Realistically addressing the "Migrant Crisis"

There is a lot of concern about the "migrant crisis" at the moment.

Mass migration on the scale we have seen over the past few years is a symptom of global political and economic dysfunction. It cannot be met by individual countries putting up barriers, with simple obstruction or unthinking denial. Mass migration is a major international challenge and demands major international action to address it.

Addressing the present situation

First it is necessary to accept that we are in this situation. Mass migration is a reality at present. We may or may not like it, but it is necessary to accept it as a given, and react rationally rather than just with negative emotions such as fear and anger.

Short term policy may be sorted in two ways: Obstructive or Humanitarian.

Obstructive measures against migration aim to make it difficult for migrants to travel. They are epitomised by Donald Trump with his "beautiful wall".

British Government foreign policy is often based on a crude behavioral psychology which aims to apply negative reinforcement (punishment in common speech) to unwanted behavior. For example, they are deliberately driving immigrants into povertyⁱ.

This punitive approach is shown in the non-involvement of the UK Government in Operation Triton, where the Government specifically stepped away from saving lives of drowning people because being saved from drowning might (in their view) encourage other to migrate.

The shameful situation at Calais is another example of the punitive approach, as is the failure to honour promises to help children in Calais.

The punitive approach is irrationally applied by the UK Government if it does not also supply authoritative information to the people in sending countries stating that they are putting themselves at risk by taking the journey, and that the British Government will not help them if they get into difficulties. The suffering caused by the policy would have no impact on the motivation of the next wave of migrants unless this information is widely known in sending countries.

The Channel is our wall, but it is pretty certain that if we completely stop taking people in from the continent as UKIP and some Conservatives seem to wish, the busiest sea lane in the world will be filled with boats stuffed with people trying to enter illegally.

The punitive approach is simply inhumane. By pursuing this policy the Government is not only denying the humanity of migrants, it is also degrading Britain's own claim to being a nation that pursues high standards in human rights. Many within Government will be prepared to accept this status, and will be able on that basis to talk down many other points of humanitarian action within Government. The end result will be a continuous movement away from democracy and towards authoritarianism within Britain itself.

This is clearly not acceptable.

Therefore the obstructionist approach must be opposed. In its place, we must put a humanitarian approach to the present cohort of migrants, and a preventive, global approach aimed at reducing future waves of migration.

Humanitarian response to the present cohort

Since the obstructive response is not effective or humane, a humanitarian approach must be used instead.

Basic needs - water, food, shelter, sanitation and health care - must be provided at set points on the journey.

There is no reason that "Processing" (filling in official paperwork) cannot be carried out in camps and at way stops while travelling. The data gathered in this way will help to filter off children, women, bona-fide asylum seekers, and those with relatives in host countries, who can be put into a fast track to their destination.

The Green Party's policy of amnesty to all illegal immigrants at present in the UK, pulling them out of the black market and away from the control of the criminal underclass, and enabling them to contribute to the economy and pay taxes makes good sense.

Government should take out one page advertisements, advertorials and commission articles in newspapers and broadcasts in sending countries to inform people of the difficulties of the hardships and mortal risks of the migrant trail.

An extension of this information policy is to increase integration with well communicated information about the cultural norms that obtain in our society, such as respect for all regardless of their race, sex and sexuality.

Goverment must expand services (education, NHS, housing, social services etc) to meet the need of the UK's expanding population, whatever the cause.

Addressing the root causes of migration

In this section, we can only put up the headlines, sketching out the kind of political changes and reforms that are needed to create a world where people feel less motivated to migrate.

It will be objected that we have been trying for ages to address these international problems, without success, and why should it be any different now?

First, there has been success. Wars are on the decrease over the last 70 years. More countries are democracies than ever before. The literacy rate is growing. We are making progress.

On the other hand, there has been a concerted effort to downgrade and denigrate the UN as a legitimate source of authority, because the dominant neo-liberal ideology deeply distrusts any pooling of power.

The key here is the political will. These problems are permanent items on the agenda of international summits, and as such, they become routine, and do not get addressed urgently. Once the connection has been made in the minds of public and politicians that we will never control migration until we control war, poverty, oppression and environmental degratation, we can expect to see positive change.

1. War
   Politicians are treading water on issues like war and militarism, paying lip service to peace initiatives, but in reality the interests of corporations carries more weight. It is shameful that the UK is one of the major arms producers in the world.
   
