Thursday, October 30, 2014
7

欧洲的移民挑战

伦敦—欧洲面临着移民困境。主流政客囿于“恐外症”党派的要挟,不得不用反移民口号来取悦忧心忡忡的公众,而外国出生的公民则在学校、城市和工作单位日益受到边缘化。然而,尽管欧洲大陆很多国家面临着高失业,大量雇主却找不到他们所需要的员工。工程师、医生和护士均存在供给不足,农场工人和健康护理师也是如此。欧洲的企业家也总是处于不足的状态,而他们的新思想正是驱动经济和创造就业的动力。

流行的质疑移民的观点并不是一无是处。许多社区确实被极化了,无怪乎欧洲人会对此忧心不已。但把这一现象归咎于移民并不正确,只能让问题扩大化。我们所有人都有责任。

我们没有承担起责任来,这使得移民成了一系列与他们不相关问题的替罪羊。全球经济危机、关乎欧洲存亡的政治争论以及新兴势力的崛起所造成的持久的不安全感总是被说成是移民的结果。这样说不仅不公正,还会分散我们的注意力——我们原本应该专注于构想解决真正问题的办法的。

欧洲各国最终必须如实承认,与美国、加拿大和澳大利亚一样,它们也是移民国家。在不少欧洲国家(包括西班牙、英国、德国、荷兰和希腊),外国出生居民比重与美国不相上下。

但尽管如此,我们仍然没有投入足够的投资让新来者融入到我们的学校和工作单位中去。我们也没有改革我们的公共机构,让它们变得更包容、更能响应多元化社会。问题不在于多少新移民被欧盟接受,而在于承认我们生活在其中的社会的性质和组成。

这既讽刺,又危险——欧洲的反移民情绪在全球结构性变迁为移民流带来基础性变化的当口达到了最高峰。最重要的转变是新吸引力极(poles of attraction)的出现。企业家、拥有博士学位的移民以及纯粹为了改善生活的移民正在涌向巴西、南非、印尼、墨西哥、中国和印度。在未来十年中,移民增长的大头将出现在南方。西方不再是迦南乐土,欧洲的全球竞争力也将因此蒙上一层阴影。

欧洲人口老龄化是历史上从来不曾出现过的现象。工作人口数量将出现大幅下降,到本世纪中叶将减少近三分之一,这将对欧洲的社会模式、城市的存亡、创新和竞争力以及(随着老人越来越依赖年轻人)代际关系产生巨大的影响。历史表明,欢迎新公民能量和活力的国家最能获得最强的国际竞争力,但欧洲却在反其道而行之——收紧边境线。

但欧洲并不是不可救药。欧洲之所以落得如此田地,是拜不作为和短视决策的综合作用所赐。这意味着欧洲有很大的改善空间。事实上,某些欧洲国家已经出现了希望之光。

比如瑞典。瑞典已经修改了移民政策,允许雇主为所需要的移民员工争取身份(该政策包括一项保护措施,优先对待瑞典人和欧盟公民)。在理性时期,这类改革会让欧洲钦羡不已,特别是考虑到瑞典经济在欧洲本来就属于韧性较强的。这些政策显然已经引起了澳大利亚和加拿大的注意,它们准备模仿瑞典的做法。

在融合移民方面也有不少创新。不少方案(尽管力度不大)鼓励有移民背景者申请警察、消防队、媒体和其他公共部门的职位。这些措施也对公共机构的迫切需要有所响应,这些机构与它们所服务的人群看上去颇为相似。

还有很多工具可以用来增进融合。我们都清楚早期儿童教育的重要性,知道什么样的教育计划可以填补移民儿童和土著儿童之间的差异。我们也明白融合过程中找到工作的重要性,知道怎样更好地识别移民的技能,知道怎样为他们提供正确的语言培训,知道怎样克服招聘中的歧视。

但是,尽管我们知道如何做,但如今还需要更多的政治意愿来实行。好消息是,如果我们可以处理好融合问题,就有很大机会推动公众支持更加开放的移民政策。

同样重要的是移民的国际合作问题。去年阿拉伯革命期间,欧盟坐失一次团结地中海两岸的良机。欧洲没有向年轻学生、企业家和其他北非人敞开大门。如今,欧盟正在付出更大的努力包容南面的邻居。潜在机会包括自由贸易协定、放松大学留学生的签证要求、临时性务工项目以及吸引企业家的激励。

