Mass Immigration; No Benefit.

Quote:

---

Whenever a minister is asked about high levels of immigration, the same answer is trotted out: migrants boost the economy, fill jobs that Britons cannot or will not do, and pay taxes that benefit the exchequer. Last December the home secretary, Jacqui Smith - a former economics teacher - talked of "the purity of the macroeconomic case for migration".

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...publicservices

81% of new jobs created since 1997 have gone to immigrants. Nice one Tony and your racist henchman McBroon, are you moles for the BNP?

This has to be an april fools prank!!!! How can the mass immigration of people who can read or write from medievalstan where they still eat eachother not be good for the economy ???

Might be true for you overpopulated brits, the few people living in mountains over here would crumble without immigration though. We have a country with a size requiring at least 10-15 million humans to be effective, but we're only 4,8.... Which means that either we have to make a LOT of babies, which isn't going to happen, or the best option; import another 5 million.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

This has to be an april fools prank!!!! How can the mass immigration of people who can read or write from medievalstan where they still eat eachother not be good for the economy ???

---

We're doing immigrants today Frag, it's moslems tomorrow. :playingball:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article

Surely immigration is needed for jobs Britons refuse to do, the government argues. But they refuse to do these jobs only at current pay rates. In many cases, higher wages - never popular with employers - could solve the "shortage". In other cases increased mechanisation could bypass the need for migrant labour. Many employers today rely on the skills and hard work of migrants. But in the longer run, when wages can be increased and production methods changed, there is no valid argument for continued high net immigration.

---

So the government must force employers to pay a much higher minimum wage and thus solve the immigrant "problem".

Nice red flag you've got flying there, IA. :wink3:


Anecdotally, we've never needed to employ immigrant workers (at least for agricultural work - we have pretty loyal tenants) but plenty of neighbours have. Ireland has an even greater immigrant workforce than the UK - 12% of the workforce, IIRC - and now the Poles (particularly) are seeing greater economic activity back home, they are not coming here.

Suddenly, construction projects and harvests are facing grinding to a halt. They may not add much to your economy, but they sure help here.

(Anyway, I have always found it hard to stomach any Irishman who complains about immigration, given our history).

Quote:

---

Nice red flag you've got flying there, IA

---

Perhaps a shade of pale pink. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

We're doing immigrants today Frag, it's moslems tomorrow. :playingball:

---

Have to start somewhere I am flexible

oh gah to it

Gentlemen,

InsaneApache started a topical, if controversial thread. Let's start discussing the subject rather than making beastly commentaries on immigrants/hosts.

:bow:

I can only say Sopocka to that.



















I love it with a bit of stilton and picallilly on tiger bread, washed down with a blond beer! :yes: :verycool:

Can UK which sent out so many people to so many other countries hold the moral high ground against immigration?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Can UK which sent out so many people to so many other countries hold the moral high ground against immigration?

---

It's not about morality, it's about net benefit to the British economy.

Based on the committee president's article, the net effect seems more or less zero, except for the lowest-paid whose wages have somewhat decreased due to immigrant competition.

However, I wonder if the economic benefits have been properly assessed in that report. Fiscal calculations are only part of the picture. For instance I would expect certain export benefits from the presence of large communities of immigrants with ties to their countries of origin.

Quote:

---

For instance I would expect certain export benefits from the presence of large communities of immigrants with ties to their countries of origin.

---

What you mean like exporting cash , importing tobacco and then exporting more cash ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

(Anyway, I have always found it hard to stomach any Irishman who complains about immigration, given our history).

---

Stomach this then , I have been on a job the past couple of weeks (quitting friday but I ain't told them yet), a right mixed bunch , people from every corner of the globe .
There are 16 slovaks , good craftsmen , hard workers , good finish ...they are getting paid the minimum approved starting rate for completely unskilled labourers...well they would be getting paid that but apparently they havn't had any wages at all for the past 10 weeks .
The bunch doing the road and pipes are working 7-10 5 days and 7-6 saturday..all at a flat rate of 7 euros .

Now there is nothing wrong with immigration , but virtual slavery is another matter entirely .
Of course there is worse , the crowd down at Moneypoint that did a bunk owing 150+ Poles 3 months wages , or the crowd in Dublin who were paying all the Turks 2 euros an hour

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

What you mean like exporting cash , importing tobacco and then exporting more cash ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

---

Munitions, rather.. :sweatdrop:

Seriously, US studies have found a high immigration-trade link. I was just wondering if the same could be found in the UK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

It's not about morality, it's about net benefit to the British economy.

---

I concur, my tongue was firmly planted in my check.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

However, I wonder if the economic benefits have been properly assessed in that report. Fiscal calculations are only part of the picture. For instance I would expect certain export benefits from the presence of large communities of immigrants with ties to their countries of origin.