   If we look at the wars happening in the present century, we find that Separatism, War on Terror, Ideology, Dictator/political, Corporations, The "War on Drugs", Ethnic rivalry and warlordism account for most of the larger conflictsⁱⁱ.
   
   There is a case for the United Nations to set up a framework for discussion and resolution of separatist aspiration, and also to provide diplomatic and logistical help both for areas where separatist conflict is ongoing, and where there is a clear separatist sentiment that has not yet turned to violence.
   
   The UN has recently concluded a successful arms control process, and it is time now to move on to ammunition control. A practical possibility for inhibiting irregular fighters is to concentrate on seizing ammunition, which is detectable by trained dogs. Without ammunition a gun is nothing but a very expensive clubⁱⁱⁱ.
   
   Future wars will be fought over resources, especially oil unless we rapidly move away from reliance on fossil fuels.
   
   
2. Poverty As we have seen above, remittances are an immensely important component of the economy in Less developed Countries (LDCs). Increasing aid budgets is unlikely to be able to compensate, since remittances are three times greater than the aid contribution. Therefore the only sustainable solution is to increase the wages paid to workers in LDCs, as part of a new package of workers rights, perhaps mediated through the Internatinoal Labour Organisation. This would put prices up for good originating in emergent economies, which would in turn help UK manufacturing.

3. Oppressive , authoritarian and totalitarian regimes cause people to try to emigrate, and also tend to become embroiled in civil war as people try to break free of the regime. The Green Parties of the world have adopted the idea of a Global Human Rights Index^iv published annually by the United Nations to show clearly at a glance the relative position of every government in terms of human rights. The worst performers could then be helped to improve their record, and regimes on the slippery slope to dictatorship could be given incentives to move towards democracy.
4. DfID's international Aid programmes should be comprehensively reviewed. If there is a large amount of migration from any country, the causes should be examined in case and adjustment of the focus of aid might be able to help to stabilise the situation.
   
   
5. Climate change is being addressed in a desultory way. The Paris Agreement is excellent, but there is widespread expectation that it will not be ratified and implemented byu many countries. A change in attitude and urgency would make a huge difference. Many measures are required, but the most important issue in the UK is fracking. If this can be blocked, we will be constrained to meet the energy niche filled by gas from biogas and also energy storage.
6. Population growth needs to be discussed seriously. We should look at successful non-coercive programmes as in Thailand and Kerala, and focus on empowerment of women, provision of contraceptives, and education.

Conclusion

Migration is not just a phase that will go away of its own accord, it is a part of human social behaviour, but is on a rising trend that is amplified by war, oppression, poverty and environmental degradation. Its impact on the economies of receiving countries' economies is weakly positive, but right wing tabloid newspaper stories stir up resentment that threatens social cohesion. Migration contributes significantly to a population overshoot in the British Isles. Therefore efforts must be made to reduce migration at source.

Obstructive policies are incompatible with humanitarian values, and migration pressures can only be reduced by an intensive and serious global, long term drive against militarism and for peace, against dictatorship and human rights abuses, against poverty, and against climate change. Addressing the causes of migration therefore will motivate us to work for true improvements in the state of the world.

Resources

Full fact ; neat video summary https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/

Migration Observatory: Detail on migration into UK http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/what-do-we-know-about-eu-migration-to-the-uk/#

Anodyne report on migration and climate from the British Government

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/287722/11-1115-migration-and-global-environmental-change-summary.pdf

https://www.populationmatters.org/resources/articles-reports-papers/migration/

http://euranetplus-inside.eu/migration-refugees-europe-waves-of-emotion/

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php/Asylum_statistics#Main_statistical_findings

Richard Lawson

i http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-deliberately-driving-immigrants-into-poverty-snp-warns-a7360306.html

ii http://greenerblog.blogspot.co.uk/2008/06/1-in-3-current-wars-are-separatist.html

iii PD434/5 here https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/pd.html

iv https://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/reports/ReportHRI_-4-2.pdf

Is climate change causing increasing migration?

It is ironic that the Daily Mail gets angry about migrants, but denies that man-made CO2 affects our planet's energy balance. The Mail must agree that Syrians are fleeing a war. A study by Richard Seager of Columbia University shows that climate change is a factor in the Syrian conflict, primarily through drought affecting food production, driving country people into towns and thereby increasing community tensions.

Also, temperature changes match civil war outbreaks.