在移民问题上,没有哪个国家可以独善其身,也没有哪个国家可以单枪匹马解决问题。我们还有很长的路要走,国际环境也可能在未来多年内不利于移民。我们能够取得多少进步取决于我们是否有能够打破关于移民的流言。

移民正在发生根本性转变,我们必须鞭策自己设计出适应新现实的制度和方法。如果能够成功,人力流动将成为21世纪的优良资产。

Hide Comments Hide Comments Read Comments (7)

Please login or register to post a comment

  1. CommentedOlanrewaju Kamil-Muhammed OSENI

    When you sign up to globalization,this is what you get.Mobility of people will continue forever and the european and other western world cannot do anything about this and immigrant will be a major part of their population in the next 50 years.The only way to reduce this migration is to help the developing and under develop countries nobody want to work as a slave in another man land.African leaders are imporishing their people and stealing monies and keeping them oversea.They should help fight corruption and support good leardership in the developing world and when the country are growing lesser number of people want to move out.

  2. CommentedRalph Musgrave

    Another bit of nonsense in Sutherland’s article is the tired old claim he trots out about immigrants helping to solve the aging population problem.

    The flaw in that argument should be obvious to the average ten year old: immigrants are human beings - they grow old just like everyone else! Then what? Accept even more immigrants so as to deal with the aging immigrants?

    The latter nonsense results of course in an exponential increase in the population. The maths here was actually studied by Frank Denton and Byron Spencer of McMaster University in Canada. The found that if immigration alone was used to deal with the aging population problem, the population would increase twenty to thirty fold every century! See:

    http://ideas.repec.org/p/mcm/sedapp/135.html

    Or as Frank Denton puts it in the conclusion of another paper, “Immigration is clearly not an effective tool for offsetting the process of population aging.” See:

    http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~iesop/papers/iesop_24.pdf

    And not only that, but the largest developing country is now facing an “aging population” problem of its own: that’s China. So the whole idea that immigration helps solve the aging population problem is nonsense.

  3. CommentedHarry Davidson

    Here in London England politicians are never found on overcrowded suburban buses jostling with immigrants who are pushing a pram containing a baby, another youngster holding the mother’s hand and a third baby due to emerge into the world anytime soon. These are not the supposed professional or entrepreneurial class that we are told are being attracted to other parts of the world like Brazil, South Africa and Indonesia. These are poor, uneducated immigrants that I am referring to and who think that they have never had it so good. They are in heaven compared to the countries like Bulgaria, Rumania, Turkey, Sudan, Afghanistan etc etc where they came from. Generous child-related benefits, social housing provided by the Local Councils, education facilities for the growing children and relatively pristine hospitals in which to give birth to the growing family. Meanwhile, services are being stretched to breaking point especially in these times of austerity.

    The politicians and educated, liberal minded people like Peter Sutherland never mix with this class of immigrant. They probably never find themselves on public transport and yet they sit back and formulate endless social harmonization theories and pass laws in parliament

  4. CommentedRalph Musgrave

    It’s pathetic the way Peter Sutherland and other advocates of immigration often start their articles with a series of unsubstantiated insults. According to Sutherland, those opposed to immigration are “xenophobic”: that is the hate or fear foreigners.

    In reply, can I suggest that Peter Sutherland is a half-wit or that he wants to destroy Western civilisation by Islamising it and thus that he “hates” Western culture?

    Of course I prefer intelligent debate to exchanging insults. But the pro-immigration folk like Sutherland should understand that we opponents of mass immigration CAN DESCEND to exchanging insults if we want to.

    I also love Sutherland’s reference to “Europe’s existential political debates..” Perhaps he can let us know which part of Jean Paul Satre’s philosophy he was referring to here.

    As for Sutherland’s suggestion that European countries are “lands of immigrants” just like America or Australia, that is total and complete hog-wash. Of course European countries are rapidly BECOMING “lands of immigrants” thanks to the desire by Sutherland & Co to see Europe swamped by immigrants. But as of two or three decades ago, Europe was TOTALLY DIFFERENT to America and Australia in that immigrants or children and grandchildren of immigrants made up a MINUTE proportion of the population.


