Immigration Myths and Global Realities

[SummerMadness]

Immigration Myths and Global Realities

Immigration is reshaping societies around the globe. Barriers erected by wealthier nations have been unable to keep out those from the global South — typically poor, and often desperate — who come searching for work and a better life. While immigrants have often delivered economic benefits to the countries taking them in, they have also shaken the prevailing order and upended the politics of the industrialized world — where the native-born often exaggerate both their numbers and their needs.

 

[Occams Barber]

Immigration Myths and Global Realities

Thanks for this BLM.

I think this para from the article is worth repeating:

A study based on surveys in the United States and a variety of European countries .... found that people across the board vastly overstate their immigrant populations.
The overestimates are largest among particular groups: the least educated, workers in low-skill occupations with lots of immigrants, and those on the political right. They overstate the share of immigrants who are Muslim and understate the share of Christians. They underestimate immigrants’ education and overestimate both their poverty rate and their dependence on welfare. Almost a quarter of French respondents, as well as nearly one in five Swedes and about one in seven Americans, think the average immigrant gets twice as much government aid as native residents do. In no country is this true.
​

Looking at the table (in the article) the relative size of immigrant populations is also vastly overestimated by 10% (Sweden) to almost 30% (U.S.).
OB

 

[iluvatar5150]

Wait, so exaggerated fears of immigrants tend to accumulate on the right?!?

Well I’ll be.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nothing biased about that article...

 

[Occams Barber]

Nothing biased about that article...

Have you read the abstract from the original study?

It appears to be consistent with the article.
OB

 

[Goonie]

Thanks for this BLM.

I think this para from the article is worth repeating:

A study based on surveys in the United States and a variety of European countries .... found that people across the board vastly overstate their immigrant populations.
The overestimates are largest among particular groups: the least educated, workers in low-skill occupations with lots of immigrants, and those on the political right. They overstate the share of immigrants who are Muslim and understate the share of Christians. They underestimate immigrants’ education and overestimate both their poverty rate and their dependence on welfare. Almost a quarter of French respondents, as well as nearly one in five Swedes and about one in seven Americans, think the average immigrant gets twice as much government aid as native residents do. In no country is this true.
​

Looking at the table (in the article) the relative size of immigrant populations is also vastly overestimated from 10% (Sweden) to almost 30% (U.S.).
OB

I saw something similar with welfare fraud in the U.K. people surveyed thought 25% of people were claiming welfare fraudulently, when the actual figure of discovered fraud was .7%.

 

[Occams Barber]

I saw something similar with welfare fraud in the U.K. people surveyed thought 25% of people were claiming welfare fraudulently, when the actual figure of discovered fraud was .7%.

What I find really frightening is those people who react automatically to their own preconceptions and biases without actually looking to see if they match the truth.

Unfortunately it happens a lot on CF.
OB

 

[Ana the Ist]

Have you read the abstract from the original study?

It appears to be consistent with the article.
OB

I read it just now in the link you gave me...

I find the interesting fact that regardless of being informed about misperceptions...attitudes towards immigration don't change. What does that tell you? It tells me that perhaps the researchers should abandon the notion that these misperceptions have anything to do with the lack of support for immigrants that's so increasingly prevalent in the world today. Perhaps it has nothing to do with race, religion, or education....

Since the question asked was regarding redistribution of resources (capital) towards supporting immigrants....perhaps it has everything to do with money. I can understand that...that's about half the reason I don't support illegal immigration (I understand the research was about immigration in general...but they made no distinguishing differences between legal and illegal immigration in the US).

Personally, I have almost no problem with legal immigration whatsoever. I don't think there should be restrictions on any nation, religion, or race of people who come here. I think that they should be able to support themselves and their family or at least have an education which should theoretically allow them to be gainfully employed within a more than reasonable time frame (let's say 3 years). I also think they should be allowed to petition for their family members to become citizens....provided they too can provide for themselves or their petitioners can do so (let's say for at least five years since anyone can fall on hard times). There is of course, a limit to the number of people we should accept each year...based upon population and economic growth/need. That probably doesn't sound unreasonable to most people...I really can't imagine why it would. In spite of that though...there's a minority of people on the right who would disagree and argue that some people shouldn't be allowed to immigrate based on their religion or culture.

