Why do peoples not understand that immigration is currently based on 'pull'?

[nino_savatte]

The problem is that the debate can't be "moved forward" while the subject is used as a political football by politicians and the media, and the same myths (however many times they're disproven) are circulated in order to create political tension.

I don't think baldwin realises how much he contributes to the circularity of these conversations. He won't acknowledge the fact that he regurgitates the same myths in response to anything that is put to him...but then, I don't expect him to. He's a bit of a troll tbh.

 

[durruti02]

People have been migrating for centuries. The reasons and causes for why people migrate haven't changed in all that time.

FFS .. that is just total nonsense .. so the emigration of the irish in the 1830's is the same as the current immigration of australians to this country???? .. dear oh dear .. you have shown yourself up here

 

[durruti02]

Tut tut, durutti, if you aren't lying or smearing, you're gloating. You continue to but this "mass migration" myth. Why?

yet again i am not sure what you are on about .. i is not about this thread

this thread is about the 'pull factor in migration ..

i have posted a number of links about opposition to emigration from within africa ( indeed the current public sector/nurses strikes in SA are related to this) and the damage it is doing ... and clear demands that the 'pull' from e.g the NHS be stopped .. care to comment?

 

[durruti02]

Wtf are you talking about? You're fucking squirrels, durutti.

I like the insult!! but as ever misdirected

what i was referring you to was Knotted's posting of a study and his notes from it that Sweden and its labour market, with its as there is a social contrct and better lbour protection than in this country, there is less immigration .. i stated that this sort of proves the OP

.. and yes i was also right that no one, not you, not mc, not vp, responded to knotteds post

 

[durruti02]

here it is again .. i would add that on p.20 it also emphasises that in countries with low high skilled migration migrants get better rights .. in countries with high migration for low wages , migrants get few rights .. what do you prefer?

04-05-2007, 08:03 PM
Knotted
Registered User Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 685

I think I've underestimated what durrutti was talking about in the OP. I was reading through some of the COMPAS articles and came across this one:
Numbers vs. Rights: Trade-offs and guest worker programmes

Its about how the lack of immigrant rights, in particular workplace rights, actually encourages larger scale 'low skill' immigration (that's immigrants taking up low skill jobs not that these immigrants are necessarily unskilled). It discusses the merits and failings of guest worker programs, which I imagine everyone here would oppose.

However it makes a very interesting point comparing the experience of the UK and Ireland with Sweden (citations edited for brevity):

Quote:
For example, the UK, Ireland and Sweden granted workers from the eight Central European states ("A8 countries") that joined the EU in May 2004 the right to enter and work. However, the right to work in the 'flexible' labour markets of the UK and Ireland was accompanied by restrictions on migrants access to unemployment and welfare benefits... By 2006, a million East European workers had migrated to the UK and Ireland after EU enlargement..., but only 5,000 found jobs in Sweden in 2005.....

Quote:One of the reasons for the paucity of A8 migrants is the tights regulation of Swedish labour markets, which gives migrant workers full employment rights and makes them as expensive as local workers.

Quote:
With effective labour law compliance, there was little incentive for employers to hire A8 migrants to save money.

The paper then goes on to make some interesting points about the industrial dispute at L&P employing Latvian workers as cheap labour.

Anyway, I think durrutti is absolutely right, at least as far as EU migration is concerned.

(Any spelling or typing errors in the above quotes are mine).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Knotted : 04-05-2007 at 08:07 PM.

 

[tbaldwin]

I don't think baldwin realises how much he contributes to the circularity of these conversations. He won't acknowledge the fact that he regurgitates the same myths in response to anything that is put to him...but then, I don't expect him to. He's a bit of a troll tbh.

You describe anybodys views that differ from yours as based on either prejudice or myths. Its a preety poor way of debating.

 

[durruti02]

What? Opposing further immigration controls? Nothing "wrong" in that. It's part and parcel of being a internationalist afterall, rather than a bigoted, xenophobic, racist, nationalist who wants to throw up borders and and then deport those already settled here (not refering to you of course).

