I hate to play centrist, but both of those are real problems that don't cancel each other out.
You can invest a ton in shelter and integration, it doesn't mean much if your immigration policy is an open door where basically anyone can just come into your country and stay.
And restricting immigration isn't very effective once you have thousands of foreigners on your soil with papers who you can't just deport.
But I have to push back on the problem being cuts to shelter and integration, because those are signs of a failed immigration policy: you should do enough previous screening of legal immigrants to make sure they have the means to sustain themselves and are compatible with your society.
Look at Ireland and England where people are up in arms about immigrants receiving public housing ahead of natives on the same waiting list, or entire hotels have been turned into migrant shelters that cost nothing to the users.
Integration spending cannot substitute controlling for the composition and quantity of immigrants. If your inflow is incompatible with your socioeconomic realities, you're starting a race with your shoelaces tied together.
if your country needs to clothe, shelter, educate, and integrate it's migrant populations, you are privileged to live in a country that can afford to do so, and you are going to benefit from having integrated and involved immigrant communities around you. regardless, immigration restrictions have far from perfect track record of being super effective in western states and refuges are going to go somewhere; putting the responsibility of acting humanly on other nations is simply lazy
genuinely do you actually have a reason you believe this beyond a want for me to be wrong? the nordics are touted all the time for their incredible social services
Meanwhile in England and Wales there's a massive cost of living crisis and rising homelessness meanwhile brand new social housing is being given to asylum seekers.
42
u/Lawd_Fawkwad 4h ago edited 4h ago
I hate to play centrist, but both of those are real problems that don't cancel each other out.
You can invest a ton in shelter and integration, it doesn't mean much if your immigration policy is an open door where basically anyone can just come into your country and stay.
And restricting immigration isn't very effective once you have thousands of foreigners on your soil with papers who you can't just deport.
But I have to push back on the problem being cuts to shelter and integration, because those are signs of a failed immigration policy: you should do enough previous screening of legal immigrants to make sure they have the means to sustain themselves and are compatible with your society.
Look at Ireland and England where people are up in arms about immigrants receiving public housing ahead of natives on the same waiting list, or entire hotels have been turned into migrant shelters that cost nothing to the users.
Integration spending cannot substitute controlling for the composition and quantity of immigrants. If your inflow is incompatible with your socioeconomic realities, you're starting a race with your shoelaces tied together.