jueves, febrero 07, 2008

INMIGRACION

En España cada vez hay mas inmigrantes, cada vez mas distintos a nosotros y se acerca una crisis economica.

Con lo cual cada vez hay mas gente asustada, enfadada, cabreada, etc con los niveles de inmigracion en el pais. Evidentemente todo delito cometido por inmigrantes no hace sino reforzar el sentimiento en mucha gente de miedo y de que algo hay que hacer.

El problema es cuando los politicos quieren hacer algo al respecto de esta inquietud y lo unico que se les ocurre es una chorrada ideada ademas para ganar votos y tranquilizar a amplios sectores de la poblacion. Que en absoluto se van a sentir tranquilos con algo que NO SIRVE PARA NADA.

El presidente del PP, Mariano Rajoy, anunció ayer que, si gana las elecciones del próximo 9 de marzo, obligará a los inmigrantes que deseen renovar sus permisos iniciales de residencia a firmar un "contrato de integración". En el documento, los extranjeros deberían comprometerse "a cumplir las leyes, a respetar las costumbres de los españoles, a aprender la lengua, a pagar sus impuestos, a trabajar activamente para integrarse en la sociedad española y a regresar a su país si durante un tiempo no encuentran empleo".

El contrato tendría "valor jurídico" y obligaría a aprender castellano

En concreto, tendrían que marcharse de España si no lograran trabajo en el año siguiente a la renovación. Rajoy precisó que su "contrato" tendrá "valor jurídico", por lo que previsiblemente implicaría una nueva reforma de la Ley de Extranjería.

A cambio del cumplimiento de ese contrato, el Gobierno de Rajoy concedería a los inmigrantes "los mismos derechos y prestaciones que a un español", y se comprometería "a ayudarles en su integración y a respetar sus creencias y costumbres, siempre que no sean contrarias a las leyes españolas".

Mi postura al respeto esta muy clara y no ha cambiado

Lo que propone Rajoy no resuelve el problema, es un brindis al Sol, supone mas intromision del Estado en la vida de la gente cuendo muchos de los problemas de la inmigracion se resolverian con menos Estado, mas libertad y mas dejar a la sociedad organizarse por su cuenta, de manera PRIVADA sin que los politicos metieran la zarpa.

Al tema:

El presidente del PP, Mariano Rajoy, anunció ayer que, si gana las elecciones del próximo 9 de marzo, obligará a los inmigrantes que deseen renovar sus permisos iniciales de residencia a firmar un "contrato de integración". En el documento, los extranjeros deberían comprometerse "a cumplir las leyes, a respetar las costumbres de los españoles, a aprender la lengua, a pagar sus impuestos, a trabajar activamente para integrarse en la sociedad española y a regresar a su país si durante un tiempo no encuentran empleo".

¿Que es integrarse?¿Cuanta integracion es buena?¿Quien lo decide?

Lo que hay que hacer es cumplir la Ley y quien no lo haga que pague la multa correspondiente o a la carcel. Esto es lo que no pasa. La gente se siente desprotegida y se da cuenta que la policia no la protege y la justicia menos.

Asi que menos polladas de pedir integracion y que se cumpla la Ley, se persiga a los que no la respetan y se proteja a los que si. Despues lo que cada uno coma, piense, sienta, el como se vista, en que idioma hable etc, eso ya es asunto suyo.

El contrato tendría "valor jurídico" y obligaría a aprender castellano

En concreto, tendrían que marcharse de España si no lograran trabajo en el año siguiente a la renovación. Rajoy precisó que su "contrato" tendrá "valor jurídico", por lo que previsiblemente implicaría una nueva reforma de la Ley de Extranjería.

¿Va a obligar a los alemanes de Mallorca, Ingleses de Malaga, etc a aprender Español? ¿Por que?
No lo aprendes porque ni puta falta que les hace.¿Y que?Nadie tiene un problema con ellos.

Respecto a los otros inmigrantes, lo mejor que se podria hacer en NO HACER NADA, solo cumplir la Ley.

