In a recent post, mariner and Guru discussed migration. It was determined that migration is no more than a choice of action. One chooses migration because they can. There are many, many reasons that provoke the decision to migrate. The vast majority, however, would rather not have to choose migration. Migration is not class-specific; rich people migrate; opportunists migrate; poor people migrate; young people migrate; old people migrate; starving and life-threatened people migrate. Interestingly, the Internet is a new travel route for political motives and corporate investment – both forms of migration.
In this post, however, mariner and Guru explore the other side of the coin – immigration.
– – – –
Migration is replaced by the word ‘immigration’ when nationalism confronts the emigrant’s decision. An emigrant’s desire to migrate to another nation is no longer the deciding factor. Rather, it is the receiving nation that determines whether entrance is acceptable.
For obvious reasons across a range of issues, nations are obligated to have standards for immigration. Economic stability and military security clearly are good reasons to have standards for immigration; illegitimate practices in international commerce, black market products, diseases and animal/plant/insect controls are good reasons to check who and what comes and goes across a national border. Troublesome social issues like slave trade, drugs, and persons intent on criminal behavior also are a concern.
As a procedural relationship, migration and immigration work well. There are procedures in the nation of departure for applying for entry which match closely the standards set by the receiving nation. One cannot forget that government oversight and civil management are required in both nations for the procedural relationship to occur.
Successful immigration is similar to purchasing a plane ticket, passing through airport security and boarding the plane – all before one can depart the initial location. The immigration struggles that have become worse around the world during the twenty-first century will become more troublesome as the world changes on many fronts. In virtually every troublesome case, the decision to migrate starts in a nation that has no government oversight, no civility, and to cite the analogy, no airport.
The typical reaction of most nations is to confront excessive migrants at the border after the migration has been accomplished. Taking a cue from the immigration procedure when it works correctly, the emigrant should qualify at the beginning, not at the end. Mass migrations have legitimate cause to leave nations at war, starving, with collapsed economies and management by murderous gangs, residency applications notwithstanding.
Mariner has more to learn before he can foresee a solution to the global migration issue. Being global and being international, it seems an organization similar to the United Nations would be the only comprehensive enforcement agent to take the pressure off national immigration services and push residency applications back to the nation of departure.
Pulling a process out of the air, perhaps the UN would manage humane immigration at the front end, filling out forms, etc. This would require all nations to agree to the UN’s screening. While nations still have the last say, the experience at the border may flow better.
[Politico] HOW MUCH THE BANKS ON THE HILL TODAY SPENT ON LOBBYING: The chief executives of seven major bank and investment firms — Bank of America, Bank of New York Mellon, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and State Street Corporation — arrived on the Hill this morning to testify before the House Financial Services Committee. As you might expect, all of them have a presence in Washington.
The seven companies together spent $14.8 million on Washington lobbying last year, according to disclosure filings. Citigroup spent the most, at $4.5 million; State Street spent the least, at $1.5 million. All of them also have active corporate PACs that give to members of Congress — including, of course, members of the committee.
–> Be honest. Is your vote 100% influential? Is it $10,000 for each representative or is it one person, one vote?
This is just the banks . . . The term for this form of government is plutocracy or corporatocracy. Certainly not democracy.
– – – –
 $1,535 rent
Driven by millennials’ demand, job growth and rising wages, the median rent in the U.S. rose 3.4 percent in March compared to the year before, according to data from the online rental housing site HotPads. It’s now $1,535 a month. Phoenix was the big “winner,” where the median rent rose 6.7 percent to $1,520. The median rent in New York, on the other hand, ticked up just 1.5 percent — to $2,380. [Associated Press]
–> It’s good news that citizens are finding somewhere to work. The rent statistics show that the unemployment record doesn’t tell the whole story. Salaries have a long way to go before they return to realistic levels. The other implication derived from the high rents is that the US faces a growing housing issue.