---

And other areas of life. Or does no one in the UK want to eat a curry anymore?

I'm sure things there is a net benefit in food. Its not like you can't have a roast one night and a chicken kebab the next. Food is one of the better upswings of immigration.

wrong post

Before I got all angry and stuff, I was wondering what you more educated fullas thought?
Do you think mass immigration is another way for rich capitalists to get richer, while weakening the working class, with the help of the govt?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Now there is nothing wrong with immigration , but virtual slavery is another matter entirely .

---

:shame:

Agreed. That's why I'd have some sympathy with the communist IA when he demands employers pay more. :wink3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Stomach this then , I have been on a job the past couple of weeks (quitting friday but I ain't told them yet), a right mixed bunch , people from every corner of the globe .
There are 16 slovaks , good craftsmen , hard workers , good finish ...they are getting paid the minimum approved starting rate for completely unskilled labourers...well they would be getting paid that but apparently they havn't had any wages at all for the past 10 weeks .
The bunch doing the road and pipes are working 7-10 5 days and 7-6 saturday..all at a flat rate of 7 euros .

Now there is nothing wrong with immigration , but virtual slavery is another matter entirely .
Of course there is worse , the crowd down at Moneypoint that did a bunk owing 150+ Poles 3 months wages , or the crowd in Dublin who were paying all the Turks 2 euros an hour

---

How's your local newspapers? When stuff like this comes up in local media there's a lot of noice about it and usually the company in question is forced to pay in the end (although there was one case when the company declared bankrupsy (=phoney company), but I think the workers got payed from some other place in that case).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

And other areas of life. Or does no one in the UK want to eat a curry anymore?

I'm sure things there is a net benefit in food. Its not like you can't have a roast one night and a chicken kebab the next. Food is one of the better upswings of immigration.

---

recipes can be written down.

Quote:

---

When stuff like this comes up in local media there's a lot of noice about it and usually the company in question is forced to pay in the end (although there was one case when the company declared bankrupsy (=phoney company), but I think the workers got payed from some other place in that case).

---

Well a couple of examples , just for a flavour of things .

The town square was being redeveloped ,the unions and media picked up on the fact that the workers were being paid a pittance(well below minimum wage) , big support for the workers , news stories , strike , pickets the lot . Then on the monday the firm had dissappeared and abandoned the job leaving centre of town in a complete mess .

The one I mentioned with the Turks on 2 euros an hour , that caused a Dublinwide strike , even the government said it was disgraceful and firms like that shouldn't be allowed to operate in the State ...then the governmnet gave the firm a prime 58 million contract .

Irish ferries ...once again 2 euros an hour for the Thais , big support , strike , eventual payrise ...... followed by getting rid of all the workers and re-registering the company where pay and conditions legislation are very different .

Another crowd in town , always a high turnover of workers and a ridiculously high accident rate , finally after killing another two of their employees they got hit with a massive fine . They announced that as the fine was so large and they could no longer afford insurance they would have to close sacking all their workers .
They started up again with an entirely Eastern European workforce and carry on killing and maiming them instead .

Quote:

---

Munitions, rather..

---

No look at Limerick , the stuff is coming into the country , not being exported .

Quote:

---

Seriously, US studies have found a high immigration-trade link. I was just wondering if the same could be found in the UK.

---

Well I don't know about the UK as I havn't worked there much in the past decade , but one immigrant trade link here is tractors .
There is a big rash of "farmers" who may only have 10 acres of cregg but have the idea that they just have to have the biggest most powerful tractor in the parish . This has led to a big glut in the market on second hand tractors . With new nations in the EU now getting the agri-subsidies these are getting snapped up at bargain prices and sent over (especially Zetors and Belarus obviously)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

And other areas of life. Or does no one in the UK want to eat a curry anymore?

I'm sure things there is a net benefit in food. Its not like you can't have a roast one night and a chicken kebab the next. Food is one of the better upswings of immigration.

---

Couldn't agree more. I'd die from starvation rather than eat norwegian food.

Are we really going to excuse mass immigration policy's because of the food a very limited amount of immigrants could also introduce? Maybe 1% starts a restaurant whoopiedoo

The simple fact is that the fertility rate for the industrialized nations has been bellow the value necessary for population renewal.... that alone ensure that we need immigration....

and let´s not forget the fact that nowadays everyone wants to be a doctor or a software designer....nobody wants to pave roads and stuff like that....

so if you are so mad about immigration I propose you go home right now....tell the missus to drop her panties and do something about it.....preferably several times.......unless people want to do that immigration is necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

The simple fact is that the fertility rate for the industrialized nations has been bellow the value necessary for population renewal.... that alone ensure that we need immigration....

and let´s not forget the fact that nowadays everyone wants to be a doctor or a software designer....nobody wants to pave roads and stuff like that....

so if you are so mad about immigration I propose you go home right now....tell the missus to drop her panties and do something about it.....preferably several times.......unless people want to do that immigration is necessary.