Also,food prices are pushed up by climatic changes, and food prices rises are often a trigger for uprisings.

One broad estimate of numbers is that 200,000,000 climate refugees will be created by 2050. This is just an estimate, but the International Organisation for Migration does not doubt that a significant number will be created.

The Daily Mail needs to try some joined-up thinking.

We have to talk about Immigration

The UK is in the deepest of deep shit over the EU referendum result, for many many reasons, but there is one simple overriding actor in this tragedy: Immigration.

There is a simple Right-Left argument about migration, based on the Right saying "We don't want these foreigners here in our country", and the Left saying "Yes we do, they're fellow humans in need of help".

On top of this emotional reaction there is an economic argument, with the Right saying "They take our benefits, housing, services and jobs" and the Left saying, "They boost to our economy, they keep the NHS going, if services are stretched it is because of under-provision, not immigrant demand".

This was the level at which the debate was carried out in the referendum, and, let's face it, we lost. Almost 52% of the voting public voted for Brexit, and immigration was a very strong factor in their motivation.

We need to think more about our approach to immigration. It is a huge topic, with a long long history, but we have to concentrate on the present situation.

There is a weakness to our argument about the economic contribution made by immigrants, because the young, economically active migrants who are being welcomed will turn into economically inactive senior people, so we will need yet more migrants to look after them.
Also, we should be able to train up our own young people to be doctors and nurses, instead of stealing those produced by other countries.

Next, there is an ecological component to the argument, which goes like this:

"No matter how much we love, like and sympathise with those fleeing war, dictators, poverty and environmental degradation, Britain is a small set of islands, already over its carrying capacity, and at 251 people per sq Km, the third most densely populated country in the EU, after Malta (1306/per sq Km), Netherlands (397), Belgium (352), and just ahead of Germany at 230".

The Left deals with the carrying capacity argument by saying "It isn't the size of the human population, it is the amount they consume that matters, and we in the West consume more than our fair share". Which is true, but only partly true, because it is the case that if everyone on the planet had the best possible, greenest, most sustainable consumption pattern, the human population would still have to stop growing, for the simple reason that it is impossible to grow forever in a finite space.

Hans Rosling has a good point to make, which is that we need to move to a position where everyone in the world has enough. But even Hans Rosling must accept that it is impossible to expand forever into a finite space.

The Left meets any worries about the carrying capacity of the UK by pointing out that migrants would still be consuming in their home countries, they have just changed the location of their consumption. Which is true, up to a point, but in moving from a warm and consumer oriented country to the UK, individuals will probably increase their consumption patterns, if only because they need more domestic heating than they do in a warm country.

The basic ecological facts that we face are this:

First, It is impossible to turn back the tide of human movement that  is taking place at the moment, and it is likely to continue until we address the causes of migration, so we have to accept migration as the new norm.

Second, we must take a long term view, and  should start looking at, and solving, the causes of migration, that is, war, dictatorial and oppressive regimes, poverty, and environmental degradation, including climate change.

Cynics may say that is impossible, we have been trying for decades and look at us. But we haven't really been trying. We have been pretending to try, fiddling and verbalising, but we're not really serious about it. Why? One component of this failure is the dominant right wing meme is "Why should we care about wars and regimes in far away places? Let's put Britain first".

The Right has got to understand that we live in a system where everything is interconnected. If they want to stop immigration, they have got to address conditions across the world, and addressing conditions does not mean dropping bombs on people, it means diagnosing ant treating systemic problems.

The Right needs to understand that the definitive solution to migration is not to withdraw from the EU and seal our borders , because that would need a massive Naval task force in the Channel, picking up boats and returning them to the EU, which would be deeply problematical.

Clearly, the only solution to immigration is to work to address the causes of war. If we did this, the end effect is that we could actually end up living in a happier planet.

So, looking on the bright side, the present migration crisis could be a turning point in human history, where we begin to manage ourselves in a more intelligent way.





More
Brexit MEP admits Brexit will do little to curb immigration

More on this blog:
Do potential migrants know about the dangers that they face?
Migration: lets get to the cause of the problem 
What causes war
World Population

Is the present wave of migration going to get us to wake up to planetary reality?

The Remain camp has won the economic argument over Brexit, but the migration argument is still happening.

