1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

No limit to immigration?

Discussion in 'SC Archive' started by G_Wizz, 4 Jun 2004.

  1. G_Wizz

    Hitman

    Joined: 30 Mar 2004

    Posts: 888

  2. VIRII

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 24 Jul 2003

    Posts: 30,259

    To even post a link like this risks bringing the weight of the PC mob down on you.
    Don't you know Britain was just a measly little Island until immigration in the 1960s made it into Great Britain. We would be nothing without all these migrants, we wouldn't even have any culture without them.
    Instead of worrying about them we should be down on our knees thanking them for saving us from being dull, cultureless nobodies.
    Without them we would also be so much poorer, don't you realise how they sustain our economy and how we'd all be flat broke without them ?

    Well that is what some would have you believe anyway, yes you are right, our little island can not continue to cope with more and more people. Furthermore the public are getting increasingly frustrated and feelings of anti-immigrant are on the rise especially when coupled with the policies of those who wish us to forget we are a nation and want to saddle us with guilt for past actions.

    If we are to believe sedm then we are just a few short steps away from becoming Nazis because we dare to have a little national pride, if he is right then we are likely to have a very short and very bloody war that will reduce our population dramatically.

    It is nearly time to vote, you can use your vote to change national policy, I know I will be making sure I use my vote.
     
  3. G_Wizz

    Hitman

    Joined: 30 Mar 2004

    Posts: 888

    Too true, sad that anyone who questions immigration is thought to be a facist or holocaust denier. I think really most people are beginning to see through this now, thank God. Just hope its not too late.
     
  4. Meridian

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 11,959

    Location: Vvardenfell

    If any of those exist in SC I've yet to spot them. Most posters here are ranting right wingers.

    M
     
  5. memphisto

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 12,918



    Id say we are mainly realists who actually have a grasp on reality and not up in the clouds like blunkett and his mob.
     
  6. r1cko

    Mobster

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 2,622

    Well the word 'immigration' is ambigious.

    Say there was no limit to *skilled* immigration, no limit to immigration of people who were able to support themselves and their dependents without being a net burden on the tax payer, say they were wealthy.

    We could probably sustain 'unlimited' immigration of this type, because the amount of people of this character are a minority in relation to the poor, the unhealthy, the uneducated that are flooding into the country.

    Check where all the immigrants are coming from. They're not coming from America, Australia, Sweden, Switzerland or where ever.. They're coming from destitute countries.

    Obviously for the sake of the inhabitants of this country there must definately not be unlimited immigration of this type.

    The former I refered to, well, I personally dont see the population having a problem with people of this standing coming in if they are capable of sustaining themselves and dependents, are adequated capitalised, are healthy, are educated and have a clean criminal record. And neither do I really.. It's when you walk around the country and enter into slums where 'immigrant ethics' are and have been for quite some time, that I would prefer did not explode in frequency across the country.
     
  7. Nikias

    Mobster

    Joined: 12 Oct 2003

    Posts: 4,773

    Location: London

    What can we do exactly?

    The article says that we can only support 30 million people and we have approximately double that. Even if we put a halt to the flood of immigrants, we're still 30 million people too many according to that article and we can't really start deporting/murdering people.
     
  8. clv101

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,034

    Location: Bristol

    That article only predicts an increase of 5.8 million people in 30 years! That's the slowest rate of population growth the countries ever seen! The thing that's allowed the population to grow so much over the last 200 year has been technology - basically an oil power industrial revolution. Looking at how we've increased the population in the past an extra 5.8 million over 30 years should be no problem.

    (However - within 30 years peak oil will have busted us back 200 years and I expect the population will be significantly lower than 65 million).
     
  9. Nikias

    Mobster

    Joined: 12 Oct 2003

    Posts: 4,773

    Location: London

    No it won't :confused:

    Wrong thread for that argument though so I won't go any further.
     