---

We need baby's only to keep wealthfare state going, that same wealthfare state that is burdened by massive immigrations and the rediculous amounts of money it costs that don't fly. We can't use them, except the poles they have the wrong mentality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

The simple fact is that the fertility rate for the industrialized nations has been bellow the value necessary for population renewal.... that alone ensure that we need immigration....

---

Not at all. Population renewal is a totem pole for latter day Indians. Lower fertility rates are a major factor behind the economic success and mass welfare of western states.

I'm all for dropping panties, but not in the interest of GDP...

I, um, agree with Adrian. We are overcrowded as is, particually in the Uk, population fall is desirable and there's at least csome evidence that people have less kids when things are overcrowded. Look at the Baby Boomers for the opposite.

The immigrants generally don't pay national insurrance but still use the Welfare State, this makes things worse for the rest of us. With the looming rescesion this is a particually big problem. Further, wages at the lower end of the economy are being depressed and those jobs are losing whatever prestige they had because "only immigrants do them."

It gets worse, because we have a social problem. Too many people on benefits because of a miss-managed welfare state. The immigrants give the economy a crutch and the career-unemployed an excuse. Then the immigrants work the joke out and jump on the bandwagon, so things get worse.

We need to sort our house out over here and with the best will in the world mass immigration is not helping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The immigrants generally don't pay national insurrance but still use the Welfare State, this makes things worse for the rest of us. .

---

:inquisitive:

I'm intrigued as to how you work that statement out.

Immigrant workers are, more often than not, employed. In the UK, it's employers who are responsible for paying national insurance for their employees.

Thus, if the NI is not being paid, the employer is either exploiting the worker (by employing illegally) or avoiding HMRC. Either way, it isn't the immigrant worker's fault.

:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Couldn't agree more. I'd die from starvation rather than eat norwegian food.

---

what is that, various cured or fermented fishes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

:inquisitive:

I'm intrigued as to how you work that statement out.

Immigrant workers are, more often than not, employed. In the UK, it's employers who are responsible for paying national insurance for their employees.

Thus, if the NI is not being paid, the employer is either exploiting the worker (by employing illegally) or avoiding HMRC. Either way, it isn't the immigrant worker's fault.

:shrug:

---

Well, there's the illigal employment and the ones that come to the country and then go on the dole. I don't see how it's not their fault if they're employed illigally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well, there's the illigal employment and the ones that come to the country and then go on the dole. I don't see how it's not their fault if they're employed illigally.

---

Because they don't have much else to do?

It's not a whole lot of fun to starve to death, and thankfully, not everyone likes to steal stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

recipes can be written down.

---

Yeah and Starbucks makes Espresso's that are twice the cost and half as nice as those made by most Cafes which are run by our European Immigrants.

There is an advantage to using the expertise of someone who grew up eating a food vs one who photocopied it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Are we really going to excuse mass immigration policy's because of the food a very limited amount of immigrants could also introduce? Maybe 1% starts a restaurant whoopiedoo

---

It was the most obvious part and I did say it was just one part. And I wonder what component of your own food uptake is 100% local.

I would obviously add in fashion, work styles, knowledge, special skills, variety and multicultural women for starters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

what is that, various cured or fermented fishes?

---

You're thinking of our most famous dish, rakefisk:

Rotten fish swallowed down with Aquevit, mostly in the hope that the two will cancel each other out and you won't taste anything.

Other celebration dishes include cooked sheep's head(also swallowed down with strong liquor) and the bones of the sheep with a thin splinter of meat, that's salted down so much that you're going to need a bucket of water for every mouthful.

As for everyday dishes, we have... well, anything involving cooked potatoes(usually some sort of sliced meat and/or cooked fish), except that it seems to be illegal to use any kinds of spice.

@Pape: too true, there's no way I'm buying a kebab unless I can see that the guy making it looks middle-eastern. Euro's can't make the 'bab, plain and simple.

@Fragony: You're overpopulated even with just the natives, the solution is simple; stop procreating. One child policy ftw! Or get a big portion on a boat and send them over here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

@Pape: too true, there's no way I'm buying a kebab unless I can see that the guy making it looks middle-eastern. Euro's can't make the 'bab, plain and simple.

---

Meh all you Euro's look the same to me. :laugh4: Turkish or Spanish, if the Kebab is good I'll eat it.

Tongue yet again firmly in cheek.

Now we know why the Vikings were so eager to get out of the place.

but Pape, who goes to starbucks? only newbs. i can make a mean rogan josh or pad prik king because i can read a recipe (it has to be a good recipe of course). no need for immigrants. colonization gets the job done well enough. :whip:

now the hot foreign chicks.. thats another matter.