As things stand at the moment, the Leavers can claim that leaving would reduce migration, because no-one in their right mind would want to come live in a Britain in a deep recession ruled by Prime Minister Boris Johnson with Nigel Farage perhaps running the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

There is a simple Right-Left argument about migration, based on the Right saying "We don't want these foreigners here in our country", and the Left saying "Yes we do, they're fellow humans in need of help".

On top of this emotional reaction there is an economic argument, with the Right saying "They take our benefits, housing, services and jobs" and the Left saying, "They boost to our economy, they keep the NHS going, if services are stretched it is because of under-provision, not immigrant demand".

There is a weakness to this latter argument, because the young, economically active migrants who are being welcomed will turn into economically inactive senior people, so we will need yet more migrants to look after them.

There is also a Green component to this argument, which goes like this:
"No matter how much we love, like and sympathise with those fleeing war, dictators, poverty and environmental degradation, Britain is a small set of islands, already over its carrying capacity, and at 251 people per sq Km, the third most densely populated country in the EU, after Malta (1306/per sq Km), Netherlands (397), Belgium (352), and just ahead of Germany at 230".

I could draw fire from within the Green Party for writing the above paragraph, and get labelled as a right-winger. I am not a right winger. I recognise that Homo Sapiens is a social animal, and I totally reject authoritarianism as a way of running a country. Setting out facts accurately cannot turn a person into a fascist or a Conservative; it is just being accurate.

The Left deals with the carrying capacity argument by saying "It isn't the size of the human population, it is the amount they consume that matters, and we in the West consume more than our fair share". Which is true, but only partly true, because it is the case that if everyone on the planet had the best possible, greenest, most sustainable consumption pattern, the human population would still have to stop growing, for the simple reason that it is impossible to grow forever in a finite space.

Hans Rosling has a good point to make, which is that we need to move to a position where everyone has enough. But even Hans Rosling must accept that it is impossible to expand forever into a finite space.

The Left meets any worries about the carrying capacity of the UK by pointing out that migrants would still be consuming in their home countries, they have just changed the location of their consumption. Which is again true, up to a point, but in moving from a warm country to the UK, individuals will probably increase their consumption patterns, if only because they need more domestic heating than they do in a warm country.

The basic ecological facts that we face are this:
First, It is impossible to turn back the tide of human movement that  is taking place at the moment, and is likely to continue until we address the causes of migration, so we have to accept migration as the new norm.
Second, we must a long term view, and  should start looking at, and solving, the causes of migration, war, dictatorial and oppressive regimes, poverty, and environmental degradation, including climate change.

Cynics may say that is impossible, we have been trying for decades and look at us. But we haven't really been trying. We have been pretending to try, fiddling and verbalising, but we're not really serious about it. Why? Because the dominant right wing meme is "Why should we care about wars and regimes in far away places? Let's put Britain first".

The Right has got to understand that we live in a system where everything is interconnected. If they want to stop immigration, they have got to address conditions across the world, and addressing conditions does not mean dropping bombs on people, it means diagnosing ant treating systemic problems. When  the Right understands that the definitive solution to migration is not to withdraw from the EU and seal our borders (which would need a massive Naval task force in the Channel, picking up boats and returning them to the EU), but to work to address the causes of war, we could actually end up living in a happier planet.

So, looking on the bright side, the present migration crisis could be a turning point in human history, where we begin to manage ourselves in a more intelligent way.


More on this blog:
Migration: lets get to the source
What causes war
World Population

How can we address the causes of migration effectively?

The current migration crisis is a Green issue. In fact, it can be argued that it is not a "crisis" (in the sense of a temporary deviation from the normal) at all, but is the new normal, with climate change a key driver, both indirectly, and in the future, directly.

So, what is the solution?

First, the rejectionist Ukip/Tory solution is no solution at all. It is physically impossible to build a Berlin Wall around the UK, or even around Europe, and failing rejectionism will inevitably turn into hate speech and hate actions.

Building physical barriers is a simplistic solution to political problems that goes back to the Great Wall of China, Hadrian's Wall, the 700 kilometre Israel West Bank Barrier/Wall, and, currently, the Great Razor Wire Fence in Hungary. These barriers are symptomatic treatments, and like all symptomatic treatments, they will in the end, fail. The only real solution to the problem is the one that addresses the root causes of the problem.

The underlying causes are fourfold:

1. War
2. Governments that abuse human rights
3. Poverty
4. Climate change

War, and its aftermath, is responsible for most migration movements into Europe. Iraq, Syria and, Afghanistan are major contributors to the total numbers.