That said, I've noticed a large number of people...mainly on the left...who wholly disagree with me regarding illegal immigration. I feel all illegal immigrants should be deported....with very few exceptions. If they arrived as children, under the age of 8, and with their parent...and they've been in the US for more than 5 years...they should be allowed to stay, and if they are able to stay employed for 5 years (it need not be consecutive)...they can apply for citizenship. If they marry a citizen, they can stay, but cannot access any welfare services. If they stay married for 5 years...they can apply for citizenship. If an illegal immigrant is willing to join the military and serves active duty during wartime for 5 years....or for the full duration of a war (if by some magic we ever fight a war that lasts less than 5 years) then they are automatically granted citizenship and all rights therein. If an illegal has a child in the US...they can stay conditionally but not as a citizen, never access any kind of welfare, nor can their child access any welfare programs (except those related to healthcare, and only for themselves) until that child is 18.

Off the top of my head...those are the only exceptions I would have and the conditions that I would apply. The basic message is that I don't think we have any obligation to freeloaders. As far as our nation goes...we've fallen too far behind on taking care of our own public, especially the poor, to justify helping those who are not us....and have flagrantly disrespected our nation. It's not just the money though in my eyes.

We formed this nation for several nasic reasons. As a colony, we were being financially exploited by the British without any hope of redress. We were treated as less than British citizens would be treated in Great Britain. Most importantly though, we realized that we shared a distinct culture, had our own values, and we shared the same interests...distinct from the crown. Once we realized that, we killed and died to form this nation.

Why then should we allow anyone to enter simply because they are poor and uneducated? I understand that they're taking a chance at a better life....but why not do that in their own nations? Because its easier to come here and play on the sympathy of liberals than to kill and die for a better future for your own nation. The myth is that they want to be Americans...they don't. They want to keep their own values and cultures. They tend to slowly lose theae things with each successive generation...but that doesn't change the differences between us when they arrive.

I understand that many on the left disagree...but why even have a nation then? Why have an army? Why form a government? These are things done out of mutually shared interests and culture. If you truly believe that just anyone should be allowed to come here....and moreover they need not make any effort to assimilate....then please answer those three questions. The only difference between an invading army and 11 million poor uneducated foreigners is the violence and speed at which they plunder your nation.

 

[Occams Barber]

I read it just now in the link you gave me...

I find the interesting fact that regardless of being informed about misperceptions...attitudes towards immigration don't change. What does that tell you? It tells me that perhaps the researchers should abandon the notion that these misperceptions have anything to do with the lack of support for immigrants that's so increasingly prevalent in the world today. Perhaps it has nothing to do with race, religion, or education....

Since the question asked was regarding redistribution of resources (capital) towards supporting immigrants....perhaps it has everything to do with money. I can understand that...that's about half the reason I don't support illegal immigration (I understand the research was about immigration in general...but they made no distinguishing differences between legal and illegal immigration in the US).

Personally, I have almost no problem with legal immigration whatsoever. I don't think there should be restrictions on any nation, religion, or race of people who come here. I think that they should be able to support themselves and their family or at least have an education which should theoretically allow them to be gainfully employed within a more than reasonable time frame (let's say 3 years). I also think they should be allowed to petition for their family members to become citizens....provided they too can provide for themselves or their petitioners can do so (let's say for at least five years since anyone can fall on hard times). There is of course, a limit to the number of people we should accept each year...based upon population and economic growth/need. That probably doesn't sound unreasonable to most people...I really can't imagine why it would. In spite of that though...there's a minority of people on the right who would disagree and argue that some people shouldn't be allowed to immigrate based on their religion or culture.

That said, I've noticed a large number of people...mainly on the left...who wholly disagree with me regarding illegal immigration. I feel all illegal immigrants should be deported....with very few exceptions. If they arrived as children, under the age of 8, and with their parent...and they've been in the US for more than 5 years...they should be allowed to stay, and if they are able to stay employed for 5 years (it need not be consecutive)...they can apply for citizenship. If they marry a citizen, they can stay, but cannot access any welfare services. If they stay married for 5 years...they can apply for citizenship. If an illegal immigrant is willing to join the military and serves active duty during wartime for 5 years....or for the full duration of a war (if by some magic we ever fight a war that lasts less than 5 years) then they are automatically granted citizenship and all rights therein. If an illegal has a child in the US...they can stay conditionally but not as a citizen, never access any kind of welfare, nor can their child access any welfare programs (except those related to healthcare, and only for themselves) until that child is 18.