And where do you get the freshest and widest selection of those ingredients?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

And where do you get the freshest and widest selection of those ingredients?

---

imports from the colonies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Yeah and Starbucks makes Espresso's that are twice the cost and half as nice as those made by most Cafes which are run by our European Immigrants.

There is an advantage to using the expertise of someone who grew up eating a food vs one who photocopied it.

---

One word: icecream.

I mean, Ben & Jerry's may be the best canned icecream in the world, but the handmade zuppa inglese from the Italian shop around the corner (granddad is brought in by car from Turin every two or three months to make the icecream) is unsurpassed. :artist:

ben & jerry's is garbage since unilever bought them. there is better overpriced ice cream availible in the US.

gelato is better than ice cream anyway.

Häagen-Dazs > Ben&Jerry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Häagen-Dazs > Ben&Jerry

---

years ago, this would have been false.. but nowadays it's quite true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Häagen-Dazs > Ben&Jerry

---

OK, so let's put this to the test.
You treat a girl to a can of Häagen-Dasz.
I take a girl around the corner and treat her to a zuppa plus an admiring Italian smile the width of Lake Como.
I win hands down. :coffeenews:

don't discount the currency of the haåaäagen dazs brand name among the ladies. it's like godiva to many of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

OK, so let's put this to the test.
You treat a girl to a can of Häagen-Dasz.
I take a girl around the corner and treat her to a zuppa plus an admiring Italian smile the width of Lake Como.
I win hands down. :coffeenews:

---

Girl runs of with the italian you are left with none. I get none but still have a can of icecream to counter my depression.

I don't win but you lose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

don't discount the currency of the haåaäagen dazs brand name among the ladies. it's like godiva to many of them.

---

That's why I win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

That's why I win.

---

You haven't thought it over, sublimal messages is key. What sounds more like a swedish sauna? Ice cold/hot get it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Because they don't have much else to do?

It's not a whole lot of fun to starve to death, and thankfully, not everyone likes to steal stuff.

---

They chose to come here, it's not my fault they can't find jobs. I'm more worried about the people born here who can't get work. Anyway, my main point was that we use immigration to cover a hole in our society, i.e. lack of work ethic among the population.

And no, that isn't a contradiction because some of us do still want to earn a living rather than sponge it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

@Pape: too true, there's no way I'm buying a kebab unless I can see that the guy making it looks middle-eastern. Euro's can't make the 'bab, plain and simple.

---

Racist!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

Racist!

---

No, you can only be a racist if you're a white man discriminating non-white (men and women).

And actually no, there's no benefit in mass immigration, no economic benefit at least. However, it's an excellent way to create segregation, racism and conflicts. If you rate exotic food higher than low crime rates, that's up to you.

Is the org radicalising? Global warming? So many of you start to remind me of me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

And actually no, there's no benefit in mass immigration, no economic benefit at least. However, it's an excellent way to create segregation, racism and conflicts. If you rate exotic food higher than low crime rates, that's up to you.

---

Yeah I know in Aus all the criminals immigrated in. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

Racist!

---

Not really, "culturalist" might be more suitable.

I buy bab from arabs, chinese food from asians, pizza from italians and spicy food from indians. Hasn't failed me yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

And actually no, there's no benefit in mass immigration, no economic benefit at least. However, it's an excellent way to create segregation, racism and conflicts. If you rate exotic food higher than low crime rates, that's up to you.

---

There certainly is, that's one of the reasons our economy boomed when we found the oil. If we hadn't received a load of pakistani's, our economy would've stopped because of an extreme labour shortage. Getting some immigrants solved that problem nicely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Not really, "culturalist" might be more suitable.

I buy bab from arabs, chinese food from asians, pizza from italians and spicy food from indians. Hasn't failed me yet.

---

So do I but I eat it when I am home. Multiculture is still a luxory item for Norway, why don't you take a look at your Swedish neigbours where they just can't hug it off, but you don't really have to it isn't like rape hasn't skyrocketed in Bergen, what was it a 300% rise in just a few years? Keep pumping that oil there is enough for everyone huh.

You'd think that mass uncontrolled immigration would only be done by an idiot. Seriously. You don't just let anyone into the country willy-nilly. There have to be controls, rules, regulations. And I mean ones that are strictly enforced. Then, the UK population is already 60 million, which is more than enough. We're full up. A dropping fertility rate is little argument for mass immigration because it's just throwing numbers at a problem, hoping for a solution.

