Dealing with immigration in Europe.

Immigration is one of the topics that the European public opinion is highly divided over. Immigrants, from both outside and within the EU, are transforming the social, economic, demographic and political reality in each country.

A lot of the negative public opinion that focuses on the immigrant communities can be blamed on groups or media with a populist agenda.

Immigrants bring both positive and negative changes in a country, but if we had a well functioning immigration policy we could limit the negative ones. Sadly, our governments failed so far to achieve harmonization among all EU member states' immigration policies and this fact is exploited by populist or far-right groups that oppose multiculturalism, immigration of the EU itself.

Immigrants bring economic growth by working and being exploited. They have to pay each year around 1,000-3,000 € just to stay in the country plus work unpaid overtime, just because they have no rights as workers. Rights that we as EU citizens take for granted. Many of them that enter an EU country with a student visa, they got to keep studying and thus paying another at least 3,000 € per year for college fees that they do not really need.

They have to pay higher taxes than the natives and other EU citizens, plus they may only find employment by doing jobs that the natives won’t take with any salary offered just to stay in the country. Jobs that they would like to do, are not available for them because of their visa restrictions. In other words, most of the money they earn for their low paid job goes back into the economy, either by paying for their visa, college, rent and higher taxes.

Refugees are a totally different case than legal migrants. The problem with this group is that they are not allowed to work and contribute, while they would love to. The reason for them to come to Europe is to find employment. Yet they are given a payment of around 19.80 € per week to live in the case of Ireland, or put into camps in the case of Greece and they are banned from certain "exclusion zones" for the "protection of the locals," in the case of Switzerland. (Spiegel Online).

The unfortunate thing is that Europe can not accept all in and integrate them. We do not have the capacity, either social or economic to accommodate the ever increasing numbers of asylum seekers arriving in Europe. And it proves very costly to keep them in "centers of hospitality," where they are placed until their fate is decided. First we need to create a common immigration policy to attract immigrants from countries and with skills that we need and are useful to us.

As for the problem of illegal immigration, perhaps we should stop invading the countries of origins of the people arriving as refugees, or meddling with their affairs so we won’t have to receive them. Most of the illegal immigrants or refugees coming into Europe from Greece are from Iraq and Afghanistan and that itself states something.

Another problem, the one with the Roma Gypsies that many Western European countries are struggling to deal with, is of a different nature. Their communities are often the victims of discrimination all over Europe and that perhaps has made them a bit insular, closed societies with their own way of doing business and life style.

That is partly because they are refusing to adapt to our way of life and partly because the discriminating they are facing. Their integration and the ending of their stigmatization should become a priority for EU policy makers. They are after all native Europeans, they have been living among us for centuries.

We should not put all immigrant groups in one bag, each one is different. Some immigrants we need, some we don’t and for some we can not do anything about them but to try and integrate them. So we need to develop a comprehensive, fair and functioning immigration policy to attract and keep the ones who we need, just like other countries like Australia and Canada are achieving.

This policy should prosecute individuals and companies who employ illegal immigrants or immigrants from the newest EU countries, in order to exploit them. They are making a profit and they are the ones to blame, not the immigrants for the lack of contributions into our welfare state. These people work and while they are not paying taxes, they offer their labor to local employers.

If they need to get hospitalized, it should be these employers that should pay for their expenses, as they are the ones who make lots of money by underpaying these people and by not covering their social insurance. That is in fact one of the main arguments that many of those who oppose immigrants from other poorer EU or non-EU countries, are putting forward against immigration.

They claim that since these people have never contributed to the State by paying taxes, then they should not be receiving housing or social welfare, draining our fragile system. But why don't they never point the finger to the local employers who employ them? As long as they offer these jobs to the immigrants in order to make profit, these people will keep coming because they are needed by employers throughout Europe that seek them.

