Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 16 2009, 09:07 AM

Discuss.

Posted by: Iommi Nov 16 2009, 09:36 AM

Why?

Posted by: lordtup Nov 16 2009, 09:40 AM

What TDH ?
Or are you waiting for someone to state the obvious .

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 16 2009, 09:41 AM

Because its a topic that people shy away from talking about.

Posted by: Torchy Nov 16 2009, 10:26 AM

Migration is a good thing - we get lots of well educated hard working people from Poland, and lots of 'old codgers' bale out to a new life in Spain or one of our former colonies...

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 16 2009, 10:48 AM

Seems to be a subject that the present government has little control over or if it does it is choosing to appear inept in it's management.
Who really knows if it is good or bad for his country.
It is great to have skilled and needed workers here from abroad but it's the Health tourists and those that come over and then exploit the benefits system that we all would like to see stopped.
But since no one has any firm or reliable figures, it's anyones guess.

Posted by: Andy1 Nov 16 2009, 11:20 AM

I agree people shy away from it.

So why are so many Brits moving abroad, I guess it's the weather because I can't imagine moving to Spain or Austrailia for anything else.

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 16 2009, 11:33 AM

People are leaving Britain for many reasons and climate is probably one of them but sadly I believe the other reasons are:
The lazy and feckless being rewarded above those that try to be responsible and support themselves by working.
The criminals whose rights are put above those that abide by the law.
The dis-enfranchised who see others coming into this country have contributed nothing and who take every benefit that is available to them.
The middle class who are taxed till they hurt and then taxed some more.
The declining standards in education.
The list goes on.

Posted by: ossy1 Nov 16 2009, 11:43 AM

Having had some family move abroad and then come back again I can safely say that the grass is not always greener.

Particularly in Spain, it's very hot and therefore the grass is generally brown!!

Posted by: lordtup Nov 16 2009, 11:48 AM

Ok , I have no problem with someone taking his labour skills elsewhere in order to benefit his family or just himself .
The grey area regarding illegal immigration rests on whether these are taking advantage of our welfare state or being exploited in the sense that they are being paid below the minimum wage and therefore undercutting the indigenous work force .

What really gets my goat though is my tax revenue being forked out left right and centre to the work shy scum that considers they have a God given right to scrounge off the state ,when vacancies are being filled by migrant workers .
Along side this we are now seeing a growing number of willing workers who find themselves , through no fault of their own , unemployed.

The big problem we have is that if anyone stands up and says enough is enough , they are branded as racist .
Now it is not exactly rocket science to see were this is all going to end ( see 19 /20th century European history for the answer , take to long to outline here ) , and I just hope that common sense will prevail before it creates a problem that our children will be unable to rectify .

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 16 2009, 12:01 PM

Well said sir. Your suggested conclusion or effect of the problem is chilling but not beyond the realms of possibility.
A little worrying eh! since those that govern us have their heads in the sand.

Posted by: lordtup Nov 16 2009, 12:10 PM

It never fails to amaze that , what is blatantly obvious to one and all , is so ignored by those who profess to know best .

I understand that ostrich meat is quite edible so anyone wish to join me for the first shoot of the season

Posted by: blackdog Nov 16 2009, 01:10 PM

So why aren't you joining in the discussion?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 16 2009, 01:26 PM

I am quite happy to join the discussion. My view is that the signs shoud go up. 'Country Full'.
This applies to all people and all nationalities. We are overpopulated. Simple as. The reason I raised it is because whilst I suspect many people have similar views they are scared to air them for fear of not being'politically correct'.

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 16 2009, 01:45 PM

That reminds me. I add the following to my list posted earlier:
The slow eradication of our right to free speech that our fathers fought and died for.
The perpetual surveilance by the cameras of the Big brother state.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 16 2009, 02:26 PM

All countries are over populated.

Question is ....... where does everybody go?

Most of the human race's problems are a result of over population.

The answer?????????????????????????

Posted by: lordtup Nov 16 2009, 02:32 PM

The use of those little rubber things so despised by the Catholic religion may help ,as should taking resposibility for one's actions in this arena .
Failing that ,enforced euthanasia for the over 55s .

Posted by: Blake Nov 16 2009, 02:37 PM

I think the wave of immigration we have had since the 1990s has been a big mistake because the people as a whole had no say in it whatsoever but it has totally changed our country, in some cases, so much, it is not always recognisable from the country as we knew it and loved it.

It is also a sign of failure of government policy. There is a hoarde of lazy, feckless and workshy from the indigenous population who will not find work, retrain or up-skill themselves to fill jobs. So instead of forcing them to work, the government has given in and let immigrants in.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 16 2009, 04:55 PM

Not all have come here to work.

Some come to benefit from the relative wealth of this country and it's generous welfare system.

The same welfare system that prevents the "indigenous population" from getting off their backsides and finding work.