Besides, if we lowered the population carefully to 50 million or so (yeah, I know, less colourful than a revolution and lots of raving lunatics with machine guns on orders to purge the population, but we might get told off by the UN :laugh4:), with very careful planning, focusing on what would need to be done with funds for different services, etc, we might have a few less problems. This island is getting crowded, and enough is enough. Humans do need to learn to control themselves a bit better, or we're really screwed. Not just other parts of the world, but we UKers too.

Human populations need to be reduced the world over, carefully and properly. To save Humanity, as well as the world around us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaidonni

Human populations need to be reduced the world over, carefully and properly. To save Humanity, as well as the world around us.

---

Solient Green anyone?

Quote:

---

You'd think that mass uncontrolled immigration would only be done by an idiot.

---

Well I know the world is full of idiots , and the overwhelming majority of politicians are idiots , but I cannot actually recall countries having policies of uncontrolled mass immigration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well I know the world is full of idiots , and the overwhelming majority of politicians are idiots , but I cannot actually recall countries having policies of uncontrolled mass immigration.

---

When our government has let in murderers and paedophiles, and rejects Gurkhas? I guess it's not that uncontrolled...it's controlled, but against many of the decent.

We need stricter border controls. Simple as. It's as good as uncontrolled at the moment. If criminals try to snake their way in, deportation. If an immigrant comes here, then starts committing crimes, deportation. No paying them off or anything. Would be a very good start.

So, I do guess you're right about controlled, but it's still just not good enough.

Oh, and no Soylent Green, Redleg...again, we might get told off by the UN. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

So do I but I eat it when I am home. Multiculture is still a luxory item for Norway, why don't you take a look at your Swedish neigbours where they just can't hug it off, but you don't really have to it isn't like rape hasn't skyrocketed in Bergen, what was it a 300% rise in just a few years? Keep pumping that oil there is enough for everyone huh.

---

Yeah.... About norwegian rape statistics, there's something you should know:

Last year, there was a "rape-wave" in Oslo. The outcry was enormous, it was unsafe for women to walk in the streets at night, etc etc.

The number of rapes? I think it was 5 total in 1-2 months. In a city with 500.000 inhabitants.

300% increase in Bergen would probably mean an increase from 1 rape to 3 rapes a year... Or that "The Pocket Man" has added a few more cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaidonni

When our government has let in murderers and paedophiles, and rejects Gurkhas?

---

Does it really matter if a pakistani murderer kills a pakistani instead of a brit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Does it really matter if a pakistani murderer kills a pakistani instead of a brit?

---

He has murdered once, therefore he is dangerous. Where you see a murdered Pakistani, I see a murdered person. Can't we have common sense and stop giving in to criminals?

So yes, it does matter. A murderer is a murderer, and I don't blindly forgive. I don't excuse people for their actions. People must be punished for their crimes. I'm so fed up of the bleeding-heart brigade. We need to protect the public from criminals who pose threats. If someone has killed once, don't give them a second chance. Keep tabs on them, control them. And revoke the priviledge to live in another country - a country must take responsibility for the criminals native to it's system, not shirk it and pass it off on to someone else.

How you can downplay murder so easily...and decide to let all sorts into the country...

One word: common sense. Two words, actually. People do things cock-eyed, and then try to jump ship and shift the blame when they screw up.

We need proper controls, and not to bow to criminals. Like I said, a country is responsible for the criminals native to its borders. It is irresponsible to shirk this and pass it off to another country. If a murderer is native to England, he/she must remain the responsibility of the English authorities. Likewise, a Pakistani murderer must remain the responsibility of Pakistani authorities in Pakistan. People can not be allowed to simply come and go as they please. Like I said, again, common sense is needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaidonni

Oh, and no Soylent Green, Redleg...again, we might get told off by the UN. :P

---

Well there is always disease and war to reduce the population.

Then again how about them Chinese, how has their population control policy worked out?

Oh by the way I am all for immigrantion controls that allow people to come to another land to search for employment and a better life. If they prove themselves unworthy of that fresh start then they suffer the consequences of their new action, but nothing wrong with allowing someone a fresh start.

Your beginning to sound like the radicals here in the United States that think we can fence up the Mexican border and the Canadian border to prevent illegal immigrants from crossing over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Well there is always disease and war to reduce the population.

Then again how about them Chinese, how has their population control policy worked out?

---

Eh...I was thinking of something a bit less panicky than drowning new-born girls or abandoning them on the side of the street. Something more carefully worked out and not too cruel...

Although, now that you mention it, all those nuclear warheads are going unused. Building up cob-webs. What a waste of money...it'd be a shame to let them rot there, in a dark missile silo, all alone, bored...:smash:

PS: First target would be the UN. Then we wouldn't get told off. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaidonni

Eh...I was thinking of something a bit less panicky than drowning new-born girls or abandoning them on the side of the street. Something more carefully worked out and not too cruel...

---

Oh the Chinese were not panicky about doing that - it was very delibrate. You might want to check into their policy about inforcing the one child rule?