Off the top of my head...those are the only exceptions I would have and the conditions that I would apply. The basic message is that I don't think we have any obligation to freeloaders. As far as our nation goes...we've fallen too far behind on taking care of our own public, especially the poor, to justify helping those who are not us....and have flagrantly disrespected our nation. It's not just the money though in my eyes.

We formed this nation for several nasic reasons. As a colony, we were being financially exploited by the British without any hope of redress. We were treated as less than British citizens would be treated in Great Britain. Most importantly though, we realized that we shared a distinct culture, had our own values, and we shared the same interests...distinct from the crown. Once we realized that, we killed and died to form this nation.

Why then should we allow anyone to enter simply because they are poor and uneducated? I understand that they're taking a chance at a better life....but why not do that in their own nations? Because its easier to come here and play on the sympathy of liberals than to kill and die for a better future for your own nation. The myth is that they want to be Americans...they don't. They want to keep their own values and cultures. They tend to slowly lose theae things with each successive generation...but that doesn't change the differences between us when they arrive.

I understand that many on the left disagree...but why even have a nation then? Why have an army? Why form a government? These are things done out of mutually shared interests and culture. If you truly believe that just anyone should be allowed to come here....and moreover they need not make any effort to assimilate....then please answer those three questions. The only difference between an invading army and 11 million poor uneducated foreigners is the violence and speed at which they plunder your nation.

In summary - a page of off-topic waffle which adds nothing constructive to the subject of the OP.

Just admit that your first reaction was thoughtless and unjustifiable snark and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
OB

 

[iluvatar5150]

I read it just now in the link you gave me...

I find the interesting fact that regardless of being informed about misperceptions...attitudes towards immigration don't change. What does that tell you?

It tells me that a lot of people are very bad about modifying their existing views when confronted with contradictory information.

It tells me that perhaps the researchers should abandon the notion that these misperceptions have anything to do with the lack of support for immigrants that's so increasingly prevalent in the world today. Perhaps it has nothing to do with race, religion, or education....

Since the question asked was regarding redistribution of resources (capital) towards supporting immigrants....perhaps it has everything to do with money.

It's probably a lot of things - money is probably one; security is probably another. It's hard not to notice that the groups most likely to exaggerate this threat are folks most directly threatened by competition from immigrants (i.e. the less educated and low-skilled workers) or folks with a propensity to be overly concerned with safety and security (i.e. the right).

Regarding race, it's hard to get worried about safety and security without a group of outsiders to pose a threat. Immigrants are pretty easy to treat as "others".

 

[Ana the Ist]

In summary - a page of off-topic waffle which adds nothing constructive to the subject of the OP.

Just admit that your first reaction was thoughtless and unjustifiable snark and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
OB

The comment about bias?

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Wait, so exaggerated fears of immigrants tend to accumulate on the right?!?

Well I’ll be.

I think you'll find that as many immigrants tend to be poorer (at least in some countries) and therefore congregate in working class areas, it's those people who see more of the impact and therefore tend to overestimate numbers.

Of course, in our brave new bizarre political world we have the poor voting more on the right and the wealthy voting more on the left....

 

[Ana the Ist]

It tells me that a lot of people are very bad about modifying their existing views when confronted with contradictory information.

And rightly so when it appears that information is inherently biased and deliberately misleading.

 

[Gadarene]

We formed this nation for several nasic reasons. As a colony, we were being financially exploited by the British without any hope of redress. We were treated as less than British citizens would be treated in Great Britain. Most importantly though, we realized that we shared a distinct culture, had our own values, and we shared the same interests...distinct from the crown. Once we realized that, we killed and died to form this nation.

Why then should we allow anyone to enter simply because they are poor and uneducated? I understand that they're taking a chance at a better life....but why not do that in their own nations? Because its easier to come here and play on the sympathy of liberals than to kill and die for a better future for your own nation. The myth is that they want to be Americans...they don't. They want to keep their own values and cultures. They tend to slowly lose theae things with each successive generation...but that doesn't change the differences between us when they arrive.