Eritrea's post-war military government with its totalitarian control drives many young Eritreans to leave. We must not forget also that Burma's military regime is driving the a huge proportion of the Rohingya people into boats.

Many others, especially Africans, are trying to escape poverty. It is wrong to believe Tory tabloid editors and Ministers when they portray these people as merely making a lifestyle choice. They are fleeing extreme poverty, and this pattern will increase as climate change places further pressure on food prices.

A study by Richard Seager of Columbia University shows that climate change  is a factor in the Syrian conflict, primarily through drought affecting food production.

So, migration is a symptom of war, governments that abuse human rights, poverty and climate change. There are two opposing conclusions that we can draw from this.

Some will just want to give up, or try with increasing desperation and anger to pull up the drawbridge.
The other approach, the humane and rational response, is to work out and apply global solutions to what is a global problem.

The Green Party, and indeed all rational thinkers, should be at the forefront of the second approach, which deserves a name to identify itself. I would propose simply to call it "the New Globalisation", in order to distinguish it from economic Globalisation which is well known, and lies behind much that is wrong in the world, as Caroline Lucas and Mike Woodin showed in their book Green Alternatives to Globalisation in 2004.

It is now time for greens, and indeed, all thinkers and politicians who prefer to deal in realities rather than knee-jerk reactions, to start looking at these global problems and coming up with answers. And answers do exist. The process will be long and slow, measured in decades rather than months or years, but the journey of 10,000 miles begins with a single step, and the time to start is now.

The majority of current wars are due to dictators, Islamism and separatism.

Dictatorships can be inhibited by the Green Party's Global Human Rights Index.

Islamism is a bit of a difficult problem that deserves a post all to itself, but the essential principle of treatment is that if we stop bombing Islamic countries, there is a chance that they will stop bombing us (and also other Islamic people: we must remember that jihadis kill far more Muslims than they kill "Christians" and Jews).

The third most important cause of current wars, separatism, is an issue that can usefully be addressed by the United Nations.

There are many other actions that can be taken to reduce the impact of conflict on people. Peace Direct is an excellent organisation that supports local people who take action to stop conflict. There have been successful agreements that will inhibit the arms trade. Attention could fruitfully switch now to the control of ammunition. (See PD434 in Green Party policies here).

So if we wish to address migration, we need to address the problem of war and dictators with their attendant human rights abuses. What of the other promoters of migration, which are poverty and climate change? Again there are solutions available, and again the solutions assist each other.

Poverty is complex, intimately interwoven with environmental issues, but one of the key insights is that poor countries tend to be hot countries, that is, countries with plentiful resources of solar energy. Solar energy offers to help poor countries, not just on a small scale, but also on a large scale, since large solar arrays and Concentrated Solar Power  will turn hitherto poor countries into net exporters of energy.

Development patterns that promote equality will reduce the pressure to migrate.

The points made here are not exhaustive. There are many other issues to be considered, and as ever, if we do not manage to get a handle on human population growth we are not going to get very far with any progress.

In conclusion, the only way to manage the "migration crisis" is to address the global causes of migration - war, dictatorship, poverty and environmental degradation. These are global problems, but we live in a small world, and a new programme of action, a New Globalisation that addresses humanitarian and environmental issues, is the only effective way forward.

See also:
The Conservatives' cod psychology about migration
How to resolve the problem at Calais
Dictators are the main cause of war in 2015
Rohingya: getting to the source of the problem

Migration - let's get to the source of the problem

http://www.rohingyablogger.com/2013/01/govt-moves-to-help-detained-rohingya.html

The humanitarian crisis in the Andaman Sea, with boatloads of migrants adrift, dying of hunger and starvation, illustrates the futility and inhumanity of addressing the migration problem symptomatically. We have to tackle the root causes of migration on a global basis. There are four causes of migration: war, human rights abuses, poverty, and environmental degradation. In this instance, human rights abuses are the most important.

The Rohinga are a complex problem. They are effectively stateless, denied  citizenship and persecuted in Burma, their home country.  They are rejected by Malaysia, their preferred destination as a Muslim country. In WW2 their behaviour to some of their non-muslim neighbours was not good. This is a massive problem: there are 1.3 million Rohingya in Burma, and 120,000 -10% of the total - have emigrated in the past 3 yrs.

The historical roots of their predicament are complex, and go back at least in part to the days of the British Empire, when we moved Rohingya from Bengal to Burma for workforce reasons.

