Another day, another terrorist attack.
This time, a policeman was killed stopping a jihadist terrorist named Abu-Yusuf al-Baljik. Two others were reportedly injured in the process.
If you are a nationalist or believe in the lib-left globalist agenda, there is little doubt as to what your view on immigration is after attacks like these. But what if you are an apolitical migrant?
It may seem counter-intuitive for a migrant to support tighter borders and anti-immigrant policies. But suppose that 1 in every 1000 migrants is a terrorist or is likely to become a terrorist. The difference between a country that has taken in one million migrants and one that has taken in six million migrants may thus be five thousand extra reports of terrorist acts, and increasingly more resentment towards people such as you. Factor in the possibility that you yourself could also be a victim of the next terrorist attack in France - as part of the new, expected frequency of attacks - and there is clearly more to consider than what meets the eye here.
The next point is the unemployment situation. On average, 200 of every 1000 migrants fail to find employment within the first twelve months of stay; 440 of every 1000 migrants fail to find long-term employment. In these instances, the difference between a population of one million migrants and six million migrants potentially involves the impact of either 200,000 or 1.2 million short-term unemployed, and 440,000 or 2.64 million long-term unemployed, respectively. As a successful and well-integrated migrant, there can be no doubt as to which scenario has greater potential to create disgust towards those with whom you might be associated.
A similar point of issue is the job market. When there are fewer people competing for a position, there is a greater chance you will actually find the one you want. With French unemployment rate around 10%, your chance to obtain a job from a pool of one million individuals is better than your chance to obtain a job from a pool of six million individuals. Once again, you, the migrant, benefit from the presence of fewer migrants.
Next, with just one million migrants instead of six million migrants, the native population's contact with people such as yourself diminishes, and so do the chances that the impression people have of you will be colored by their interactions with anyone other than yourself. You essentially become your own diplomat, and inherit the power to influence the initial impression everyone has of people such as yourself.
Similarly, with fewer migrants, there are fewer people reaching out their hands for support from the state. This could mean more resources for people such as yourself, but it could also lighten your tax burden as well.
Finally, with just one million migrants instead of six million migrants, you are not part of a swell that validates concerns about demographic change and its political, social and cultural consequences in the immediate future. The native population is more likely to view you as somebody from afar than part of a intrusive scourge.
Clearly, the issue is not nearly as black and white as some might think.
This time, a policeman was killed stopping a jihadist terrorist named Abu-Yusuf al-Baljik. Two others were reportedly injured in the process.
If you are a nationalist or believe in the lib-left globalist agenda, there is little doubt as to what your view on immigration is after attacks like these. But what if you are an apolitical migrant?
It may seem counter-intuitive for a migrant to support tighter borders and anti-immigrant policies. But suppose that 1 in every 1000 migrants is a terrorist or is likely to become a terrorist. The difference between a country that has taken in one million migrants and one that has taken in six million migrants may thus be five thousand extra reports of terrorist acts, and increasingly more resentment towards people such as you. Factor in the possibility that you yourself could also be a victim of the next terrorist attack in France - as part of the new, expected frequency of attacks - and there is clearly more to consider than what meets the eye here.
The next point is the unemployment situation. On average, 200 of every 1000 migrants fail to find employment within the first twelve months of stay; 440 of every 1000 migrants fail to find long-term employment. In these instances, the difference between a population of one million migrants and six million migrants potentially involves the impact of either 200,000 or 1.2 million short-term unemployed, and 440,000 or 2.64 million long-term unemployed, respectively. As a successful and well-integrated migrant, there can be no doubt as to which scenario has greater potential to create disgust towards those with whom you might be associated.
A similar point of issue is the job market. When there are fewer people competing for a position, there is a greater chance you will actually find the one you want. With French unemployment rate around 10%, your chance to obtain a job from a pool of one million individuals is better than your chance to obtain a job from a pool of six million individuals. Once again, you, the migrant, benefit from the presence of fewer migrants.
Next, with just one million migrants instead of six million migrants, the native population's contact with people such as yourself diminishes, and so do the chances that the impression people have of you will be colored by their interactions with anyone other than yourself. You essentially become your own diplomat, and inherit the power to influence the initial impression everyone has of people such as yourself.
Similarly, with fewer migrants, there are fewer people reaching out their hands for support from the state. This could mean more resources for people such as yourself, but it could also lighten your tax burden as well.
Finally, with just one million migrants instead of six million migrants, you are not part of a swell that validates concerns about demographic change and its political, social and cultural consequences in the immediate future. The native population is more likely to view you as somebody from afar than part of a intrusive scourge.
Clearly, the issue is not nearly as black and white as some might think.