  10. E1mo

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 9 Dec 2002

    Posts: 1,509

    Hmmm... we can only support 30 million people? I would strongly disagree with that. In my opinion we're supporting 60 million people very nicely, everyone is fed, the large majority are leading 1st world class lifestyles in comparison with countries like America (who have HUGE amounts of free space) we have a transport system that whilst streched in places isn't falling apart by the seams...

    Technology will allow us to pack far more people, far more efficiently on this little island of ours, but frankly at the current birth rates (which may slide into almost negative birth rates like our european brothers) even WITH immigration the total net population is only increasing at a very slight rate.

    I haven't read this source you are reffering to, but it sounds like scare-mongering to me.
     
  11. Jaz

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 11 Feb 2003

    Posts: 1,603

    Tony Blair is to impose a quota system on tens of thousands of black and Asian immigrants seeking to come to Britain, according to confidential Downing Street documents seen by The Telegraph.

    In a policy U-turn, the Prime Minister has ordered tough new restrictions to be brought in within weeks to stop abuse "by those from New Commonwealth countries".

    Mr Blair has stepped in to stem what No 10 describes as a "dramatic increase" in applications from countries such as India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Ghana and Bangladesh after immigration rules were loosened last year.

    The disclosure sparked anger last night among Labour MPs and pro-immigration campaigners. However, Downing Street confirmed that action was imminent.

    Mr Blair ordered the quota system to be brought in during a top-level "stock-take" meeting on May 12 attended by senior ministers, including David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, and Des Browne, the immigration minister.

    Also present was David Lammy, the constitutional affairs minister and one of the few black members of the Government.

    An eight-page memo, dated seven days later, written by the Downing Street policy adviser Kate Gross and marked "confidential", reveals a key proposal by Mr Blunkett and Mr Browne to apply quotas to the Commonwealth Working Holiday Maker scheme, which allows immigrants to spend up to two years working casually in Britain. Many then switch to work permits, prolonging their stay.

    Previously, the scheme applied almost exclusively to "Old Commonwealth" countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, but there has been a reported "spike" in applications from Africa and Asia since last summer.

    Quotas to combat immigration have been rejected repeatedly by Mr Blair in the past.

    Last night, Alan Simpson, the Labour MP, called the move "bigoted", adding: "If there are going to be quotas, they should not be racial."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/06/nimm.xml
     
  12. elbows

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 1,156

    Its dead simple. The baby-boomer generation is reaching retirement age, and there are too many of them, and they didnt have enough kids for there to be enough workers to support the country once the boomers retire.

    So we need young workers, new europe will help stop old europe becoming too old.

    Thats why it is worth the political price for governments to be "slack" with immigration issues, letting in lots of immigrants is economic sanity not insanity.
     
  13. memphisto

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 12,918


    surely promoting and actually rewarding us that want to work and have children like in the baby boom era would be better ?
     
  14. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,848

    Location: Plymouth

    Exactly my view.
     
  15. r1cko

    Mobster

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 2,622

    but elbows,

    This isnt a solution, it's a temporary fix. The wave of immigrants will one day be old, will be part of society, what happens when they don't have children and can't be supported?

    Just have another wave of immigrants to prop up that generation too? Sounds like a ponzy scheme where the guy at the bottom gets screwed! It's exactly that.

    Why are fertility rates in the developed world, especially Europe stagnating?

    The first world is wealthy, but the people on the continent have less children than in the U.S. and Asia.

    Poor countries like in Africa have high rates of fertility, yet Russians and citizens of ex Soviet satellites have populations which are not growing even slightly, but actually falling.

    Both examples show that the commonly given answers that developed countries have less children and poor ones have many do not always explain what is happening. Could it rather be the way society is organised and the way the 'family' has been replaced with the welfare state that explains the lack of will to reproduce on the European continent but not in North America and Asia?

    The system which is collapsing under the weight of non reproducing people is self destroying? Is 'Social welfare', the pension problem, actually the reason why reproduction is so low on the European continent. It's a very vicious cycle if it is..
     