This fact, as well as our colonial past in Burma, gives the UK a responsibility to help to resolve the crisis. But sadly we have no moral leverage. The Coalition Government cannot criticise Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia for refusing to help, because it has taken a similar position to with regard to the migrants crossing from Libya to Italy. In defiance of the laws of the sea, we (or rather, the UK Government) withdrew from the Italian operation to rescue drowning migrants, reasoning that eventually, if enough of them drowned, the word would get back to the source, and people would stop putting to sea. For this strategy to work efficiently, it would require the Government at very least to take photos of drowned bodies and publish them, with the back story,  in newspapers and on TV in Syria, Somalia, Eritrea and Mali. We may ask why they have not done so.

So the UK has no moral authority to advise Malaysia, Indonesia or Thailand to change their "pushback" policy.

What is needed therefore is for the international community to bring pressure, and donate support, for Malaysia and its neighbours, in the name of humanity, to take in the unfortunates who are at sea right now. Next, the UN needs to press Burma to give the Rohingya citizenship, and to stop the human rights abuses being perpetrated on them. The National Lead for Democracy, Aan San Suu Kyi's opposition party in Burma, has called for the Rohingya to be given citizenship.

Easier said than done: but it must be done, and, eventually, will be done. The problem is that this kind of action in the UN always comes about with glacial slowness, as the media gradually unfold the picture, so that ordinary people begin the press the politicians, who eventually instruct the diplomats to begin to work in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to bring pressure onto Burma. All it takes is for one member of the UNSC to decide that its bilateral trade or military relations with Burma to be more important than any humanitarian considerations for action in the UNSC to be set back for years.

This has got to change. The UN's way of working has to be updated.

First, the veto in the UNSC must be abolished, and the reason for its abolition must be given as Putin's abuse of his veto to prevent action being taken to stop Assad of Syria from destroying his own nation.

Second, The UN has to change its stance from being reactive to proactive. It must cease from coming to each crisis on a basis of "Oh my goodness, what is going on here, and what, if anything should we do about it?" Instead, the UN needs to lay down a set of rules that apply to how governments should work.

Rules are important, because rulers are in many ways like toddlers: they want to manipulate the rules to their own advantage in every situation. Only when they find that the rules cannot be bent  will they start to recognise that they have to behave as part of a larger society. Rules have to be applied with consistency, without fear or favour, if they are to work. These principles are based on sound and universally accepted psychology. There is every reason to apply them within the United Nations.

Only two rules are required:
Rule 1: The purpose of government is to protect the rights and well-being of all who live within its borders.
Rule 2: If Governments fail in their duty, there will be a tariff of consequences which become increasingly severe according to the degree in which the regime is failing.

A certain amount of complexity is involved in setting out the details of a tariff, but the basic principle is clear. If a ruler is setting off on the well-defined path towards dictatorship, a set of sanctions targeted on the president and the ruling clique will be applied consistently. Conversely, if the human rights performance of the regime improves,  the sanctions will be removed.

This will not be easy to achieve. Resistance will come from many quarters, from established dictators, from wannabe dictators like Putin, and also from decent, established UN diplomats who believe that the world in which they operate is the best of all possible worlds.

This is a formidable opposition. On the other hand, we face a more than formidable problem in migration, not only in the Andaman and Mediterranean seas, but worldwide. We only need to remind ourselves of the human misery, the tragedies being played out on the seas, to realise that we cannot go on as we are. We have to progress beyond dictatorships and the self interest of blinkered regimes towards a world in which behaviour is governed by universal rules, and governments know that their duty is to protect the people who live within their borders. We have to address the root causes, not just the symptoms of migration.

It was the BBC wot won it for UKIP - and yet...

 I am going to discuss immigration. In the round, in the light of UKIP's success in the European Parliamentary elections. This post is likely to get me into hot water with my Green Party colleagues.

First, nobody can accuse me of being a UKIP sympathiser. I have a well-read post which collects the failings of UKIP and Ukippers. I have been tweeting intensively against UKIP over the election period. My most retweeted tweet : Voting UKIP to get rid of greedy useless politicians is like trying to treat your ulcer by drinking hydrochloric acid. #VoteGreen2014

I have moaned incessantly at the BBC for their blatant puffing of UKIP, and I've signed the 38 Degrees petition calling on the BBC to stop the media blackout of the Green Party. (Have you?)

