John Ampams journey to Europe.... - Political Forum

Voland · 01-30-2007, 07:38 AM

A european / african contribution to immigration debates.
This is the story of John Ekow Ampan from Ghana who wanted to get to the "promised" land of Europe to make money for his family. He saw many die on their way through the Sahara desert, was put in prison, was sent back and started again etc. Finally he ended up in Spain, and the story is not over here....
His story stands for millions trying to reach the EU each year, while thousands of them perish in the desert or on tiny nutshelllike boats on the mediterranean only to end up working as illegals on spanish vegetable farms, french vineyards or german construction sites, constantly under the threat to be picked up by police and sent back. This is not only a US problem.

An African Odyssey Part III: Surviving the Sahara on the Way to Europe - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

george.d · 01-30-2007, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voland

A european / african contribution to immigration debates.
This is the story of John Ekow Ampan from Ghana who wanted to get to the "promised" land of Europe to make money for his family. He saw many die on their way through the Sahara desert, was put in prison, was sent back and started again etc. Finally he ended up in Spain, and the story is not over here....
His story stands for millions trying to reach the EU each year, while thousands of them perish in the desert or on tiny nutshelllike boats on the mediterranean only to end up working as illegals on spanish vegetable farms, french vineyards or german construction sites, constantly under the threat to be picked up by police and sent back. This is not only a US problem.

An African Odyssey Part III: Surviving the Sahara on the Way to Europe - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

It's actually a normal function in supply and demand of labor everywhere, with mature nations attempting to pick and choose using immigration laws.

Voland · 01-30-2007, 12:51 PM

That is correct, except that in the case of the EU you are talking about 25 nations, with different labour markets and demands and different immigration laws. Small progress has been made, for example when the interior ministers of France and Germany agreed to issue a limited number of permits, to be seen before the backround of the illegals providing the cheap labour force for jobs Europeans don´t want to do because of hard work and very low salaries. Also it begins to occur to decisionsmakers that the money these illegal workers send home exceeds the amount of official development aid significantly, and is vital for many african nations.
Now the EU begins to cooperate with some transit countries like Senegal or Morroco to pick people up before they reach European waters or even soil, but as long as they´re working on the symptoms , the immigrants , instead of the core issues, like the exploitment of african ressources , poverty, etc., all that remains hypocritical and doomed to fail...

george.d · 01-30-2007, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voland

That is correct, except that in the case of the EU you are talking about 25 nations, with different labour markets and demands and different immigration laws. Small progress has been made, for example when the interior ministers of France and Germany agreed to issue a limited number of permits, to be seen before the backround of the illegals providing the cheap labour force for jobs Europeans don´t want to do because of hard work and very low salaries. Also it begins to occur to decisionsmakers that the money these illegal workers send home exceeds the amount of official development aid significantly, and is vital for many african nations.
Now the EU begins to cooperate with some transit countries like Senegal or Morroco to pick people up before they reach European waters or even soil, but as long as they´re working on the symptoms , the immigrants , instead of the core issues, like the exploitment of african ressources , poverty, etc., all that remains hypocritical and doomed to fail...

Same issues facing the US on immigration, with Mexico, S. America, Asian and Caribbean nations filling a similar US labor demand.

In the US a majority of negative immigration issues are fueled by public emotion actually unrelated to the simplicity of labor demand and financial support provided to often destitute families in labor contributing countries. While the US is a relatively new country solely formed by past immigration, new immigration, illegal by self-serving legislation, has been placed on the same emotional platform, illegality with a strong thread of bigotry based on cultural differences.

I see no solution to US illegal immigration as long as the public is focused on legality and a sense of circling the wagons to preserve foolish and often false impressions of immigration heritage. US politicians dependent on popular support feed those emotions with no concern for solutions, being focused on election and re-election. If the public fights such a senseless battle for a long enough period of time, business will merely move facilities to available labor pools. Long-term planning is not an American feature.

emptypepsi · 02-01-2007, 07:01 PM

There may be a sense of bigotry in some of the arguments played on by the media and some loud radical voices. Most people I've encountered just want the laws obeyed and the employers punished. Nothing really bigoted about that.

