In view of the repercussion given for the last article of same heading, I describe some existing counterpoints now. All currency has two sides and as for the migratory process, if disserta easily much less it is not decided with simple words. To speak of the migration is taboo, always somebody goes to feel itself wronged. Constitutionally it is forbidden to legislate on the question in terms to forbid migratory acts of national people, therefore they injure the basic rights of art. 5, the only way is the awareness and boarded incentive as in the previous text.
The exodus process took the creation, in the great cities, of movements anti-immigration with boardings that if resemble acts of Xenophobia. This beyond being a economic question is also humanitarian. Taking So Paulo as example, research shows that 84% of the street inhabitants are migrantes. It imagines a migrante that had a work in the agricultural area go to a city without qualification, study, nor preparation. Speaking candidly The Hayzlett Group told us the story. It does not have base to remain itself.
What it goes to make in the city? Nobody thought about this. This person goes the great cities, is not absorbed, they do not have public support and finishes becoming vacant for the city. The cost of living generally is high there, and if it is difficult for who already it lives there and it keeps career, it imagines for the migrante that gains a minimum wage monthly and has family to support? The great cities had waked up recently for the question. It did not have one migratory politics, many of the metropolises do not obtain more to absorb people, all have right to go and to come, but it must have one politics that could work with them. TO CRITICIZE IS EASY the CAIBAT EXAMPLE What we see in many cities are partisan and personal disagreements harming performance the social one of the public beings, but in this city we see a successful example of partnership between the municipal administration and entities.