Yes, UKIP's "success" is down to extraordinary support for, and lack of critical journalistic investigation of, a shambolic single-issue party on the part of the media, especially the BBC.

Yes, UKIP's single obsession, the evils of the European Union, is not felt very strongly as the main issue even by their supporters. Immigration is the issue that motivates them.

And yes, we know that the right wing tabloids have been pumping the immigration issue for years, to give it a salience out of proportion with its impact.

Yes, we know that we are all immigrants when it comes down to it.

We know that immigrants keep the NHS going, that they do low paid jobs that free-born Englishmen would not want to do. (Thus solving the problem of low pay without obliging employers to pay more.)

We know incidentally that the police do not seem particularly interested, considering how easy it would be to identify them,  in catching the "task masters" who are actually slave owners.

Yes, we know that the net impact of immigration on the UK economy is beneficial, (at least until they in turn grow old, and need carers)

We know that net migration is only about 250,000 p.a.

We understand that any one immigrant coming here is one less person living somewhere else on the planet (although if he is moving from a poorer country, his ecological footprint is almost certainly larger as a result of coming here).

We know that the number of British living in the EU almost completely match EU migrants coming here.

And yet...migration is still a problem for our society. Why? Because, with the help of tabloid editors, it stokes the fires of anger and resentment.

It is easy for middle class liberals living in the country to take a tolerant view of immigrants. It is less easy for working class people whose street and community changes rapidly over the course of a few years to be similarly tolerant, especially when they are reading pernicious, inflammatory tabloid stories of immigrants "taking over" housing lists and services.

Yes, the correct response of Government should be to create adequate services across the board. But this is not how this Government thinks and acts.

So the bottom line is that migration generates resentment and anger, and that is a given.
Another "given" is that tabloid journalism and populist politicians trade in emotions, not reality.

If immigration is a problem, they say, it must be stopped. If immigration from the EU is allowed by EU rules, we should leave the EU. Simples.

Viewed in one way, the world is indeed simple. All life forms, including humans, depend on the land for survival. Each area of land can support just so many life forms - so many bacteria, so many fungi, so many insects, so many birds, mammals, and, especially, humans. It is impossible to expand forever into a finite space. The British Isles are a finite space. Therefore we must put an end to our ever increasing human population in our islands.

That is the easy bit. The difficult bit is moving from the present situation of denial and deceit regarding population to a rational framework. The world is a complex system of interrelated forces. It is going to take years before rational thought about this topic becomes mainstream, and even more years before politicians start to act on it. In the meantime, migration will continue, and we have to be realistic and accept it s a given in a modern world where information and transport is easy and cheap.

The bitter paradox is that the tabloid editors who complain most emotionally about immigraton are the self-same editors who dismiss concerns bout foreign wars, foreign poverty and foreign dictators because they have nothing to do with us. But they do have something to do with us, because wars, poverty and dictators cause immigration.

What, in a nutshell, should we do about migration?

1. Offer humane, rapid asylum to those fleeing persecution, oppression political imprisonment and death, followed by effective action against the dictators who cause that immigration.
2. Stop war mongering by UK Prime Ministers 
3. Work against endemic poverty, economic inequality between nations, and the environmental conditions, including global warming, that drive people out of their home countries.
4. Inform the public (through press TV and radio articles, advertisements and posters) in nations that are sending migrants to Europe, of the dangers and difficulties that they face not just in the journey, but on arrival.
5. Informing applicants of the European laws that they will be expected to comply with, and the culture that they will be expected to fit in with.

Of course, there is more to be discussed. But at least we need to discuss it. The Green view does include toleration, but it goes further than the standard left-right dialectic, because as ever, Greens must take the widest possible view. In doing so, it is likely that emotions will be stirred, that names will be called, that Godwin's Law will come into play. We shall see. 

More on this blog: 

The Irresistible Force of mathematics meets the Unmoveable Object of freedom to reproduce

World Food prices

Four posts on population

Green Party Immigration Policy

Immigration: which countries are most likely to send people to UK, and why?

In looking at immigration into the UK, we need to look at causes. To look at causes, we need to view the rate of migration from a particular country. I have taken the figures on immigration in 2008 from the Guardian's Factfile series, which give top applications for citizenship in 2008, and divided the population of the sending country by the number of applications. There are about 200 countries on the list, so I have sampled the top 18 senders.