I figure the problem of people coming or staying from wherever illegally will fix itself after that, for the most part -- considering we make entrance into the country speedier for certain groups of people.

george.d · 02-01-2007, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emptypepsi

There may be a sense of bigotry in some of the arguments played on by the media and some loud radical voices. Most people I've encountered just want the laws obeyed and the employers punished. Nothing really bigoted about that.

I figure the problem of people coming or staying from wherever illegally will fix itself after that, for the most part -- considering we make entrance into the country speedier for certain groups of people.

It's purely a labor issue, supply and demand. The US has three primary options:

1. Attempt to close borders at unaffordable expense by penalizing US employers, putting them out of business as few Americans will work for immigrant level wages and living conditions. Poor planning in a nation with current US economic circumstances. An expanding global society will eventually move the jobs closer to labor pools.

2. Permitting a ratio of laborers to legally immigrate as guest workers proportionate to desired professional level skills immigration, probably 500,000 to one from Mexico. Put a guest worker tax on them to defray social costs withheld by employers.

3. Stall with unaffordable isolationism until lower tier US workers need those low-paying jobs and are prepared to live in about 75 sq. ft. each.

Isolationism is difficult to achieve with an economic structure dependent on outside resources that include energy, food and labor, regardless of legislation intended to select who will be Americans.

emptypepsi · 02-02-2007, 04:14 PM

Punishing employers according to the law is not 'closing the border'. That's just flat out false, dude - no matter how many times it is retyped.

The US could probably pull off a nice mixture of the first two and get off okay, if you make compromises with different ideas. One, punishing employers who violated the law is one of the only things we can do to ensure a no amnesty approach in this situation. Second is that we implement Bush's guest worker program, sure, but while adding in a stipulation that all must go home PRIOR to starting in the program. Bush's plan did not call for that, which is what made it 'blankey amnesty' in the eyes of many. Then simply let the program run the way suggested, so we know that it started off without being a joke. I would say that minimizes the chances of it ending up a joke. I say let in more people legally each year as well. That way you get a steady flow of workers without compromising that which shapes this country - the law.

Sorry, there has to be implementation of the law to those who broke it, and without doing so that is taking the situation to a level most aren't willing to see done. I think you'll make more ground with people by trying to tie loose ends with the situation instead of making it these "extreme set of options" vs those "extreme set of options", etc. situation.

george.d · 02-03-2007, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Punishing employers according to the law is not 'closing the border'. That's just flat out false, dude - no matter how many times it is retyped.

You're stating it's not an attempt to stop illegal immigration? Why else would they be punished under a politically oriented move to increase enforcement manpower and resources to appease border states with large electoral votes?
That particular legislation and enforcement is directed only at employers who employ workers with questionable legal immigration status.

Quote:

The US could probably pull off a nice mixture of the first two and get off okay, if you make compromises with different ideas. One, punishing employers who violated the law is one of the only things we can do to ensure a no amnesty approach in this situation. Second is that we implement Bush's guest worker program, sure, but while adding in a stipulation that all must go home PRIOR to starting in the program. Bush's plan did not call for that, which is what made it 'blankey amnesty' in the eyes of many. Then simply let the program run the way suggested, so we know that it started off without being a joke. I would say that minimizes the chances of it ending up a joke. I say let in more people legally each year as well. That way you get a steady flow of workers without compromising that which shapes this country - the law.

Sorry, there has to be implementation of the law to those who broke it, and without doing so that is taking the situation to a level most aren't willing to see done. I think you'll make more ground with people by trying to tie loose ends with the situation instead of making it these "extreme set of options" vs those "extreme set of options", etc. situation.

I'm not out to make ground with anyone, just pointing out the futility and ridiculous cost of enforcing faulty legislation that attempts to ignore the reality of natural labor supply and demand. Laws are changed every day to facilitate progress and address reality. If we stood by every law that was ever on the books dunking would still be in fashion, alcohol illegal, women unable to vote and etc. To impede progress by enforcing immigration law on a retroactive basis, workers must go home and reapply, is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Many of the employers will relocate.

What will be your reaction when NAFTA's superhighway goes through Texas and Mexican nationals employed at distribution centers are exempt from immigration quotas?