Posted by: Strafin Nov 16 2009, 05:10 PM

Should this be in the "Newbury News"section....

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 16 2009, 05:27 PM

Good point - although it affects Newbury along with all other towns & cities in Britain to a greater or lesser degree.

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Nov 16 2009, 07:50 PM

I just hope nobody relies upon you to write any signs

Posted by: user23 Nov 16 2009, 08:49 PM

I love the anti-immigration lot, their argument goes something along the lines of:

"This county's gone to the dogs, it's rubbish here, the hard working are over taxed and it's full of scroungers and scum, who'd want to live here?

We should close the borders to stop all the immigrants coming to work, they're flocking here because it's so good in the UK.

Scrounging immigrants are undercutting the hard working Brit by working for less and doing the jobs the indigenous workforce won't do."

Classic Nick Griffin type logic.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 16 2009, 09:03 PM

Uncontrolled immigration? - Correct.

And your argument / view on this is...........??

Wait for it!

Posted by: Iommi Nov 16 2009, 09:04 PM

I think we should have a population policy. We need to know what we need as a country. Just inviting more people in is only a short term fix to a labour shortage.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 16 2009, 09:10 PM

It's not so much to do with jobs as to how many people you can cram onto a relatively small island with already stretched resources.

Where do you draw the line?

Posted by: user23 Nov 16 2009, 09:12 PM

My view is this country wouldn't function without immigrants.

Posted by: Iommi Nov 16 2009, 09:13 PM

Hence why I think we should have a population policy.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 16 2009, 09:14 PM

Agreed to a certain extent but again I pose the question.... Where do you draw the line?

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 17 2009, 08:52 AM

[quote name='user23' date='Nov 16 2009, 08:49 PM' post='11052']
I love the anti-immigration lot, their argument goes something along the lines of:

"This county's gone to the dogs, it's rubbish here, the hard working are over taxed and it's full of scroungers and scum, who'd want to live here?
[\quote]

Yep, there is some truth in this as well as the exageration but ignoring it won't put the problem issues right.

[quote]
We should close the borders to stop all the immigrants coming to work, they're flocking here because it's so good in the UK.
[\quote]

Yep, we should, until with have a coherant and sensible method of control. Doing nothing is irresponsible.

[quote]
Scrounging immigrants are undercutting the hard working Brit by working for less and doing the jobs the indigenous workforce won't do."
[\quote]

Well, not a real problem but the indigenous workforce should be encouraged to get off of their backsides before we bring in foreign workers.

[quote]
Classic Nick Griffin type logic.
[\quote]
An unnecessary swipe at the ligitimate views of ordinary people.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 17 2009, 09:09 AM

Classic PC nonsense from those that call people 'ignorant' who hold differing views from their own.

Posted by: Iommi Nov 17 2009, 01:25 PM

In what way? My feelings are that we would simply have to pay more for services, rather than not function.

Like with everything, I would imagine areas of the country 'suffer' in different ways. Some areas are possibly overwhelmed (schools, hospitals), where as other areas, like Newbury, doesn't seem to be affected much.

I'm aware that the influx of Polish (for some, a euphemism for people from the former eastern block) did seem to build some resentment amongst people in lower-paid jobs, but that seems to have settled down now.

Another issue not broached here, is the increase in people trafficking. By not having effective boarder controls enables gangsters to run their illegal business more easily and this is good for no-one.

Posted by: JeffG Nov 17 2009, 03:27 PM

I'm wondering which nationalities this is a euphemism for, and why they are considered less desirable than Poles?

Posted by: Iommi Nov 17 2009, 05:50 PM

See Wikipedia for EU and Eastern Block. As for less desirable, I never said anything about less desirable. The point I made is that some people are ignorant in the same way some people confuse nationalities from South Asia.

Posted by: gel Nov 17 2009, 06:25 PM

It's very odd that so many travel through France, which is far less crowded & in numerous surveys shows a better standard of living etc, to further crowd out our small isle

Besides the language, could it be because the French are far less generous in housing & other state benefits than Mr McBroon's lot.
They ignore any Human Rights/EU legislation that they don't see as being in France's economic interest, unlike our bunch.

In front of me at surgery today were 2 Asian looking gents with green passports (couldn't see where) who were attempting to get registered at the practice.
I thought this was supposed to be somewhat controlled and only emergency treatment
provided until immigrants had spent a certain period here and contributed some Taxes/National Insurance etc,..

Not surprisingly (to moi) were demanding to see Doctor in a few hours or after 6pm the same day; they couldn't be accommodated. I was glad to see the receptionist advising she had to validate their right to (free) treatment paid for by us hard working locals.

Mr Darling earlier in year cancelled reciprocal medical arrangements with Channel Isles & Isle of Man; many of their residents of course are in our armed forces. Those with medical ailments now find it difficult to find some medical insurance which is now necessary for visitors from these Isles, and for UK residents visiting there.
(They're not covered under the EU Scheme).