When we are discussing about issues arising from immigration within the EU, we have to realize that we can not stop the free movement of people, that is one of the main freedoms for EU citizens. We could though, make it compulsory for all EU citizens to be paid the same salary in any given country.

If any people coming from the new EU states would receive what a native worker would as a salary, they would not be preferred by the local tax evading employers. It would make no difference to them to employ a Polish and Romanian worker from a British, Irish and French. In that way, we keep both the free movement of people and we limit the exploitation of the immigrant and native workers, limiting the tensions between the two communities.

Since none of the above logical measures have been adopted, it is clear that immigration into Europe, or within it is a modern kind of slavery. Migrant workers are largely allowed into our countries to be exploited, so the native employers can make greater profits. And that is why we can never form a fair and comprehensive immigration policy, since it is not in some people's interests and so we should stop blaming the migrants themselves.

Freedom of speech or hate speech?

In the recent years we see a rise not only in Euro-skepticism, but in the support for far right political parties, xenophobia and racism in Europe. One of the consequences of this development is the spread of hate speech in various websites, forums, chat rooms and social media. 

 How can we deal with the very disturbing trend that is spreading, without infringing on the right of freedom of speech? If we ban hate speech, we will have to make sure that we know how to define it. It is true that we need to be careful in whose authority we leave to examine what is hate and what is freedom of speech. 

Nevertheless we also must acknowledge that it is an issue that needs to be dealt with. By using anonymity, certain individuals dominate social media and their websites, spreading their radical ideas or ideology. 


 Recently Mr. Juan Fernando López Aguilar, an MEP with the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, commented on the issue on the Debating Europe website. He stated that Europe must respond not only politically, but with European legislation in reforming the framework decision of 2008. 

Based on the values of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, we should introduce legislation to strengthen the protection of victims and establish a new legal framework with criminal laws and penalties, to combat not only the politics of hate, but also hate speech as well.

I totally agree with his position, but legislation to ban hate speech is not the only solution. As it is our youth who is more vulnerable to the exposure to such unhealthy doctrine, because they use the internet the most and do not always have the right judgement and experience, Europe should put some effort in educating them on sensitive issues in school. Before they turn naturally to the internet as a source of information, getting radicalized as a result by certain people or groups with an agenda.

I guess as a true Parliamentarian Mr. Lopez Aguilar sees as the solution to the problem the implementation of more legislation. But this issue is not just like many others that we are facing, like the economy and the crisis. It is a sign of a moral, social and cultural crisis, that is hard to deal with just more legislation and without complicating things further and limiting the true freedom of speech of the citizens.

Legislation must be combined with educative and social initiatives and programs, to end discrimination and the stereotypical portrayal of certain ethnic, religious or other minorities. The role of the media must certainly be discussed and perhaps the proposed by Mr. Lopes Aguilar legislation must apply on them too, as they are the ones who often victimize or create a stereotypical image of a nation.

If this proposed legislation is designed carefully to target certain vocabulary or tone of expression and not the actual opinion, the we have nothing to fear as citizens from a move to implement a greater control or ban on hate speech. It is the way one expresses his opinion that counts. You have every right to hold any opinion, even if that one is not shared by the majority on sensitive issues such immigration gay marriages or Islam in Europe etc. 

But if you express these beliefs with hatred, no valid arguments or facts and just rants, then you are just become a bigot with nothing constructive to add to any debate and with the only purpose to offend groups that you do not like. In such case hate speech is unacceptable and should be banned, but not the freedom to express your honest opinion on issues like immigration for example. 

In other words watch you language and arguments that you use and you will be able to get your point across just fine, without insulting or stigmatizing certain groups of people just because you do not like them. The people who will design this legislation must make sure that they take into consideration the right to have a different opinion, as long as it respects the rights and dignity of all parties involved in a debate. 

Such legislation must not come into effect to block or dampen any open debate on any issue that we need as a society to design our future, rather regulate the content, motives and behavior of the participants as well as their use of language. Then it will be a constructive tool and not an obstacle, but also a sign of a mature and civilized society that respects all its members.