You’re skipping a huge amount of history between 1776 and now, namely the sustained period of unskilled immigration your country underwent between then and now, without which you would not have nearly the same manpower or economic strength you do now.

What changed? Or rather, why the special pleading?

I understand that many on the left disagree...but why even have a nation then? Why have an army? Why form a government? These are things done out of mutually shared interests and culture.

Perhaps your definition of what defines and delineates a shared interest or culture is not the only one?

If you truly believe that just anyone should be allowed to come here....and moreover they need not make any effort to assimilate....then please answer those three questions.

What if we don’t believe this?

What if this is just a facile strawman?

The only difference between an invading army and 11 million poor uneducated foreigners is the violence and speed at which they plunder your nation.

Yeah, coming over here and working is up there with the Nazis, mang

 

[Redac]

You’re skipping a huge amount of history between 1776 and now, namely the sustained period of unskilled immigration your country underwent between then and now, without which you would not have nearly the same manpower or economic strength you do now.

What changed? Or rather, why the special pleading?

The nature of immigration now is substantially different than it was in the past. It's different in that the economic conditions are far different, the scale is much greater and much more sustained than it was in the past, the origin of the people coming to the country is vastly different, and so on. To pretend this is just like any other period of our history is to ignore reality.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You’re skipping a huge amount of history between 1776 and now, namely the sustained period of unskilled immigration your country underwent between then and now, without which you would not have nearly the same manpower or economic strength you do now.

What changed?

I feel that's rather obvious...the economy as well as the nation itself was expanding. Currently, we've lost a huge amount of unskilled labor jobs...mainly in manufacturing...for multiple decades. That trend hasn't reversed...it's continued.

Or rather, why the special pleading?

How would that be special pleading?

Perhaps your definition of what defines and delineates a shared interest or culture is not the only one?

That's a completely legitimate point. If you've got some definition that you'd like to present...feel free.

What if we don’t believe this?

Then you would be in favor of limits on immigration and against all illegal immigration.

What if this is just a facile strawman?

Is it? Do you agree with the above statement?

Yeah, coming over here and working is up there with the Nazis, mang

Lol now that's a strawman! Who said anything about nazis?

 

[Gadarene]

I feel that's rather obvious...the economy as well as the nation itself was expanding. Currently, we've lost a huge amount of unskilled labor jobs...mainly in manufacturing...for multiple decades. That trend hasn't reversed...it's continued.

Yes, and American natives are rushing to fill those fruit picking jobs, aren’t they.

Btw, you know you have this whole wonderful, massive sector of your economy called the service sector, right?

Why artificially limit the point to manufacturing?

How would that be special pleading?

Well, whether or not immigrants are invaders or saviours seems to depend not on their attitudes but your economics.

You are whining that they aren’t fixing their problems when your attitude to them seems to hinge entirely on the problems within your own country.

That's a completely legitimate point. If you've got some definition that you'd like to present...feel free.

Well, I’d much rather we not get ahead of ourselves.

Why does not wanting a zero tolerance immigration policy mean we are against an army, and all those other aerated assertions you made?

Then you would be in favor of limits on immigration and against all illegal immigration.

What does assimilation have to do with the above? Your initial comment which I responded to referred to assimilation?

I think it’s better we establish links between what you’re asserting and logic before we go from there, if that’s alright.

I just find it laughable how the Great Again America is utterly petrified of a handful of migrants and Muslims. You have one of the largest countries and economies on the planet, and you’re acting like you’re at breaking point. It’s utterly pathetic, but then you have an appropriate leader given that attitude.

Lol now that's a strawman! Who said anything about nazis?

I picked an invasion force as an example for the purposes of a sarcastic remark, particularly the one collaborators have been complaining about facile comparisons to for the last few days.

You’d think then that overheated, melodramatic comments about immigrants being like invaders wouldn’t be desirable.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, and American natives are rushing to fill those fruit picking jobs, aren’t they.

I don't think that particularly exploitive practice is a good example for you.

Btw, you know you have this whole wonderful, massive sector of your economy called the service sector, right?

And you know that most of it doesn't pay enough to live off of, right? Tell me the advantages of flooding it with even more poor people.

Why artificially limit the point to manufacturing?