  • No hay mayor incentivo para aprender el idioma de tu pais de acogida que tener que buscar un trabajo para ganarte la vida.
  • No hay mayor metodo para liberar a la mujer musulmana que necesitar dos sueldos en la familia y que tenga que salir a trabajar.
  • No hay que expulsar a nadie si no encuentra trabajo, ya que o delinque (y debe ir a prision) o se va a otro sitio pro si solo a buscar trabajo porque ha de ganarse la vida.
Pero si tu tienes un Estado del Bienestar que te provee de una calidad de vida mejor que la que tienes en tu pais, pues no te vas del pais de acogida aunque no tengas trabajo.
Si estas en paro no hace falta que salgas a buscar trabajo,cobras las ayudas corespondientes ya vivir y a tu mujer basta con que la preñes de manera regular y cobrar por hijo mientras la tienes con la pata quebrada en casa.

Es acojonante que no se vea lo integrados que estan los inmigrantes en la generosa Francia del Estado del Bienestar en contraposicion con la tierra salvaje de neoliberales cowboys que es EEUU y se saquen conclusiones.

¿Donde han progresado mas los inmigrantes?¿Donde se han integrado y sienten mas su nuevo pais como propio?

Alla donde menos INTERVENCION Y PLANIFICACION de politicuchos ha habido
:

[...]

Immigration and Politics

SWEDEN HAS no official minimum wage, but trade unions with political power set de facto minimum wages through collective bargaining. That de facto minimum wage for workers in Sweden is equal to about 66 percent of the median wage in the manufacturing sector, compared to 32 percent in the United States. In economic terms, this means that if you are less than 66 percent as productive as the median Swedish manufacturing worker--perhaps because you are unskilled, have no experience or live in a remote area--you will probably not find a job. Any company that would hire you would be forced to pay you more than what you are able to produce. And if you are never successful in gaining employment, you will not gain the skills and experience to raise your abilities and productivity.

Immigrants are the hardest hit. Since the early 1980s, Sweden has received a large number of refugees from the Balkans, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America, which has ended the country´s homogeneity. Today, about one-seventh of the working-age population is foreign born, but no where near that proportion is actually employed. Sweden has one of the developed world´s biggest differences between the labor-market participation of natives and immigrants. Many immigrant families are discouraged by the lack of job prospects and end up in welfare dependency.

Unemployment problems in turn result in de facto segregation. Despite little history of racial conflict, the labor market is more segregated than in America, Britain, Germany, France or Denmark--countries with far more troublesome racial histories than Sweden. A report from the free-market Liberal Party ahead of the election 2002 showed that more than 5 percent of all precincts in Sweden had employment levels lower than 60 percent, with much higher crime rates and inferior school results than in other places. Most of these precincts are suburban, so outsiders rarely see them. The number of segregated precincts has continued to grow. In some neighborhoods, children grow up without ever seeing someone who goes to work in the morning. Pockets of unemployment and social exclusion form, especially in areas with many non-European immigrants. When Swedes see that so many immigrants live off the government, their interest in contributing to the system fades.

Like in other parts of western Europe, the segregation of immigrant areas leads to insularity, crime and, in some cases, radicalism. Last year, Nalin Pekgul, the Kurdish chairman of the National Federation of Social Democratic Women, explained that she was forced to move out of a suburb of Stockholm because of crime and the rise of Islamic radicalism. The announcement sent shock waves through the entire political system. "A bomb waiting to explode" is one of the most common metaphors used when social exclusion in Sweden is discussed.

Those immigrants who do keep their entrepreneurial spirit intact often take it elsewhere. Hundreds of unemployed Somalis and Iranians leave Sweden every year and move to Britain, where they are often successful in finding work. The contrast in experience can be staggering. The Swedish economic historian Benny Carlson recently compared the experiences of Somali immigrants in Sweden with those of Somali immigrants in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Only 30 percent had a job in Sweden, about half as many as in Minneapolis. And there are about 800 businesses run by Somalis in Minneapolis, compared to only 38 in Sweden. Carlson quoted two immigrants who together summed up the disparity. "There are opportunities here", said Jamal Hashi, who runs an African restaurant in Minneapolis. His friend, who migrated to Sweden instead, told a different story: "You feel like a fly trapped under a glass. Your dreams are shattered."