No matter how you slice it - strict population control will have a fundmental cruel aspect to it.

Quote:

---

Although, now that you mention it, all those nuclear warheads are going unused. Building up cob-webs. What a waste of money...it'd be a shame to let them rot there, in a dark missile silo, all alone, bored...:smash:

PS: First target would be the UN. Then we wouldn't get told off. :laugh4:

---

That would mean a strike on New York City - hmm interesting possiblity for the three nations that have intercontential ballastic missiles and the few others that have those weapons? Not a very well though out plan you have there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Oh the Chinese were not panicky about doing that - it was very delibrate. You might want to check into their policy about inforcing the one child rule?

---

Oh, I know it was deliberate. Just that, when it comes to the drowning and the abandoning, I'd say they'd need to go back to the drawing board...

Sure, there will always be cruel aspects to population control. Gotta be cruel to be kind. But I like the idea it can be planned in a certain way that would cut out certain cruelties, limit the cruelty...there are more ways than one to crack an egg.

Oh, and that other plan...yeah...we might need to arrange tea and crumpets over a meeting to sort out the kinks. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaidonni

He has murdered once, therefore he is dangerous. Where you see a murdered Pakistani, I see a murdered person. Can't we have common sense and stop giving in to criminals?

So yes, it does matter. A murderer is a murderer, and I don't blindly forgive. I don't excuse people for their actions. People must be punished for their crimes. I'm so fed up of the bleeding-heart brigade. We need to protect the public from criminals who pose threats. If someone has killed once, don't give them a second chance. Keep tabs on them, control them. And revoke the priviledge to live in another country - a country must take responsibility for the criminals native to it's system, not shirk it and pass it off on to someone else.

How you can downplay murder so easily...and decide to let all sorts into the country...

One word: common sense. Two words, actually. People do things cock-eyed, and then try to jump ship and shift the blame when they screw up.

We need proper controls, and not to bow to criminals. Like I said, a country is responsible for the criminals native to its borders. It is irresponsible to shirk this and pass it off to another country. If a murderer is native to England, he/she must remain the responsibility of the English authorities. Likewise, a Pakistani murderer must remain the responsibility of Pakistani authorities in Pakistan. People can not be allowed to simply come and go as they please. Like I said, again, common sense is needed.

---

You missed my point completely. My statement was short though, so I'll take the blame for that.

Let's a pakistani murders another pakistani, then spends time in jail. After he's released, let's say he wants to murder someone else. In that situation, does it really matter if he's in pakistan and kills a pakistani, or if he's in London and kills a brit? That is, of course, assuming that he will murder again, most murderers are one-off affairs, serial killers are very rare.

You say that a murderer should remain under state control after he has been released. What happened to rehabilitation? Are people not considered free men after they're released from prison anymore? Let's say our pakistani who had killed someone is released from jail after 20 years, and is deemed by the criminal care to pose no threat to society. Why shouldn't he have the freedom to choose where he wants to live? Hasn't he paid his debt to society? Can't people change? Once a crook, always a crook?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

You missed my point completely. My statement was short though, so I'll take the blame for that.

Let's a pakistani murders another pakistani, then spends time in jail. After he's released, let's say he wants to murder someone else. In that situation, does it really matter if he's in pakistan and kills a pakistani, or if he's in London and kills a brit? That is, of course, assuming that he will murder again, most murderers are one-off affairs, serial killers are very rare.

You say that a murderer should remain under state control after he has been released. What happened to rehabilitation? Are people not considered free men after they're released from prison anymore? Let's say our pakistani who had killed someone is released from jail after 20 years, and is deemed by the criminal care to pose no threat to society. Why shouldn't he have the freedom to choose where he wants to live? Hasn't he paid his debt to society? Can't people change? Once a crook, always a crook?

---

EDIT: Edited this, because I get riled up sometimes, and then I feel bad...that and I don't want to ruin the debate going on. Sorry to anyone who read the earlier versions of this post. Oh, and I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything when I use inverted commas around certain parts (sorry if it seemed like that, wasn't my intention).

I don't believe in freedom. We have priviledges, but not freedoms. Without responsibility, freedom is worthless. I often see freedom as a byword for doing whatever one wants with little consideration of certain consequences. Maybe it's just a word, and those things are treated as priviledges by society at large anyway, but you know me, I get fussy when it comes to wording (I'm a perfectionist).

I do not believe that burglary (sp?) is as serious as murder. Burglary usually involves inanimate objects, no matter how sentimental or irreplaceable. At least no one is killed. But murder? There must be a stigma attached to it for the rest of one's life. There must be things the individual is no longer even allowed the priviledge of, yet alone freedom, even if they have 'paid their debt to society.'