Because it's probably the most common point in discussions about the shrinking middle class, expanding group of poor, and crime increases. Why did you artificially limit the conversation to berry picking and do you honestly think we have enough berry farms for 11+ million people?

Well, whether or not immigrants are invaders or saviours seems to depend not on their attitudes but your economics.

It's both really. Wanna see research into the motivations of illegals in the Obama era? It's not pretty...a majority of them admitted they wanted government assistance. I figured the nicer thing to would be to focus strictly on the economics of it....which state the average illegal crossing the border will cost the American taxpayer about 75,000$ in their lifetime....that's sum of what they'll contribute minus what they'll cost. It's higher though if they bring children.

How clear does that make it? What reason, if any, should I ever support people illegally coming into the US? Because I like watching my nation slowly slide further and further into poverty?

You are whining that they aren’t fixing their problems when your attitude to them seems to hinge entirely on the problems within your own country.

Absolutely! If we're going to be charitable...and accept millions of poor uneducated people into the nation who will basically be dependent upon social welfare most of their lives....shouldn't we be taking care of our own first?

I'm not particularly thrilled with our educational system...but it'll be hard to improve if we have to expand welfare for millions of extra poor every year or 2 or 3.

I'm not thrilled with a lot of services we give to our poor now....and guess what isn't going to help them? Adding millions of foreign poor over and over....

Let me ask you this....if borders don't matter, if our concept of a nation doesn't matter, if sovereignty doesn't matter...then why not just invade Guatemala, sweep away their government, install our own government and improve everything for them? Isn't that what matters most? That we help the foreign poor?

Well, I’d much rather we not get ahead of ourselves.

Why does not wanting a zero tolerance immigration policy mean we are against an army, and all those other aerated assertions you made?

I have no idea what you mean by "zero tolerance" in this case.

What does assimilation have to do with the above? Your initial comment which I responded to referred to assimilation?

It's a common misconception...that's all. People think that illegals want to be American.

I think it’s better we establish links between what you’re asserting and logic before we go from there, if that’s alright.

I just find it laughable how the Great Again America is utterly petrified of a handful of migrants and Muslims. You have one of the largest countries and economies on the planet, and you’re acting like you’re at breaking point. It’s utterly pathetic, but then you have an appropriate leader given that attitude.

Your misconceptions have been noted.

I picked an invasion force as an example for the purposes of a sarcastic remark, particularly the one collaborators have been complaining about facile comparisons to for the last few days.

Some people are dumb enough to think borders aren't important...that enforcing them isn't that important...that perhaps even culture isn't important.

If that's someone's ideological position...then it seems that there's no need for an army. After all, what is the point of a nation? If you were, for example, ok with 100 million Chinese illegal immigrants showing up on the shores of the UK in boats one day...would you welcome them? Or say they should all go back to China? Btw China doesn't cooperate with deportation....just saying.

It arguably wouldn't be long before everything that was once called British culture would better be described as Chinese culture. Indeed, it wouldn't be very different from the situation of 25 million showing up armed and invading....it would just be less violence.

You’d think then that overheated, melodramatic comments about immigrants being like invaders wouldn’t be desirable.

What's the difference in your mind?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, and American natives are rushing to fill those fruit picking jobs, aren’t they.

Btw, you know you have this whole wonderful, massive sector of your economy called the service sector, right?

Why artificially limit the point to manufacturing?



Well, whether or not immigrants are invaders or saviours seems to depend not on their attitudes but your economics.

You are whining that they aren’t fixing their problems when your attitude to them seems to hinge entirely on the problems within your own country.



Well, I’d much rather we not get ahead of ourselves.

Why does not wanting a zero tolerance immigration policy mean we are against an army, and all those other aerated assertions you made?



What does assimilation have to do with the above? Your initial comment which I responded to referred to assimilation?

I think it’s better we establish links between what you’re asserting and logic before we go from there, if that’s alright.

I just find it laughable how the Great Again America is utterly petrified of a handful of migrants and Muslims. You have one of the largest countries and economies on the planet, and you’re acting like you’re at breaking point. It’s utterly pathetic, but then you have an appropriate leader given that attitude.



I picked an invasion force as an example for the purposes of a sarcastic remark, particularly the one collaborators have been complaining about facile comparisons to for the last few days.