A Model No More

SO IF THE Myrdals were right when they said that if the welfare state couldn´t work in Sweden, it wouldn´t work anywhere, what will it mean if Sweden´s system fails? The answer seems obvious.

The Swedish model has survived for decades, but the truth is that its success was built on the legacy of an earlier model: the period of economic growth and development preceding the adoption of the socialist system. It is difficult to see how other countries--especially the troubled systems of Western Europe so keen to adopt the Swedish approach, but which lack the unique components for a welfare state first noted by Gunnar and Alva Myrdal--could cope with a similar welfare state. Bigger and more diverse countries with a weaker faith in government and more suspicion towards other groups would likely see an even stronger tendency to exploit the system, work less and abuse social assistance. The United States and much of Western Europe face immigration challenges at least as daunting as Sweden.

The economy has rebounded since the recession of the 1990s and the reforms that followed--in contrast to the stagnant continental economies--mostly because of a small number of successful global companies. But the problem is that a growing part of the population is left out and old attitudes about work and entrepreneurship are fading. Since 1995 the number of entrepreneurs in the European Union has increased by 9 percent; in Sweden it has declined by 9 percent. Almost a quarter of the population of working age does not have a job to go to in the morning, and polls show a dramatic lack of trust in the welfare system and its rules.

The system of high taxes and generous welfare benefits worked for so long because the tradition of self-reliance was so strong. But mentalities have a tendency of changing when incentives change. The growth of taxes and benefits punished hard work and encouraged absenteeism. Immigrants and younger generations of Swedes have faced distorted incentives and have not developed the work ethic that was nurtured before the effects of the welfare state began to erode them. When others cheat the system and get away with it, suddenly you are considered a fool if you get up early every morning and work late. According to polls, about half of all Swedes now think it is acceptable to call in sick for reasons other than sickness. Almost half think that they can do it when someone in the family is not feeling well, and almost as many think that they can do it if there is too much to do at work. Our ancestors worked even when they were sick. Today, we are "off sick" even when we feel fine.

The real worry is that Sweden and other welfare states have reached a point where it is impossible to convince majorities to change the system, despite the dismal results. Obviously, if you are dependent on the government, you are hesitant to reduce its size and cost. A middle class with small economic margins is dependent on social security. This was Bismarck´s plan when he introduced a system that would make those dependent on it "far more content and far easier to handle."

Sooner or later, politicians begin to identify a new, influential bloc of voters--those who live at others´ expense. A former Social Democratic minister of industry recently explained what his party meetings in northern Sweden looked like: "A quarter of the participants were on sick-leave, a quarter was on disability benefits, a quarter was unemployed."

This creates a damaging cycle. With high taxes, markets and voluntary communities are crowded out, which means that every new problem has to find a government solution. If change seems too far off, a large part of the electorate becomes more interested in defending good terms for unemployment and sick-leave than in creating opportunities for growth and jobs. And that goes even if you have a job. If regulations make it difficult to find a new job, you worry more about losing the one you have and will see suggestions of labor market deregulation as a threat. OECD interviews show that well-protected workers in Sweden, France and Germany are much more afraid of losing their jobs than workers in the less regulated United States, Canada and Denmark.

In that case, sclerosis creates a public demand for policies that create even more stagnation. This might help explain the lack of reform in Europe, despite all the political ambitions. The more problems there are, the more dangerous radical reforms seem to the electorate: If things are this bad now, the logic goes, think how bad they´ll be without state protection. For example, it seems like the Swedish voters are now willing to oust the Social Democratic government in September. But that is only after the center-right opposition abandoned the more radical suggestions--such as labor-market reform and reduction in social security benefits--that it used to champion.

Radical reform seems far off. On the other hand, just like the step-by-step construction of the welfare state that slowly but steadily reduced the willingness to work and the sense self-reliance, incremental reforms to expand freedom of choice and reduce the incentives to live off fellow-citizens might rejuvenate these fundamental values and increase the appetite for reform.