As for claims of 'poaching'? That would be the argument from a black elite who cosy up to corporate interests and collude to keep wages low and conditions poor, who ride around in Mercs and live in exclusive areas; in mansions with black servants.

your first paragraph is odd and is out of context with what is being debated .. that african people/ unions are angry that the rich west is poaching skilled labour ...

and yet again you bizarrely think, me i guess, is asking therefore for immigration controls!!

yet again wrong .. what i am saying we should not poach third world labour and we should train the unemployed here


and on poaching you are again totally wrong .. the elite??? they dont care!!! .. they got private health care!! this is coming from the trade unions and people .. they do not blame the nurses for emigrating as i do not blame then either .. but they are angry with the NHS etc for poaching

p.s. did you actually read the WHO report or the qoutes i posted

 

[durruti02]

repost as MC must have missed it

08-06-2007, 06:07 PM
durruti02
love and rage! Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,375

more proof of the problem of 'pull' and poaching .. see particularly page 28

http://www.icn.ch/global/Issue5migration.pdf

and

"Since 2001, the NHS has promised not to engage in "aggressive recruitment" of African nurses, but this promise does not apply to private British hospitals, where African nurses often get their first jobs and later apply to the NHS. Since 1998, 12,115 African nurses have registered to work in Britain."
http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=3037_0_5_0

and again "One nation’s response to nurse migration: The view from South Africa .. by Bhungani ka Mzolo"

"The irony is, while affluent First-World countries can afford to build universities and train health workers, they use their highly valued currencies to buy these skills from poor countries such as South Africa. Large numbers of Third-World nurses, physicians and people in other health care specialties now practice their professions in Australia, Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. These professionals, trained at great cost to their respective countries, now abandon their people for lucrative job offers overseas. When their governments question their patriotism, they argue that it is their right to sell their expertise to the highest bidder.

What’s to be done?
The obvious solution would be for developed countries to stop poaching professionals from other countries and train their own, but I doubt very much whether that would go down well. Some countries, such as the United Kingdom, argue that their population is aging, and they do not have the time to train young people. They need nurses and doctors right now. Yet there are many English nurses working in Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East."
http://www.nursingsociety.org/RNL/1Q.../feature3.html

and "
The migration of skilled health professionals from Africa has adversely affected the quality of care offered in health institutions. Quality, effectiveness, and equity of care are closely linked to the impact of migration from the public sector."
http://www.afro.who.int/dsd/migratio...triesfinal.pdf

note that the WHO here argue ( p.63 ) that remittances are "they cannot fully compensate the losses" and they argue that movemnet of skilled health workers should be restricted ( p64)

 

[durruti02]

The problem is that the debate can't be "moved forward" while the subject is used as a political football by politicians and the media, and the same myths (however many times they're disproven) are circulated in order to create political tension.

VP this is an important point .. this is why i have started so many of these threads .. so we at least can understand what is true and what is myth .. sadly some people dont seem to want to play ball ..


the OP of this thread is very important beacuse if we accept the OP ( as obviously i do ) then it reinforces;

1) opposition to state migration control and

2) support for local w/c communuity power ..

this provides clear divison between other angles on migration ..

 

[nino_savatte]

You describe anybodys views that differ from yours as based on either prejudice or myths. Its a preety poor way of debating.

Another classic baldwin cheap shot. If he can't get the better of someone discursively, he whips out this.

 

[nino_savatte]

local w/c communuity power ..

This is vague. What does this mean? Of course, this idea relies on the notion that "communities" are homogeneous and that every person living in a particular area is "working class".

Someone is overlooking RTB types.

 

[ViolentPanda]

VP this is an important point .. this is why i have started so many of these threads .. so we at least can understand what is true and what is myth .. sadly some people dont seem to want to play ball ..


the OP of this thread is very important beacuse if we accept the OP ( as obviously i do ) then it reinforces;

1) opposition to state migration control and

2) support for local w/c communuity power ..

this provides clear divison between other angles on migration ..

No it doesn't, because while it sets out two admirable positions, it leaves a wide fertile space for seeds of doubt and mistrust to be planted in, for those myths to be perpetuated in.
Until all of that is out of the way, and what is dealt in is facts and nothing else, then, as I said previously, the debate can't progress. As long as people aren't debating from a solid foundation, but rather from a hotchpotch of anecdote, "friend of a friend" stories, myths and media exaggerations, then our wheels will keep spinning in the mud, and we won't get anywhere.

 

[audiotech]

repost as MC must have missed it

Err No.

South African Public service and administration minister Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi said this week that nurses who failed to observe an ultimatum to return to work were "being sacked in the interests of the patients and the country.

Sacked South African nurses are welcome here.

durruti02 what say you?

