Population 'could hit 70m unless we get a grip on immigration'

[Fragony]

It keeps amazing me that supposedly intelligent people believe that mass immigration of people from primitive parts of the world who can read nor write is the greatest thing ever. The whole of europe should close and seal of it's borders for everyone but the ones we can use, the last thing we need are more useless mouths to feed.

[BDC]

It keeps amazing me that supposedly intelligent people believe that mass immigration of people from primitive parts of the world who can read nor write is the greatest thing ever. The whole of europe should close and seal of it's borders for everyone but the ones we can use, the last thing we need are more useless mouths to feed.

Except a lot of immigrants are better educated than the locals. Like the fiasco here with the Indian doctors being banned from getting jobs (essentially). Why try and get rid of them?!

But I see no issues with stopping economic migrants with nothing to offer. Different from stopping refugees though.

[Fragony]

Except a lot of immigrants are better educated than the locals. Like the fiasco here with the Indian doctors being banned from getting jobs (essentially). Why try and get rid of them?!

Those would qualify as usefull

Same thing here, lots of usefull immigrants, Iranian docters etc, but I guess those don't bring up the inner mother of the let me take care of you crowd.

They need to be starved and puppy-eyed.

[Idaho]

A classic org thread. Shadeswolf trembling behind his net curtain because of the scary foriegn men. Fragony still trying but failing to fill in his application for for Combat 18.

I'll come back when there is actually something substantive to debate.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

An 18% (roughly) population rise in 50 years with half of them immigrants doesn't bother you?

Immigration is simple.

You can't come if you can't:

1. Speak English.

2. Integrate into English culture.

3. Make a useful contribution to the economy without depriving a member of the indiginous population of his/her job.

Those three rules are fair and they will protect the locals from they drawbacks of mass immigration.

Additionally, all illegal immigrants should be automatically deported and they should not be allowed to claim asylum because if they had a case they should have done that at the border.

[caravel]

An 18% (roughly) population rise in 50 years with half of them immigrants doesn't bother you?

Immigration is simple.

I wish it was, but unfortunately it isn't, and it would be naive to think so. Immigrants are not the problem here. The problem is a mass influx of unskilled labour in a country that already has far too much of this.

You can't come if you can't:

1. Speak English.

What is to stop a skilled professional coming to the UK, learning english and finding work? Nothing. Most inner cities have an element of illiterate white yobs that can barely string two words together, let alone write a sentence. Should we deport these?

Most of the immigrants unable to speak english tend to be the elderly relatives of those with a resident visa. They have entered as dependant relatives. Such people are supported by their sponsor, i.e. the immigrant. They are not allowed to recourse to public funding. It is common in some cultures, especially asians, for people to support their elderly parents.

2. Integrate into English culture.

Do you plan to supply them with a plastic george cross flag for their nissans, burberry caps, thongs for their daughters, a six pack of carling and a crash course in binge drinking and unprotected sex?

3. Make a useful contribution to the economy without depriving a member of the indiginous population of his/her job.

You see I've never quite understood how someone can be deprived of a job? The way I see it is that you go for an interview and the best candidate wins? Fair enough we have too much unskilled labour as it is, and don't really need any more, but if there are jobs available that the' dole merchants' don't want to do, who's fault is that? If a professional physician entered the UK on a work visa and started working for the NHS he/she fits the "making useful contribution to the economy" thing, but is also, potentially, depriving a British doctor of his/her job. So really that statement makes no sense.

Those three rules are fair and they will protect the locals from they drawbacks of mass immigration.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Additionally, all illegal immigrants should be automatically deported and they should not be allowed to claim asylum because if they had a case they should have done that at the border.

I agree partially. Illegal immigrants see Britain as a soft touch. It is also highly debatable whether an individual is in fact a true asylum seeker fleeing opression or simply an economic migrant looking for a more priveleged life. I feel that all asylum applicants should first have to go to a British consular overseas for interview and to put their case, and gain, at least, some kind of entry clearance/permission to enter the UK, and after which be allowed passage, instead of paying people trafficers extortionate sums to smuggle them into the country to make their asylum claim. Whether this idea is good or not, it beats the current system which is ridiculously wasteful and complicated.

[littlelostboy]

Hey, think about this, more foreigners are migrating to your countries. Yet, one reason of massive unemployment is that companies are relocating to the LEDCs (Less Economically Developed Countries) to cut labour cost and overhead.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I wish it was, but unfortunately it isn't, and it would be naive to think so. Immigrants are not the problem here. The problem is a mass influx of unskilled labour in a country that already has far too much of this.

Well it should be simple, I agree with your statement though.

What is to stop a skilled professional coming to the UK, learning english and finding work? Nothing. Most inner cities have an element of illiterate white yobs that can barely string two words together, let alone write a sentence. Should we deport these?

We used to deport them. Seriously though, if we can't properly educate our own then we should close borders and spend a decade reverse paddling down **** creek, my major problem with "Make Poverty History" is the number of beggers on my local streets.

Most of the immigrants unable to speak english tend to be the elderly relatives of those with a resident visa. They have entered as dependant relatives. Such people are supported by their sponsor, i.e. the immigrant. They are not allowed to recourse to public funding. It is common in some cultures, especially asians, for people to support their elderly parents.

This is actually a problem in some areas, where migrants would bring in a whole load of dependants, as would their friends. Thats how you ended up with non-English areas in London. I don't believe dependants should be allowed to come unless they meet the same criteria as the migrant, the exception being wife and children.