If anyone read a previous iteration of this post, I was being overly harsh and angry. But I will still take the stance that, even if the purpose of a prison is rehabilitation and not revenge (revenge can destroy people afterall, and forgiveness is said to be for the victims, not the criminal, and we all want the victims to find peace), there must be a lasting punishment. Something that reminds the murderer that they have taken another person's life, and for that, they can't simply do some time, claim they're a better person, and go on living like nothing has happened.

And yes, let's say the murderer commits another murder. Now, I'm not saying that it's any better that they kill a Pakistani than a Brit, but should they be allowed to move to another country, that is moving the responsibility to keep tabs on them to that other country. If the murderer committed the second crime in his own country, at least the fault would lie with their authorities for not having been careful enough about rehabilitating the criminal. Why should we, afterall, have to deal with their criminals? Why should we have to suffer the failures of their prison system? Likewise, we'd have no right to inflict the same upon them.

So, it is ideal to keep tabs on the murderer because of the seriousness of the offense. Maybe not put them in jail for the rest of their natural lives, but definitely not be too soft on them either. So, even if they've done their time, there need to be limitations to what they can do with their newfound 'freedom' for the rest of their lives. They were a threat once, and we should not forget that. Decent people who have little evil in themselves can do terrible things, shaking our views of them - and if terrible people can become decent, what is really stopping them from becoming terrible once again? Vigilance is what I'm suggesting. You can have your rehabilitation, you can have your guy released if he has deemed to have paid any debt to society, but let us have some rules and regulations on how they behave.

I'd liken it to grounding someone for lying to their parents. Eventually, they are no longer grounded. But they still have rules to follow, especially in light of what they did.

It is not too much to ask to keep tabs on those who have committed such serious crimes, and to limit them in certain areas. If I recall correctly, for example, in the UK, murderers aren't allowed to apply to be doctors or nurses, are they? Or something like that, anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The number of rapes? I think it was 5 total in 1-2 months. In a city with 500.000 inhabitants.

---

Nice

keep it up, but you won't

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Yeah I know in Aus all the criminals immigrated in. :laugh4:

---

Australia (like all the countries dominated by a white population where there originally was none) is one odd example of what immigration can cause. Of course, there are too many differencies to compare European colonization of Australia with immigration of "non-Westerners" into Western Europe, but it's still a good example of what happens when an indigenous culture is faced by a foreign one. The clash is inevitable; it mustn't necessary be as dramatical (and bloody) as it was in Australia, but it gives a hint. The same goes for everything really, no matter what you do, there will always be differencies for people to fight about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Not really, "culturalist" might be more suitable.

I buy bab from arabs, chinese food from asians, pizza from italians and spicy food from indians. Hasn't failed me yet.

---

To be completely honest; that, by definition, is racism. Just assuming that a certain kind of people can, while another can't, master a certain area of cooking, is bigoted. Everyone can follow a recipe, and to excel in the cooking of a certain dish only requires some practice, it's not like turks and arabs are genetically programmed to be awesome at making kebab.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

There certainly is, that's one of the reasons our economy boomed when we found the oil. If we hadn't received a load of pakistani's, our economy would've stopped because of an extreme labour shortage. Getting some immigrants solved that problem nicely.

---

Exactly what do you mean by that? Are you suggesting that because you found some oil, you had to drill it? What gives? Sure, multinational companies would've bought the findings from "you" sooner or later, but you can't possibly mean that immigration was a way for Norway to save itself from the burden of oil drilling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaidonni

I don't believe in freedom...

---

http://sensualjesus.files.wordpress....braveheart.jpg

I think Mr. Gibson disagrees with you...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

To be completely honest; that, by definition, is racism. Just assuming that a certain kind of people can, while another can't, master a certain area of cooking, is bigoted. Everyone can follow a recipe, and to excel in the cooking of a certain dish only requires some practice, it's not like turks and arabs are genetically programmed to be awesome at making kebab.

---

No, but the employees at this place are. Which is the only place I buy my bab, because it's been tested and tried that everyone else blow at it. Especially in the north. I think the bab-gene stops functioning above Trondheim or something...

Seriously, while they're not inherently better at it, they are better at it in practice. The reason? There are no bab-shops run by norwegians! All of them, without exception, are run by pakistani's, turks, etc etc. The norwegians who offer bab don't run bab-shops, they mostly run hamburger shops and just offer babs as an additional dish, and as such they don't put so much effort into that area. They have a wide range of stuff to offer to customers. The bab shops often make other things too, but they live on the bab, and if they stopped focusing so much on them, they'd lose costumers, as most of them come there solely for the bab.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

Exactly what do you mean by that? Are you suggesting that because you found some oil, you had to drill it? What gives? Sure, multinational companies would've bought the findings from "you" sooner or later, but you can't possibly mean that immigration was a way for Norway to save itself from the burden of oil drilling.

