Immigration Casues World Population To Rise?

[ukanonymous]

So lets say Mr Smith moved from a poor country to a richer country. He finds a job and either brings his family with him or gets married in the country. All the time he is sending money to his family and for them it s a considerable amount of money. In the home country there are less people to do the jobs so the birth rate increases. With his new wealth in the new country and tax breaks he can have more kids than usual. So him moving to another county makes both him to have more kids and the birthrate in his old country increases.

Obviously with the population of the world as it is this is killing the planet.
Is what I have said actually what is happening in immigration or its not correct.

[sandyRoe]

Poor people in poor countries tend to have larger families. Receiving a remittance from a relation in a richer country would allow for plans for the future, education for children, and the knowledge they'd be secure in old age.
The scenario you describe would probably help reduce the world's population.

[bednobs]

"In the home country there are less people to do the jobs so the birth rate increases"
i dont really see how the two parts of that sentence go together

[ukanonymous]

Well it is confirmed my thinking was deranged and far abstract from this world we live. I was uming and aring about it and you have confirmed it. Thank you very much for your brutal honesty :)

[Svejk]

I was going to say, no chit Sherlock. But you seem to have found 2 people that disagree already.

[Retrochic]

People often leave poor countries in desperation to look for work. If their country became prosperous they would not leave,they would work in the country of their birth. (think of Australia and Canada -not many who are born there actually emigrate to look for work) . Also the more prosperous a Nation becomes the less children are born,for all sorts of reasons.

[sandyRoe]

What about all those Aussies working as bar staff in West London? ☺

[Old_Geezer]

It's always been fairly obvious that if one has one part of the world where there is inadequate restrictions, social pressures or legal, on reproduction, then it will struggle to find resources. And if they are allowed to alleviate that problem by moving a proportion of citizens to another part of the word where they've realised the need for small families, then it removes the pressure on the high reproduction areas to develop a more global/national responsible attitude/practice, and not have loads of kids: plus it ruins all the good efforts of the lower reproduction areas.

Sending wealth back "home", so the community in the presently better off areas are deprived of it and the presently lesser well off areas have the financial/resource pressures relieved, simply exasperates the situation.

[Retrochic]

Sandy -they aren't really working they are on holiday lol! (they have to come to a grotty country to appreciate what they have back home lol)

[Mosaic]

It depends on the extent of immigration from the home country. Mass migration of entire villages or sectors such as from Amin's Uganda in the 1970s will obviously leave areas depopulated, so won't contribute to population increase there. However most migrants continue traditional practices, such as having large families, in their adopted country.
However human nature seems to prevail when the adopted country can provide enough work - the donations to the home country kind of tail off, the youngsters see the advantages of fewer kids, and assimilation / syncretisation occurs.
Having large families may or may not be reinforced by religious belief - I'm thinking Irish migrants into England, for example, where interpretations of Catholicism led to many very large families and this persisted until quite recently, only slowy following the national UK trend towards fewer children.

People have always migrated. It's the story of humankind. It keeps the gene pool healthy and disperses ideas. It would settle down from present peak if home countries would stop being so frightful to those that live in them.

[New Judge]

I’m not sure that migration causes population growth in the way you describe, UKA.

One thing that’s certain is that over population is the greatest threat to humankind at the moment, Forget so-called global warming or climate change (or whatever name it’s given at the moment to suit the figures). Excessive numbers of people is the greatest threat to the Earth’s well-being. Between 1960 and now the Earth’s population has increased almost three fold. And the areas where it’s most apparent are telling. In the same period:

Africa’s population has increased fourfold (with eastern and middle Africa showing a five fold increase).

Asia, almost three fold (with Western Asia over four fold).

In the meantime Europe’s population increased by just 22% (which may go some way to explaining why people from areas of excessive population find the idea of life in Europe so attractive).

This is clearly unsustainable and the (relatively) small numbers involved in migration cannot alter these figures very much. Mankind needs to find a way of sustaining itself with, at best, a level population but preferably with a managed decrease of about 50%. If not, global temperatures rising by 0.0001 of a degree will be the least of its worries. People will be far too busy dealing with famine, thirst, hunger and civil strife to worry about it.

[New Judge]

Many in India say that, fender.

I've visited the sub-continent a number of times and spoken to many people there (not just hotel staff). Many of the older people, particularly those less well off, say that they and their parents were very disappointed with the way India has turned out since the British left.

[whiskeryron]

I am of the opinion that birth rates are proportionately linked to television programmes in that the less the programmes of interest for the populace to watch the more the populace will seek their own nightly entertainment.