Do you plan to supply them with a plastic george cross flag for their nissans, burberry caps, thongs for their daughters, a six pack of carling and a crash course in binge drinking and unprotected sex?

I was thinking in a more general way, queuing, pubs, not looking at other people on the tube. Again, this country should sort itself out before it lets anyone else into the madhouse.

You see I've never quite understood how someone can be deprived of a job? The way I see it is that you go for an interview and the best candidate wins? Fair enough we have too much unskilled labour as it is, and don't really need any more, but if there are jobs available that the' dole merchants' don't want to do, who's fault is that? If a professional physician entered the UK on a work visa and started working for the NHS he/she fits the "making useful contribution to the economy" thing, but is also, potentially, depriving a British doctor of his/her job. So really that statement makes no sense.

Good point, but you miss the fact a migrant will opten work for a lower wage and accept a lower standard of living than the government would provide the on the dole. Two seperate issues.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Quite happy to do that, so long as there is a dialogue.

I agree partially. Illegal immigrants see Britain as a soft touch. It is also highly debatable whether an individual is in fact a true asylum seeker fleeing opression or simply an economic migrant looking for a more priveleged life. I feel that all asylum applicants should first have to go to a British consular overseas for interview and to put their case, and gain, at least, some kind of entry clearance/permission to enter the UK, and after which be allowed passage, instead of paying people trafficers extortionate sums to smuggle them into the country to make their asylum claim. Whether this idea is good or not, it beats the current system which is ridiculously wasteful and complicated.

I can't actually see where you disagree there.

[Vladimir]

A classic org thread. Shadeswolf trembling behind his net curtain because of the scary foriegn men. Fragony still trying but failing to fill in his application for for Combat 18.

I'll come back when there is actually something substantive to debate.

When you come back, please bring something substantive to contribute.

[ShadesWolf]

A classic org thread. Shadeswolf trembling behind his net curtain because of the scary foriegn men. Fragony still trying but failing to fill in his application for for Combat 18.

I'll come back when there is actually something substantive to debate.

If you have nothing to contribute, as usual, why bother to post.

And who is trembling behind his net curtains, im not the one that ran away from London town

[Idaho]

I don't bother to contribute because what you have to say is all so sad and predictable. Go and have a dig through history. Go and see the 'illustrious men' who have said exactly the same things.

And while you at it, go and have a look at the creation of nation states, the movement of people, the shifts in cultures throughout the ages.

When you have more to offer than the most simplistic, innacurrate rabble rousing nonsense, then we can have a decent discussion.

[Vladimir]

I don't bother to contribute because what you have to say is all so sad and predictable. Go and have a dig through history. Go and see the 'illustrious men' who have said exactly the same things.

And while you at it, go and have a look at the creation of nation states, the movement of people, the shifts in cultures throughout the ages.

When you have more to offer than the most simplistic, innacurrate rabble rousing nonsense, then we can have a decent discussion.

I thought you were going to bring back some substance . Care to sight any examples, provide any links, or are you just here to criticize?

What about the creation of nation states do you wish to explore? In order to create a nation you have to engage in genocide. I'm not saying that to be inflammatory, just look at the definition of it in the Monastery. Or maybe you're referring to civil wars caused by massive, uncontrolled migration? For movement of people, do you mean invasions? Because that's what they used to be called. I fail to see what your point is in that sentence.

Your last line is what really gets me. What do you call three, one sentence paragraphs if not simplistic? I see several people here having a decent discussion with you popping in to drop a few one liners.

[Fragony]

A classic org thread. Shadeswolf trembling behind his net curtain because of the scary foriegn men. Fragony still trying but failing to fill in his application for for Combat 18.

I'll come back when there is actually something substantive to debate.

Que? Combat 18, google says



That was a bit naughty of you Idaho, who stepped on the oestrogen button this time? 'I'll come back when there is actually something substantive to debate'

I guess I just called you a b*tch, leave me alone.

[Mount Suribachi]

the best form of immigration policy for our economy is almost certainly selective skilled immigration, but that has an ethical issue about cream-skimming the skills of underdeveloped countries

This is a genuine moral issue that never gets talked about. The only other politician I've ever heard talk about it is Michael Howard, and he got shouted down as a racist.

Is it moral to take doctors from India? Is it moral to take nurses from Africa?

*waits for 3 line post from Idaho calling me a racist*







*again*

[Red Peasant]

Seems ironic to me, but the vast majority of the jobs that these people gravitate to in Britain are at the bottom of society's job heap; these are the very jobs usually done by those Britons at the bottom of the social scale whom many here sneer at and despise.

It's a win-win situation for those shrivelled souls who need someone to look down upon and revile. Chavs or Wogs? Take your pick. (To the mods: I use the latter term merely to make a point, it in no way reflects any prejudice on my part).

More to the point, I certainly take issue with 'criminal' elements and those gaining entry under spurious claims of asylum. Such people pose a threat to the community, but genuine asylum seekers should always be considered for protection by this country, as our great tradition demands. As for the rest, a balance has to be struck with regard to servicing the manpower needs of the British economy and the demands placed upon social cohesion and infrastructure - a delicate balancing act, and one best left to people with far more knowledge than me on the subject. However, unfortunately, due consideration of the needs of society and the economy is often trampled under the hooves of political rhetoric and ideological posturing. What we need are practical, humane and workable policies on immigration.