Unemployment and immigration: the danger of wrong correlation now, on the morning of September 8, the online edition of newspaper El Mundo published a survey of free participation for their Internet and
users where asked whether "there is a relationship between the unemployment rate and the number of immigrants ".'s almost 13 hours and more than 13,000 votes cast, an overwhelming 78% of people consider themselves.
might say that the response does not indicate what is the correlation between data, but the same is suggested by an epigraph on the cover of Today's World, which notes that
Spain welcomes more immigrants than the United Kingdom, France or Italy and the rate of immigrants in Spain is twice the average EU, as the unemployment rate.
The suggestion of the second largest newspaper in Spain is obvious:
more immigrants, more unemployment .
This idea not only is false, it is also dangerous. To begin to dismantle it, we say that the "boom" of immigration to Spain has not produced in the last 3 years of crisis, but in the previous ten, where until 2007 Spain created employment and in the early years of the century , at unprecedented rates, leading to create one of every two new jobs in the European Union.
That prosperity (which was not as solid as we have seen) was not "in spite of immigrants" but largely because of them. We must continue to indicate that immigrants choose their destinations with some rationality and logically, prefer to go to a country that creates jobs that one destroys it. For this reason, in the last two years has increased the number of foreigners who return to their countries, especially Latin American and the flow of new immigrants has grown as it did once and has even reduced the cases of some nationalities ( again, uniquely Latin Americans).
Minor has been the change in the case of the Maghreb and sub-Saharan Africa for one simple reason: many crisis we have in Spain, the countries from which they come are much worse. The immigrant it aims to get better.
Coming from a heath crisis in a European country can seem a very acceptable scenario. is obvious that context of job losses, there are many immigrants thrown into the clutches of unemployment because the jobs they are usually low-skilled (cleaning, catering and the like) or in sectors with which the crisis has been primed (construction) .
Denunc rate
iar immigrants when we have 20% unemployment and silence when that unemployment was 8% is not only hypocritical, but a demonstration of how far the socialist lies in the mentality prevailing many who claim to fight socialism. If you really have more unemployment because there is more immigration, the solution to create employment would be simple: take, "the ones left over." Of course, this will apply a standard of "national preference", although it meant the immigrant take effective and suitable in their work and maintain a national vague and inadequate.
An attack on the principle of merit and ability to taste very socialist. Why do I say that this mentality is a socialist? Because
is anchored in the social prejudices of that work is something static to be divided, that wealth is a cake that neither grows nor decreases and that is the responsibility of the state factotum distributed among a passive citizens can only beg the pseudodivina help the state which gives them manna in the desert.
The expulsion of large numbers of immigrants create jobs, but would a contraction of demand in many economic sectors that would destroy even more jobs. In addition, many employers make it impossible to adjust their meager profit margins by not being able to have a workforce which represents a lower wage bill in their spending (in areas operated by the state less and less sabotaged by unions, many immigrants accepted wage low and enable the provision of services at more competitive prices for consumers, which ultimately brings benefits to society as a whole although the socialists only see a worker who has ceased to be employed for not accepting the same pay as an immigrant).
In 
definitive go, stop blaming the immigration argument is a fallacious and dangerous as the
n eo-Malthusian when they claim that with fewer people live better . Such
socialist fallacies put into the boiling pan
xenophobic movements that result in violence. facilitates the adoption of more distributive and interventionist measures by governments demagogues, and blames an essential part of our citizenship as responsible for a phenomenon that actually suffer firsthand.
As before, some liberals conservatives may see in my case a "goodism."
I do not deny the many problems q ue a phenomenon like immigration can cause , and more with the disastrous management of successive English governments have made the case. We do not accept is the submission to
collectivist prejudices and immersion in the liberal logic through aberrant Economists extrapolations. I'm not worth the hackneyed argument that there are immigrants who come to suckle from the teat statist or crime. Clear that there are, how many and English? Although foreigners were more such behavior,
responsibility continues to be individual and make collective again be a betrayal of liberal individualism and an act of submission to the communistic collectivism that you both like to put labels of "good and bad", "them and us", " operators and called the final victory. "
immigrants have not manipulated interest rates from central banks, have immortalized a Franco labor and obsolete, they are not guilty of Mafia association and the English business slump, there are those who have designed an autonomic system multiplying the static infinite fractal. Really it is they who have made the stop is in 20%?
Come on, man!
definitive 