 

[durruti02]

No it doesn't, because while it sets out two admirable positions, it leaves a wide fertile space for seeds of doubt and mistrust to be planted in, for those myths to be perpetuated in.
Until all of that is out of the way, and what is dealt in is facts and nothing else, then, as I said previously, the debate can't progress. As long as people aren't debating from a solid foundation, but rather from a hotchpotch of anecdote, "friend of a friend" stories, myths and media exaggerations, then our wheels will keep spinning in the mud, and we won't get anywhere.

fair play .. i appreciate what you are saying .. but is not urban 75 an IDEAL situation to do what you say and deal with those myths???

.. maybe in the past i relied too much on what you describe (though the reason i have introduced anecdotal evidence IS THAT IT IS often the source of, or indicates, the myth, and very much does need to be dealt with), BUT lately i (and eg. knotted) have been posting references after references backing up the OP with no one having any more coherent come back than before ..

On this thread i post articles from SA nurses and the WHO proving the OP and even with calls for the NHS to stop poaching .. and response? nil .. acknowledgement that maybe what i have been saying is correct??? nil

is this right VP?

 

[durruti02]

Err No.



Sacked South African nurses are welcome here.

durruti02 what say you?

not exactly dealing with the thread are we MC

surely what we need to do is stop the NHS poaching?? no???

 

[durruti02]

Err No.

so err .. what do you take from it?

 

[audiotech]

not exactly dealing with the thread are we MC

surely what we need to do is stop the NHS poaching?? no???

The South African unions fighting for better wages and conditions for nurses is a step in the right direction wouldn't you say, rather than your one man picket of the NHS HQ?

 

[audiotech]

so err .. what do you take from it?

More to the point what do you take from it?

How's the picket going. Have you been lynched by any nurses yet?

 

[durruti02]

The South African unions fighting for better wages and conditions for nurses is a step in the right direction wouldn't you say, rather than your one man picket of the NHS HQ?

of course it is!!! you think i do NOT support their strikes!!

just change starts at home .. so what do we need to do here??? stopp teh NHS poaching .. no??

p.s. tink would be me and loads of nurses on that picket !! .. nurses unions here are against poaching and in favour of more training and employing nurses here on better conditiuons so they dont emigrate to gulf /oz / etc

 

[durruti02]

More to the point what do you take from it?

How's the picket going. Have you been lynched by any nurses yet?

what do it take from it?? simply i agree with what the WHO and the others said .. that the west should STOP poaching health care workers .. and train our own!!

seems like a good socialist policy to me!!

p.s. its going very well thank you!

http://www.wrp.org.uk/news/140

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1677505,00.html

"Ethical guidelines to stop hospitals poaching nurses from the poorest countries are being ignored by private recruiting agencies, the Royal College of Nursing warns".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3598806.stm


"The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) says the [poaching]code should be mandatory, rather than voluntary."

 

[audiotech]

of course it is!!! you think i do NOT support their strikes!!

just change starts at home .. so what do we need to do here??? stopp teh NHS poaching .. no??

p.s. tink would be me and loads of nurses on that picket !! .. nurses unions here are against poaching and in favour of more training and employing nurses here on better conditiuons so they dont emigrate to gulf /oz / etc

You're obviously unaware that nurses here at present are being sacked, so they may decide to emigrate to find work, just like their collegues in South Africa (who are unlikely now to choose the UK with Brown's public sector squeeze). If you did try and stop them with your one man picket, I can indeed see the potential for a lynching. Dope on a rope innit.

 

[durruti02]

You're obviously unaware that nurses here at present are being sacked, so they may decide to emigrate to find work, just like their collegues in South Africa (who are unlikely now to choose the UK with Brown's public sector squeeze). If you did try and stop them with your one man picket, I can indeed see the potential for a lynching. Dope on a rope innit.

you may have missed my last post .. i think the nurses are with me not you!

 

[durruti02]

http://www.bnn-online.co.uk/news_datesearch.asp?SearchDate=23/Feb/2005&Year=2005

Stop poaching our medical staff
A report by Save the Children a charity claims that the NHS in Britain is recruiting doctors and nurses from Ghana to fill the shortage of skilled health professionals.

The NHS adopted a code of practice in 1999 that forbids targeting doctors and nurses from Ghana, but since then the number of Ghanaian-trained doctors working in Britain has doubled from 143 to 293.

Save the Children Director General Mike Aaronson says “It is shameful that many poor countries are spending millions of pounds on training nurses and doctors to prop up the UK’s National Health Service”.

Unison, the health workers’ union, urged the Government to “stop taking and start training” overseas health professionals.

Dave Prentis, Unison’s general secretary, said: “We should develop training opportunities for overseas students, pay their tuition fees, give them a bursary and increase the pool of trained health staff internationally.