  16. freelinux

    Banned

    Joined: 10 May 2004

    Posts: 713

    Location: London

    'Economic migrants'

    The UK has seen a huge increase in migration in the past decade, with the numbers arriving in the UK and staying for one year or more nearly doubling from 265,000 to 512,000.

    But more people are both arriving into Britain and leaving the country.


    In overall terms, after subtracting the roughly 300,000 Britons (and others) who move abroad each year, net immigration is now running at around 150,000 per year.

    That has been a benefit to the British economy, according to the Treasury, which estimates that large-scale immigration boosts the rate of UK economic growth by 0.5% extra each year.

    The ONS figures show that the bulk of immigrants are highly-skilled professionals or students.

    And immigrants tend to be young, arriving at the economically active ages of 15-44.

    Many economists believe that in the long-run a continuous influx of immigrants will help ease the "demographic time-bomb" as Britain becomes a society dominated by the old.

    In twenty years time, one in five of the population will be over 65, demographers estimate.

    Europe supplies more migrants to the UK than any other region, but in fact more move from the UK to EU countries than come here.

    The large number of mainly young people from old Commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia is balanced out by an equal number returning.

    Of the employed immigrants, most are highly skilled professionals and managers. Next-biggest group is students, many of whom are being educated at university level.

    More than a fifth of the total are members of the main breadwinner's family.

    Overall, about half of all immigrants are coming to work, almost a third to study and a fifth as family.
     
    Last edited: 7 Jun 2004
  17. freelinux

    Banned

    Joined: 10 May 2004

    Posts: 713

    Location: London

    You should know this will never happen again in this country! More today are getting divorced, less people are marrying, more women think about having a career more than children. This country need imigrants. Scotlands population is in serioyus decline and will soon fall under £5m for the first time, scotish minster are desprate for this balance to be readdressed.


    I have seen to much scare mongering on immigration on this board without any facts given!

    The UK has more people aged over 60 than under 16

    There were now 1.1 million people aged over 85 - a fivefold increase since 1951.

    Scotland's population has declined 2% over the past 20 years, while Wales is down 3% over the same period.

    Only imigration will re address the balance! Its good we have so many studdents wanting to come and study here!
     
    Last edited: 7 Jun 2004
  18. Jono

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 13,262

    Location: Northallerton/Harrogate

    Perhaps if those working didn't get penalised so heavily for doing well for themselves then they might be more inclined to have children. The main reason I don't have children, or want them for a while is because I could not afford to. Whereas if I'd done nothing with my life I would be paid to have children.

    If I was allowed to keep my money and not have to give it to scummers then I would have children, bring them up in a way that has been accepted by society for generations and let them carry on the trend of high standards that we are rapidly losing.
     
  19. The Running Man

    Caporegime

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 34,050

    Location: block 16, cell 12

    but some may argue the opposite that in fact certain segments of the population are now more likely to have children because there is a social welfare safety net to support them and bear the increased costs?

    i think u should consider a number of factors before arriving at the conclusion u did, such as women gettings more rights, which has meant more women in the workplace ditching kids for a career where once they would stay at home with the intention of giving birth and becoming a mother as opposed to the next anita roddick

    so it could be that the culture has changed within this country and now the population has different priorities than it once had?

    im not saying that the economic cost of a new child should not be factored in there somewhere but surely that is just one of many possible factors that has impacted our birth rate?

    remember things like contraceptives etc have become more widely available where once they were not etc
     
  20. freelinux

    Banned

    Joined: 10 May 2004

    Posts: 713

    Location: London

    Your statement clearly shows how miss informed you are! If we were all allowed to keep our money then the country would be in an extremely critical state, society would have broken down long ago and we would be in desperate state of anacy!

    People like you need to stop blaming others for your problems and get up and do something about it instead of moaning. You should try being more positive and proactive, an ayslym seeker can doi it, why cant you!

    There is too much blame blame blame blame culture in the UK today, I for one do sit around blaming others. I resolve my issues. If i do not get a job because an asylm seeker got, then good luck to them. I must look at ways to improve myself as they clearly had better skills for the job.
     
    Last edited: 7 Jun 2004