This gives a proportional rate of emigration from the country. The smaller the number, the greater the proportion of the country that wants to emigrate to the UK. It does not give an absolute figure, because citizens who emigrate to other countries are not counted. Countries with strong ties with the UK (Commonwealth status, or English-speaking,) will be more likely to come here.

So here is the list of the top 18 senders:

     Country          Rate of immigration to UK
 1   Jamaica          1001
2   Somalia         1,275
3   Zimbabwe     2,193
4   Iraq               3,456
5   Afghanistan    5,081
6   Sri Lanka       6,161
7   Ghana            7,603
8   South Africa  9,368
9   Turkey         15,638
10 Pakistan       17,042
11 Phillipines     17,142
12 Australia       18,767
13 Nigeria         34,156
14 Iran              33,725
15 Bangladesh   44,627
16 India             99,820
17 USA           140,223
18 China          467,591

I have put in bold the countries where there is a current or recent war, or civil conflict, or an oppressive regime.

5 of the top 6 strongest sending countries come from countries at war - two of which are wars chosen by our Government.

The conclusion is that individuals and parties who are concerned about immigration into the UK should take an active interest in world peace, international co-operation, Human Rights, and world poverty.

Paradoxically, parties like UKIP and the BNP tend to be averse both to immigration and world affairs, which shows a deep logical inconsistency in their thinking.

Green Party Immigration policy

The Green Party 2010 manifesto takes a balanced view of immigration. We recognise that immigration is a fact of life, we recognise that it has some positive economic effects, but that it can also create tension in the host population if housing, jobs and services are in short supply. (Which is another reason to supply social housing, end unemployment, and provide adequate public services).

We are concerned that asylum seekers, for whom we have legal obligations, should be able to avoid destitution while their claim is being processed.

We support an amnesty for migrants "We would open up ways for existing illegal migrants who have been here for three years to become legal."  The amnesty has been hotly challenged by the commentariat, but it makes perfect sense - the alternative is to have a shadowy underclass of stateless persons in our society, fodder for criminal gangs. It is in short a no-brainer, and critics of the amnesty show themselves to be short of brains.

We would end the detention of children, and look to their welfare.
Trafficked people can choose to stay if they wish.
Most importantly, we look to the causes of migration - wars, political oppression, and world poverty.

Migration is another social challenge brought on by inequality - this time by global inequality.

The bottom line is that green global policies for peace, international cooperation, Index of Human Rights, and renewable energy (which will make hot countries net energy exporters) are the only effective and humane way of ending such problems that immigration represents.

See also http://t.co/Lw6M3bCudm

Dublin Seminar on Migration

[click the image to enlarge]

Have just been to Dublin, taking part in a seminar on migration put on by the Green Islands Network, supported by the European Parliament.

Kieran Coffe TD (equivalent of an MP: the Republic of Eire uses an electoral system that is consistent with modern democracy, so the Green Party there gets to Parliament and Government) stressed that immigration helps Ireland's economy, that the position at present is that to be born in Ireland is to be an Irish citizen, although that is prone to change. He stressed the need for more research, for awareness raising, and for a more transparent, fair and quick migrant assessment process.

Jocelyne le Boulicaut, from Brittany, a member of the European Green Party Working Group, had gathered views of member parties of the EGP. For a wide diversity of parties, there was a remarkable unity in seeking to treat migrants in a liberal and humane way. She identified Push factors like repression and war, and Pull factors such as standard of living. There was concern that donor countries were losing expertise, as Europe drew in their graduates.

No parties had addressed the question "What is sustainable migration?"

Harry Vassalo is leader of the Malta Green Party: a densely populated island with 400,000 residents and a far greater proportional influx of immigrants, many irregular, than the UK, because Maltese seamen pick them up when in danger at sea. The issue is being exploited by right wing politicians - in a country that has no love of the Right as a result of Nazi bombing.

There is a clear need for the EU to share the burden borne by Malta and Italy.

My contribution is above, a systemic overview. I hope it is pretty self-explanatory. 3 main categories, political asylum seekers fleeing conditions that we in the UK may have exported or condoned, and who must be granted absolute and swift acceptance. Environmental refugees, just beginning from Africa, and due to become major if we do not attack global warming; and economic migrants, driven by international economic divergence (rich-poor divide) who contribute to our economy, but who will be very vulnerable if a severe recession occurs.
On the right, in green, are the Green policies to ameliorate or heal these problems.