“It is morally wrong to take nurses and doctors from countries where their services are desperately needed”.

 

[audiotech]

you may have missed my last post .. i think the nurses are with me not you!

Missed it? The whole site crashed on me.

The first article from the WRP (do they still exist?) dated 2005.

The World Health Organisation estimates that one million more healthcare workers are needed in sub-Saharan African countries if they are to meet basic health goals, such as reducing childhood and maternal mortality.

A few nurses from South Africa who have been sacked are unlikely to affect the above are they?

The article continues.

The joint letters also warn that the United States has a ‘projected deficit by 2020 of 200,000 doctors and 800,000 nurses’ and that ‘countries around the world, including the UK, are likely to lose substantial numbers of doctors and nurses to the USA.

Still gonna stop nurses here, who have been sacked, from working in the US?

The Guardian article is from January 2006 and mentions an active ban on recruitment in sub-Saharan Africa and other countries short of medical staff?

The BBC link is from August 2004. Got any up to date info?

The revised code will ensure the NHS recruits staff ethically and fairly.

Pity they don't have an "ethical code" when it comes to sacking staff who will be looking elsewhere for work. South Africa perhaps? Oh no, over there health workers are being sacked as well.

 

[audiotech]

http://www.bnn-online.co.uk/news_datesearch.asp?SearchDate=23/Feb/2005&Year=2005

Stop poaching our medical staff
A report by Save the Children a charity claims that the NHS in Britain is recruiting doctors and nurses from Ghana to fill the shortage of skilled health professionals.

The NHS adopted a code of practice in 1999 that forbids targeting doctors and nurses from Ghana, but since then the number of Ghanaian-trained doctors working in Britain has doubled from 143 to 293.

Save the Children Director General Mike Aaronson says “It is shameful that many poor countries are spending millions of pounds on training nurses and doctors to prop up the UK’s National Health Service”.

Unison, the health workers’ union, urged the Government to “stop taking and start training” overseas health professionals.

Dave Prentis, Unison’s general secretary, said: “We should develop training opportunities for overseas students, pay their tuition fees, give them a bursary and increase the pool of trained health staff internationally.

“It is morally wrong to take nurses and doctors from countries where their services are desperately needed”.

Why do you use huge bold letters in your posts? Is it to convince yourself that your argument for further immigration controls is the right one?

I also notice that you've referred to another out of date article.

Nurses are being sacked here and now there is, as The Guardian article notes, an active ban on recruitment in sub-Saharan Africa and other countries short of medical staff.

 

[ViolentPanda]

fair play .. i appreciate what you are saying .. but is not urban 75 an IDEAL situation to do what you say and deal with those myths???

No.
Put plainly (and meant in the least contentious way possible) the P & P forum on Urban (as on any other political forum) is "elitist" by it's very nature, and doesn't provide a broad format for getting information "out there" in the "real world".

.. maybe in the past i relied too much on what you describe (though the reason i have introduced anecdotal evidence IS THAT IT IS often the source of, or indicates, the myth, and very much does need to be dealt with), BUT lately i (and eg. knotted) have been posting references after references backing up the OP with no one having any more coherent come back than before ..

The problem with myths (any myths is that they are founded on a grain of truth, but usually on a stereotypical grain of truth. The myth establishes itself through having the widest possible "readership".

You also have to bear in mind (as I have to repeat incessantly to your mate Balders) that references, while good, aren't the "end" in terms of facts, they're a "means toward establishing facts with greater clarity, the same as stats aren't and end unto themselves, just sets of collated data relevant to particular sets of questions.

On this thread i post articles from SA nurses and the WHO proving the OP and even with calls for the NHS to stop poaching .. and response? nil .. acknowledgement that maybe what i have been saying is correct??? nil

is this right VP?

There's your problem.

Your references don't prove your claims, they support them, and only insofar as your claims and their claims coincide.

Basically someone else could, quite easily, use the same articles you posted to support arguments exactly the opposite of your own, because some of the claims made aren't sufficiently qualified.

This isn't saying that your argument is "right" or "wrong", more that while it's a conclusion, it's not the only one that can be drawn from the data you've used.

 

[ViolentPanda]

what do it take from it?? simply i agree with what the WHO and the others said .. that the west should STOP poaching health care workers .. and train our own!!

seems like a good socialist policy to me!!

p.s. its going very well thank you!

http://www.wrp.org.uk/news/140

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1677505,00.html

"Ethical guidelines to stop hospitals poaching nurses from the poorest countries are being ignored by private recruiting agencies, the Royal College of Nursing warns".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3598806.stm


"The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) says the [poaching]code should be mandatory, rather than voluntary."