---

No. Finding the oil made our economy boom. A booming economy creates a lot of new jobs. To keep the boom going, those jobs need to be filled, or else things will slow down/not boom as much as it could've. A labour shortage is a luxury problem, but it's still a problem. And the best solution is immigration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaidonni

I don't believe in freedom. We have priviledges, but not freedoms. Without responsibility, freedom is worthless. I often see freedom as a byword for doing whatever one wants with little consideration of certain consequences. Maybe it's just a word, and those things are treated as priviledges by society at large anyway, but you know me, I get fussy when it comes to wording (I'm a perfectionist).

---

Incorrect - You have lots of freedoms depending upon where you live in the world. Some places actually have very limited freedoms - say China for examble but even there, they have some freedom.

You are right about one think though - many take what freedom they have for granted, refusing to accept the responsiblity that comes with that freedom. That however does not make it a priviledge, just a wasted freedom that will soon disappear because the people no longer desire it.

For examble driving a car is a priviledge.
Being able to say what you believe when it does not make a direct threat to another is a freedom.

The people guarntee there freedoms by their actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

No, but the employees at this place are. Which is the only place I buy my bab, because it's been tested and tried that everyone else blow at it. Especially in the north. I think the bab-gene stops functioning above Trondheim or something...

Seriously, while they're not inherently better at it, they are better at it in practice. The reason? There are no bab-shops run by norwegians! All of them, without exception, are run by pakistani's, turks, etc etc. The norwegians who offer bab don't run bab-shops, they mostly run hamburger shops and just offer babs as an additional dish, and as such they don't put so much effort into that area. They have a wide range of stuff to offer to customers. The bab shops often make other things too, but they live on the bab, and if they stopped focusing so much on them, they'd lose costumers, as most of them come there solely for the bab.

---

I understand your reasoning and don't have much to add. It was "slightly" off topic anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

No. Finding the oil made our economy boom. A booming economy creates a lot of new jobs. To keep the boom going, those jobs need to be filled, or else things will slow down/not boom as much as it could've. A labour shortage is a luxury problem, but it's still a problem. And the best solution is immigration.

---

Yes, I am all for "labour immigration" (couldn't find an English word for it, Arbetskraftinvandring in Swedish and Arbeidsinnvandring in Norwegian), which was a custom practised by most European countries after WWII until somewhere in the 60-ies where the reckless immigration of today began. Immigration to fill the holes created by differencies between supply and demand factors is very efficient economic-wise, but allowing immigration for the sake of sheer humanity (a concept which I despise, BTW) is in no way benefital for the country, let alone the economy of said country, recieving these immigrants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

allowing immigration for the sake of sheer humanity (a concept which I despise, BTW) is in no way benefital for the country, let alone the economy of said country, recieving these immigrants.

---

This is often the same as the first type of immigrantion that you think is beneficial to said nation.

Immigration serves both sides of the migration - the economy and society of the new nation, and the economy of the immigrant. If it does not do this the immigration is doomed to failure and the associated increase in crime because man will want to survive.

Either way way too complicated to let politicians handle it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

If it does not do this the immigration is doomed to failure and the associated increase in crime because man will want to survive.

---

One of the most laughable aspects of our immigration policy is just that. It works like this:

1. Immigrant arrives in our country.
2. Immigrant applies for asylum.
3. Immigrant gets shipped off to an "asylmottak"(not sure how to translate, sort of a transit-station).
4. Asylum application gets "worked on" for a few years.
5. Immigrant either accepted or rejected.

While he's spending those years in the "transit-station", he's not allowed to work or make money in any way. He gets a small amount from the government, but that's it. Since humans generally want to improve their situation, that leads to said immigrant working somewhere illegally. Since employers who hire such people illegally generally are crooks in other areas too, that leaves the door open for a glorious life of crime...

Instead of doing the sensible thing, which would be to put them on a fast-track education course and get them educated and working ASAP.

For example, we lack some 4000 trailer drivers alone(in addition to other fields in the transportation sector). A lot of immigrants worked as drivers in their home countries. The obvious solution would then be to teach them norwegian and how to drive in norway, and put them to work wuickly. Should be possible within 6-12 months.

But oh noes, can't do that, that would be sensible to our economy and also ruin our pure Aryan genes... Damn right-wingers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

One of the most laughable aspects of our immigration policy is just that. It works like this:

1. Immigrant arrives in our country.

---

Ok and after that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Ok and after that?

---

Take a look at your mouse: at the front, you have two buttons, and between those buttons you see a wheel. Put your finger on top of it, and move your finger towards the back of the mouse, making sure that the wheel turns. If done correctly, you should now see more of the web page(which is the name of what you're looking at), allowing you to continue reading.