[Political Interest]

The immigration which took place to Europe after the end of the Second World War greatly changed the face of many European countries and is still a major issue today. Was the decision to open doors to migrants solely an economic one?

[fuser]

Yes. With rapid decolonization, European colonial powers had no other option other than to import the cheap labor of these places.

[Political Interest]

Yes. With rapid decolonization, European colonial powers had no other option other than to import the cheap labor of these places.

Very interesting. Would you agree that the immigration was poorly handled? The ruling class and big businesses and politicians did not really care about how well this was done? For example, they did not ensure immigrants were protected against discrimination.

So why did they import labour? Couldn't they just have used some unemployed people and put them into work units? If people are unemployed, give them uniforms, shovels and training, then house them in some barracks, provide them free food and a wage. Also ensure that their children and families have education and medical services. They could build roads or factories. After this they could use these skills to find employment elsewhere.

[Decky]

Couldn't they just have used some unemployed people and put them into work units?

No. We had 100% male employment back then (Britain at least). We imported workers from the former Raj and our Caribbean colonies to fill a labour shortage.

[Smilin' Dave]

The immigration which took place to Europe after the end of the Second World War greatly changed the face of many European countries and is still a major issue today. Was the decision to open doors to migrants solely an economic one?

If you take the end of WWII has your starting point, you also have to consider the political side of things too. A lot of migrants would have actually beein Internally Displaced Persons after the world war, or those seeking political asylum from the Eastern Bloc, even the Civil War and strife in Greece probably drove a certain amount of migration from there. Fast forward to the 1990s and you have refuge crises in former Yugoslavia. The further East you go, the more refuges that would be included in your sample.

[Political Interest]

If you take the end of WWII has your starting point, you also have to consider the political side of things too. A lot of migrants would have actually beein Internally Displaced Persons after the world war, or those seeking political asylum from the Eastern Bloc, even the Civil War and strife in Greece probably drove a certain amount of migration from there. Fast forward to the 1990s and you have refuge crises in former Yugoslavia. The further East you go, the more refuges that would be included in your sample.

So then we can say the choice to accept migrants was also based on humanitarian concerns as well? In this case why was it mainly Europe who accepted these migrants, why did other countries not do so? Perhaps both the economic benefits of migrants and the humanitarian concern were factors in such a decision? There were many Poles in Britain even before the 2000s and many of these people were seeking asylum from the situation in their country.

I do not include the 1990s in this analysis because they were not one of the decades in which mass migration was begun, although it certainly accelerated during this time, at least in Britain. There were waves of migration each decade.

So we can now say that it was a mix of economic and humanitarian concerns? Why did the Japanese who were also destroyed by the war not take in migrants?

[Smilin' Dave]

So then we can say the choice to accept migrants was also based on humanitarian concerns as well?

Well, aside from genuine humanitarian concern there is also the political capital to be made from a state appearing to be humanitarian or at least conceding to a group of potential voters who have taken up the issue. There is also a political advantage if the migrants could be figured into an ideological clash, for example not only would blocking migration from the eastern bloc have been politically disasterous, supporting them gives the opportunity to make the eastern bloc states and Communism in general look bad.

In this case why was it mainly Europe who accepted these migrants, why did other countries not do so?

In all the examples I gave the drivers of migration actually started in Europe, so naturally the migrants tend to go elsewhere in Europe. A lot probably also went to the US, Australia, Israel and a bunch of other countries too.

Mind you, the political drivers for accepting migration would still apply to the migrants the follow the post-colonial period that started up after WWII. If you were from a group or class that was favoured by the colonisers, and the colonial power was now withdrawing (either due to war or other reasons) you might see it in your interest to go to Europe instead of stay on. And the former colonial power in turn might see it in their interest to let you stay, perhaps representing a reward or a more nebulous notion that they always look after their allies.

If you're thinking though of immigration being entirely a phenomena of people from the global 'south' travelling to the 'north', I would be interested to know if statistically overall post WWII migration has been from places other than a broadly defined Europe or West in general.

I do not include the 1990s in this analysis because they were not one of the decades in which mass migration was begun

I would be genuinely surprised if there were not significant migrations following the end of the Cold War, or as a result of strife elsewhere in the world.

Why did the Japanese who were also destroyed by the war not take in migrants?

Less political will or perceived benefit? Fewer efficient options for economic migrants? Easier to take the work overseas instead of bringing the workers to the factories at home?

[Political Interest]

Well, aside from genuine humanitarian concern there is also the political capital to be made from a state appearing to be humanitarian or at least conceding to a group of potential voters who have taken up the issue. There is also a political advantage if the migrants could be figured into an ideological clash, for example not only would blocking migration from the eastern bloc have been politically disasterous, supporting them gives the opportunity to make the eastern bloc states and Communism in general look bad.

I see. What about in the case of those from outside the Warsaw Pact like from Asia and Africa?

In all the examples I gave the drivers of migration actually started in Europe, so naturally the migrants tend to go elsewhere in Europe. A lot probably also went to the US, Australia, Israel and a bunch of other countries too.

But you forget that there was also a large amount of immigration from outside Europe.

Mind you, the political drivers for accepting migration would still apply to the migrants the follow the post-colonial period that started up after WWII. If you were from a group or class that was favoured by the colonisers, and the colonial power was now withdrawing (either due to war or other reasons) you might see it in your interest to go to Europe instead of stay on. And the former colonial power in turn might see it in their interest to let you stay, perhaps representing a reward or a more nebulous notion that they always look after their allies.

It is possible.

Less political will or perceived benefit? Fewer efficient options for economic migrants? Easier to take the work overseas instead of bringing the workers to the factories at home?

Maybe they did not suffer labour shortages like the Europeans did.

[Smilin' Dave]

I see. What about in the case of those from outside the Warsaw Pact like from Asia and Africa?

Well for a start you would have refugees from China from 1949 and Vietnam during the war and subsequent collapse of South Vietnam to the United States and elsewhere. Africa would probably be more so the post colonial struggles a mentioned further down in my post.

But you forget that there was also a large amount of immigration from outside Europe.

I didn't forget, I was making a point. Immigration isn't just involving 'brown people' to put it crudely.

Maybe they did not suffer labour shortages like the Europeans did.

It's possible but then I wouldn't have thought Germany for example would have had a significant enough labour shortage to make gastarbiten necessary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastarbeiter#West_Germany
Wikipedia suggests that there was a lot of political pressure to take workers from Turkey, and that there may have been a sufficient labour pool available in the domestic unemployed population. It also interestingly suggests that the creation of the Berlin Wall had removed the potential flow of new labour from the east which I hadn't heard suggested before.