You should bear in mind that a significant minority of staff aren't "poached", but put in the legwork (visa, work ermit, applications) themselves.

Oh, and codes are by their very nature voluntary. If they were mandatory they'd be called rules

 

[durruti02]

Why do you use huge bold letters in your posts? Is it to convince yourself that your argument for further immigration controls is the right one?

I also notice that you've referred to another out of date article.

Nurses are being sacked here and now there is, as The Guardian article notes, an active ban on recruitment in sub-Saharan Africa and other countries short of medical staff.

i ocasionally use HUGH letters as sometimes you are bloody blind!!!

.. i have shown you that nurses (and the WHO) in south africa are against poaching .. but you do not acknowledge this .. and i have shown you that both the RCN and Unison in this country are against poaching .. yet you can not acknowledge this either .. do you never admit that you might have got something wrong???

edited for spelling mistake

 

[becky p]

http://www.bnn-online.co.uk/news_datesearch.asp?SearchDate=23/Feb/2005&Year=2005

Stop poaching our medical staff
A report by Save the Children a charity claims that the NHS in Britain is recruiting doctors and nurses from Ghana to fill the shortage of skilled health professionals.

The NHS adopted a code of practice in 1999 that forbids targeting doctors and nurses from Ghana, but since then the number of Ghanaian-trained doctors working in Britain has doubled from 143 to 293.

Save the Children Director General Mike Aaronson says “It is shameful that many poor countries are spending millions of pounds on training nurses and doctors to prop up the UK’s National Health Service”.

Unison, the health workers’ union, urged the Government to “stop taking and start training” overseas health professionals.

Dave Prentis, Unison’s general secretary, said: “We should develop training opportunities for overseas students, pay their tuition fees, give them a bursary and increase the pool of trained health staff internationally.

“It is morally wrong to take nurses and doctors from countries where their services are desperately needed”.

durruti02.

I admire the way you keep at this. But face it there are a few people on here who just want to feel superior and want to dismiss you or anyone who questions their views as stupid and or racist.

I have seen how you baldwin,brassic and knotted,have tried to debate with these people.
But they are never going to have the humility or intelligence to admit they have got things wrong.

 

[durruti02]

1) No.
Put plainly (and meant in the least contentious way possible) the P & P forum on Urban (as on any other political forum) is "elitist" by it's very nature, and doesn't provide a broad format for getting information "out there" in the "real world".

2)The problem with myths (any myths is that they are founded on a grain of truth, but usually on a stereotypical grain of truth. The myth establishes itself through having the widest possible "readership".

3)You also have to bear in mind (as I have to repeat incessantly to your mate Balders) that references, while good, aren't the "end" in terms of facts, they're a "means toward establishing facts with greater clarity, the same as stats aren't and end unto themselves, just sets of collated data relevant to particular sets of questions.

There's your problem.

4)Your references don't prove your claims, they support them, and only insofar as your claims and their claims coincide.

Basically someone else could, quite easily, use the same articles you posted to support arguments exactly the opposite of your own, because some of the claims made aren't sufficiently qualified.

This isn't saying that your argument is "right" or "wrong", more that while it's a conclusion, it's not the only one that can be drawn from the data you've used.

cheers VP

1) if pnp is not for debate then what is it for??? i have never thought it was about getting info 'out' .. but for debate amongst activists ..

2) i absolutely agree .. and think therefore we should dig deep into them .. not get frightenned of them and shut down debate as some have done ..

3) yes i accept that re references ( interesting debate on the fothergill report and why it has been produced .. what is it FOR!) .. but we can at least use them as a basis for discussion .. it is better than i right you wrong etc etc etc

4) fair play .. i accept that technically it is hard to get any 100% proof for any social phenomena .. and that proof may be weighted /twisted / lies etc etc and so technically i should not say that a ref. proves my point .. BUT!! so ok i will add 'seems to' before i use the word 'prove' again!


so anyway i have posted references and made claims .. then surely it is up to you or whoever to find differrent in those references or elsewhere ??

.. ok maybe i have said they prove what i am saying .. tbh honest all the references (from SA and the UK) have been pretty clearly against poaching .. in that context i would think i am justified in saying they prove or seem to prove what i am saying and for someone else to show differrent .. which at this moment , on poaching, i really can not see how they could do ..