Will you be eating a burger from stem cells?

The world’s first test-tube burger, made from lab-grown meat, was today cooked and served in London.

Scientist-turned-chef Professor Mark Post produced the burger from 20,000 tiny strips of meat grown from cow stem cells.

Prof Post believes the new burger could herald a food revolution, with artificial meat products appearing in supermarkets in as little as 10 years. It has received the financial backing of Google founder Sergey Brin, who reportedly put some £215,000 of his vast fortune towards the project. (BreakingNews.ie)

So if you are what you eat, then what will it become of us, if we start eating laboratory grown foods? We have already a high number of cancer cases and many other diseases that may be linked to our diet. In fact obesity is growing into an epidemic in the developed world. And in the developing world he see also signs of the trend spreading. 

Do we need to be manufacturing more meat, maintaining the culture of binge and easy eating? We have already a diet that is consisted by manufactured foods, filled with preservatives and full of unnatural ingredients. It would be better if we kept our food natural, healthy and tasty. 

We do not have to produce fake meat, only to change our dietary habits if we need to "feed the world" and solve the potential food crisis. There is no need for us to eat meat everyday, so if we want to act on the problem, we should just limit the expansion of fast food chains that promote easy eating. 

We are becoming lazy in our eating habits because of these food chains and we binge eat. We consume too much meat as result of this and that is why maintaining our food supplies seems unsustainable. We should make an effort in going back eating meat a couple of times a week, with once a week eating fish and supplementing our diet with salads,vegetables and legumes. 

If we promote a more balanced diet for the European population, there is no need for "lab" foods. Who knows what the consequences will be in the future,  have we tested their long term consummation by humans and their effects on our health? Just because it is profitable for some, it does not make it good for us.

How should Europe respond to the US spying scandal?

Today, the US President Barack ‪Obama‬ has cancelled a meeting with Russian President Vladimir ‪Putin,‬ after Russia's decision to grant asylum to Edward ‪Snowden‬. The issue was a very embarrassing one for the US Government and it almost had an impact on the EU-US relations and recent trade talks. 

After Russia decided to grant asylum to Snowden just a week ago, tensions between the two nations have been rising. The two have never signed an extradition treaty between them, though the US President has claimed that America has tried to respect if there’s a law breaker or alleged law breaker in their country. "We evaluate it, and we try to work with them," said Mr Obama on Jay Leno's show on NBC’s “The Tonight Show” last Tuesday. (ABC News)

Mr Obama also accused Russia of slipping back to the Cold War mentality. Well when you use Cold War practices to spy on everyone, even your allies and your own citizens, you can not point the finger on others. Both Russia and USA are continuing treating each other and Europe, with the traditional post Cold War mentality. So why is America surprized? 

Aren't they the ones who insist on establishing their missiles on European soil to protect us from any "threat," pointing them directly towards Russian soil among others? And with every EU expansion, the new states are almost simultaneous entering NATO as well, angering Russia even further. They are both seeking in expanding and safeguarding their interests in the region and that is fair enough.

But what should Europe do, if their squabbles over Snowden become more serious? Well we should not side with either of them and be neutral on this. Because of them Europe was bitterly divided during the Cold War, but now it is reuniting. What good will it do us to take sides? We rely on and we are close partners with both. 

We rely on the Russians for their gas and we cooperate with them on our space exploration. Likewise we rely on USA for our defense and trade. Besides, America's mistrust towards Europe, its older allies, leaves us no option but to keep low and watch the space. Let them sort it out. Why should Europe become once more their battleground for dominion? 

Russia has every right to act as it pleases, as they have no obligation to the US. And since the Americans showed their real "feelings" for Europe, then we have no obligation to support them in this either. In fact Snowden made us a favor by doing what he did and leaking the top secret files. So we should just watch the space and do not make the mistake to rush criticizing Russia for its actions on this.