You’d think then that overheated, melodramatic comments about immigrants being like invaders wouldn’t be desirable.

Let me ask you something Gad....just to keep things simple....

If there a legitimate stopping point? Is there a point where a nation should say "enough is enough....we should only let in those who enter legally "?

If not, why? If so, where is that point in your mind? When every 1 in 2 people is foreign born? When it's 1 in every 3? When it's 1 in 10?

 

[JackRT]

I saw something similar with welfare fraud in the U.K. people surveyed thought 25% of people were claiming welfare fraudulently, when the actual figure of discovered fraud was .7%.

Why myths about poor endure

by Judith McCormack in the Toronto Star

Our perceptions of poor people are full of stubborn myths. The man who picks up his welfare cheque in a white Cadillac, the teenage mother with a flock of illegitimate children, the loafer who works the system instead of a job – these are the stuff of urban legends. The reality of poverty is surprisingly different. To begin with, the proportion of single parents on welfare who are under 20 years old is very small – 3 per cent, according to a National Council on Welfare study. And nearly half of all single parent families on welfare have only one child, with another 31 per cent having only two children. That couch potato with a weak work ethic? Another myth. The grim truth is that more than half of all poor people are working. And even bleaker – almost one-third of people on welfare are children. When the proportion of poor people with disabilities is added to this mix, the picture looks quite different. There is a notable absence of white Cadillacs among the poor as well. Welfare incomes typically hover at around half the poverty line, not nearly enough money for adequate food or housing, let alone a car. Perhaps the most persistent of these fallacies is the idea of widespread welfare fraud. In fact, the evidence suggests that the rate of welfare fraud is quite low.

As professors Janet Mosher and Joe Hermer found in a report to the Law Commission of Canada, the number of welfare fraud convictions in Ontario in 2001-02 was roughly equivalent to 0.1 per cent of the combined social assistance caseload. Even more telling is that these convictions represented only 1 per cent of the allegations about welfare offences. And there were a large number of allegations – 38,452 welfare fraud investigations were conducted that year. The end tally? Ninety-nine per cent of them did not result in convictions. In other words, a great deal of time and energy is spent looking for welfare fraud, but there doesn't seem to be much to find.

So why are these myths so resilient, despite the evidence to the contrary? One reason has to do with underlying economic fears in society at large. For many people, concerns about financial insecurity and ending up poor are never far from the surface. These fears can be handled by assigning certain traits to the poor that make them different from the rest of society. If we think of the poor as lazy and dishonest, then it seems less likely that poverty will happen to us, the hard-working, the responsible. But these stereotypes are not merely the result of personal fears. They serve a number of other purposes as well. Blaming the poor for their own plight makes it possible to avoid a more searching examination of the social and economic factors that contribute to poverty.

For example, unemployment is an important determinant of poverty. But the unemployment rate is closely linked to broader economic policy decisions. Increasing interest rates, for instance, usually results in fewer jobs and higher unemployment. This means that finding a job is like a game of musical chairs for the poor. No matter how motivated an individual person may be, there will always be too few chairs to go around. Similarly, a low minimum wage, or a lack of affordable housing are public policy choices that have a direct effect on poverty. Stigmatizing the poor allows politicians and policy-makers to ignore responsibility for those decisions.

The myths about poverty often serve other political purposes as well. Defining the poor as lazy or irresponsible creates popular villains for the rest of us to condemn. It panders to a human weakness to feel superior to someone, and provides a handy target for complaints about tax dollars. The same is true when those stereotypes are dressed up in the jargon of "welfare dependency," argued as the reason why poor children sometimes end up as poor adults. The real problem is that poor children have severely limited resources, which often translates into less education and fewer opportunities as they get older. They may indeed end up losing that game of musical chairs, but not because of a particular mindset.

The truth is that, like the rest of us, poor people engage in a wide range of moral conduct and possess a broad array of personal traits and psychological outlooks. And the way to address a complex problem like economic inequality is from a variety of different angles. Rather than scapegoating the poor, there are a series of practical steps that would have a significant impact on poverty. Several of these steps have been canvassed in these pages – a higher minimum wage, affordable housing, universal child care, a guaranteed income, and accessible education. These measures go to some of the most fundamental principles of civil society: ensuring human dignity and a fair shake for everyone, regardless of income.