aboriginals, the Karen people in Burma and the Pygmies (killed and eaten by both sides in the recent Congo Civil War 1998-2003) still live to tell their stories of genocide, extermination and persecution
Increase in crime rates and social anxiety in the host countries are often directly linked to immigrants as in the case of Sweden, where they are four times more likely to be investigated for violent crimes.
One counter-argument to liberal immigration is that immigrants just save all their money and then send it home. This deprives the host economy of their spending locally. But many locals also don't spend all their money and save a lot.
- 68% say that food and restaurants have improved – 8% thought otherwise
- 47% say that entrepreneurial and start-up climate has improved due to immigration – 11% thought they have deteriorated
- 32% believe that art and literature have gained while 6% see the opposite
- 36% feel that immigrants have enriched film and music, while 7% feel the opposite
Does "Quality" of Immigrants or Quantity of Immigration Give an Indication of Benefits to the Host Society?
This line of reasoning can get very dangerous as it leads to selective immigration and massive discrimination. Who gets to choose, using what criteria and who sets the criteria. Does this kind of eugenic practice mean good-bye to human rights? Yes, rather too often but not always. In almost all societies, restaurants can choose their customers, but are not accused of trampling human rights.
If we were to go by magnitude alone, why has Somali cuisine not spread, in spite of fairly large Somali populations in many countries, but Moroccan or Turkish cuisine has? Why isn't Marmite popular in places where English has become the dominant language? Is there some connection to the uniqueness or differentiating taste of the cuisine before it can spread around? Is a cuisine a cultural “meme” with its own complex logic of spreading around without any connection to immigration volumes?
- 52% of the GDP in Tajikistan
- 30% in Haiti
- 25% in Lesotho and
- 24% in Nepal.
So strict border controls, without a proper understanding of how freer immigration often contributes to win-win situations for the host and the sending country, may create lose-lose situations and just appease some people’s paranoia only.
Where are the strictest border security controls in the world? They are between: