VOICES OF EUROPE   UNIAPAC  WORLD CONGRESS - BUENOS AIRES 2001

Appeal to Christian employers to think long-term and to resist short-term immigration interests.

 

Christian employers are motivated to think always generously and therefore also with respect to immigrants. But here a distinction should be made between old and new immigration and within new immigration between permanent and temporary immigration. If permanent immigration should be chosen (not our favored option, it was the mistake of our fathers in the 1960's) a further distinction should be made according to cultural vicinity.

 

A position in favour of freer admittance of new immigrants is not always proof of altruism, worthy to be followed by Christian employers. Often such a position is influenced by elements of short term self interest like in the following examples:

Ø      Industrial employers who shy away from the financial expense related to in-depth investment and want cheap labour as an alternative to maintain their competitivity.

Ø      For farmers the financial consideration amounts to nearly sheer physical impossibility to obtain manual labour within the country. In order to preserve their life-style as farmers, they claim for freer immigration policies. This however involves a social expense for the community in addition to the expense farmers cause national and international society by agricultural trade protection and national subsidies. (note [1] )

Ø      Party- political interests. We have recently seen examples of political parties playing up to certain ethnical groups or to immigrants in general with the hope to acquire their votes in the next elections.

Ø      A country-wide, national self interest, as opposed to a party interest may influence decisions if a government makes a trade-off  between freer immigration against some compensation for instance a promiseof steady oil supply by the respective government (note  [2] )

Ø      There may be even a shared self-interest between developed and developing nations in freer immigration in so far as increased immigration causes increased flows of money to the developing nation, obviating the dearth of official government development aid (note [3] )

 

All these kinds of interests are in the nature of short-term self-interests, with disregard to the social cost of immigration and could well be replaced by more classical decisions and policies, fruitful over a longer term.

As far as Christian employers are concerned, an appeal seems to be in order:

·          To be very cautious while considering recruitment of immigrants, and to rather first thoroughly analyse other available options, including the deepening of investment in labour-saving equipment. They could well push jointly for the introduction of the necessary fiscal support for investment deepening.
·          Use by preference the reintroduction of retired or partly invalid workers, or the young unemployed, and broaden the labour force within the nation. Push for fiscal depreciation facilities with respect to vocational training, on a par with the depreciation which is allowd for equipment. [ note [ 4] ] 
·           Consider relocation of an industry to a developing country if that could be the better answe r.
·         If , - upon thorough analysis, - all other options are exhausted and the recruitment of immigrants is needed, let employers at least avoid permanent immigration and limit any recruitment to only temporary working permits, thus avoiding the social cost inherent in permanent immigration. (note [5] )
·          within the recruitment of immigrants, and all other qualifications being equal, a preference for countries of shared civilisation may be in order. This distinction will be less essential if (as opposed to permanent immigration) a good working system of temporary immigration can be adopted. However, in case permanent immigration should be  chosen, this distinction is most important.
We speak often of environment erosion and the need to protect environmental heritage. The same applies to cultural erosion and the need to protect cultural heritage.
A.G.O.S.    / /   G H     Paris    2001 and 2004

< Return to the Home Page

Introduction

Editorial board

Economy

European Union

Migration

Cultural Relations

Archives

Contact