  5. CommentedBernhard Kopp

    Respondig from Germany where we do not have a right-wing populist party, at least not yet. The 'fearful public' is first and foremost angry at the politic elite, immigrants are only secondary targets. For more than 20 years the legislation around refugees and immigrants, how the issues are dealt with, how people are treated and sometimes mistreated, how the system can be abused by some - all of that is a mess. A mess created by conflicting objectives of political parties, sometimes including churches and labor unions. It is not a divine creation that judicial proceedings for 'asylum seekers' can take years, and it is no coincidence that hardly any islamic terrorist (including 9/11 participants) and radical salafists are permanently, or at least for extended periods of time, welfare recipients. This occasionally while comfortably living in a single familie house, rented presumably from relatives, and a Mercedes car, also supposedly borrowed from another relativ, aroung the corner. It maybe understandable, but it is not acceptable, that immigrants are 5-10 times higher in the criminal and welfare recipients statistics than their proportionate share in the population.

    Unless the politicians clean up the mess they have created, or have permitted to take such dimensions, the problems will rather get worse than better.

  6. CommentedEric Urbain

    WOW! The authors of this article are severely misguided. In the first place, Europe and the US are apples and oranges so it doesnt help in trying to establish parallels when the only common ground is that there are immigrant destinations (Im half European and half American so know the issues first hand).

    Secondly, the authors fail to recognize that many if not most Europeans do not WANT more immigration, and it is there right to feel this way and therefore incumbent on officials/representatives to do the bidding of the people- instead of castigating their opinions. After all, isnt it the right of each household to decide who comes in their house so shouldn't it be the same for countries?

    Further, left wing European politicians need to wake up to the fact that although immigration has in some cases helped economies, it has also harmed society. Many immigrants have brought bad habits from their home countries, such as violence and prejudice, and its simply not right to call people xenophobic or racist just because they don't want bad people around.

    Immigration is very simple. If the people who come in are 'good apples' and add value to society- are respectful and do their part - they are accepted. However, if they are trouble makers or have any other kind of negative impact, they are disliked or ignored. This is human nature and applies anywhere in the world..so there is no need to belittle Europeans. In fact, more credit should be given to Europeans who have done A LOT to help immigrants integrate, more than in other countries in fact.

    Imagine it the other way around- a European immigrating to Nigeria, Iraq or Indonesia. Would he or she be tolerated as much or protected by law? Would Christian religion be tolerated and welcomed, would he/she receive health benefits...even political representation? In some countries yes but the vast majority will be no. Many muslim countries do not even tolerate the existence of other religions and most countries in the world ban foreigners from owning property, voting, etc..so in reality, immigrants in Europe actually have a pretty good deal - not a bad one.

    Lastly, the responsibility for the success of integration is a shared one - it takes two to tango. Immigrants themselves need to be willing and able to integrate, not just society at large. There is a lot of evidence which shows immigrants NOT being willing to integrate and being tolerant towards others e.g. attacks on jews by muslim youths. So who's job is it to integrate...I would say the immigrant...if I move to Japan, its not up to the Japanese to change their culture to accommodate me, I need to learn Japanese, learn cultural norms and fit in...if Im not willing to do this, then I probably shouldn't immigrate to Japan!





      CommentedMoctar Aboubacar

      You write: "So who's job is it to integrate...I would say the immigrant...if I move to Japan, its not up to the Japanese to change their culture to accommodate me, I need to learn Japanese, learn cultural norms and fit in"

      I'm not sure about this, on two points.

      The first is a point of principle and personal freedom which I defend halfway; if someone wants to hang their store sign up in another language because they think it'll get them more business, then why stop them? On the other hand the question of language and others are essential to communicating and so becoming a functional member of society- and those are indeed of the responsibility of the people who migrate.

      The second is more technical in nature. What is, for example, 'french culture'? Doesn't it include immigrants de facto, since they live in France, form part of the society, and have a tradition of some sort in the country? It is not the autochtones who "change" a culture as you put it, but rather the culture that changes naturally to reflect what goes on within national, linguistic, and psychological boundaries. If you name your child 'Mohammed' in France today, I am not convinced that this is not, in a way, a French name.

Featured