Posted by: user23 Nov 17 2009, 06:40 PM

My dentist is an immigrant, so's the woman who showed me round a hospital I visited recently, so's the woman in the shop I buy my lunch most days.

Should we send them all home? Who's going to fix my teeth or help me get better if I'm ill if they're gone?

I've said nothing about Nick Griffin being ignorant, or anyone else for that matter.

Do you think he's ignorant?They must have thought you rude asking them if they'd paid any tax in this country, like you did.

Posted by: Iommi Nov 17 2009, 06:50 PM

When did anyone here say we should send 'them' all back?


So what did you mean? The insinuation was clear to me, even if you didn't write as much. BTW, I do think Nick Griffin is ignorant, or at least, snide.


Where did gel say or suggest that?

Posted by: Newbury Expat Nov 17 2009, 08:34 PM

Some move to expand their cultural horizons, others move for work, some (like myself) move for both. It certainly wasn't for apathetic reasons. I love the UK and enjoyed growing up in Newbury but for the time-being I'm enjoying being where I am and I can't really complain about the 20 degree weather in mid-November after all

Immigration here is also a major topic of conversation, probably more so. Many people blame the border jumpers for much of the problems (literally everything from crime to declining educational standards) and to an extent there is a good point but to say it's 100% the fault of illegals is a lazy argument which doesn't solve anything or address some of the more fundamental issues. I expect that this is similarly true in the UK.

Posted by: JeffG Nov 17 2009, 08:54 PM

I know which countries are in the former Eastern Bloc, thanks. If calling someone of a different nationality a Pole is a euphemism, then by definition that nationality is less desirable.

That's exactly what you said. If you wanted to make a point that some people mixed up which nationality is which, then why not say that? See Wikipedia for "euphemism" (back at you )

Posted by: Iommi Nov 17 2009, 09:13 PM

Well then please celebrate my elucidation.

Posted by: Jayjay Nov 17 2009, 10:54 PM

Agree we should close our borders and only take the trades we need. I accept all races but get really peeved at injustice and prejudice. An illegal immigrant allowed to stay because he has a cat; soldiers coffins being booed, people marching for sharia law; NHS tourists; jobs only being given to non brits; job adverts for Polish speakers only; the millions it costs in translators at hospitals, courts etc.,

Posted by: user23 Nov 18 2009, 08:22 AM

My point was, if we close our borders where are our are future doctors, dentists and sandwich makers going to come from? Don't say "our own people" because we'd have them from the indigenous population in the first place if that was the case.

No need to be so defensive and start suggesting I called people ignorant, I was just highlighting that the points of those that think like Mr Griffin don't generally add up. Generally statements along the lines of "Britain's rubbish, let's close the borders to stop all the immigrants coming and taking advantage of how good it is here" don't add up.

He suggested he knew they hadn't paid any tax, he must have asked them then to gain this information, mustn't he?

Posted by: Iommi Nov 18 2009, 09:10 AM

I think few are advocating closing borders, what people are anxious about is that the population, in particular, immigration, is managed properly - at the moment it is not. What does stand out for me, is a lot more people feel strongly about this than one might imagine.

Posted by: regor Nov 18 2009, 10:02 AM

I do wish people on here would stop talking about "managing population"

The only way that you can 'manage the population' is by methods such as enforced breeding/immigration where numbers are below optimum coupled with 'one child only' or/and 'compulsory sterilisation' or/and 'euthanasia of excess population groups' where there is an excess of population.

I do hope none of you are suggesting the implementation of any of these methods.

Posted by: Iommi Nov 18 2009, 10:22 AM

I won't speak for the rest, but I wrote managed immigration (not population); or the lack of it. By not having some kind of population policy, government is simply sticking their head in the sand.


Managing is to ensure things are in place to cope and that we promote the need for skills where they are required. I don't know where you get the idea that the 'only way you can manage the population' is by the methods you describe. That's preposterous, notwithstanding against human rights.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 18 2009, 10:25 AM

We have getting on for 70 million of us to fill the places of doctors, dentists (just HOW many people are at University at the moment - don't even get me started on that one..). As for Sandwich makers - perhaps some of the 5 million or so scroungers sitting on their fat ***** claiming benefits and watching (and appearing) on Jeremy Kyle might just be 'encouraged' to put two bits of bread together and earn a 'CRUST'!

And I do not favour Mr Griffins style of Politic by the way. I just think we can manage the situation much better, rather than giving up on a large section of our population as this Government has done.

Posted by: Andy1 Nov 18 2009, 02:29 PM

I would much rather have someone who cares about themselves and therefore their work make my Sandwich thankyou

Posted by: Iommi Nov 18 2009, 03:02 PM

So that's what your last butler died of!

If only there was an element of 'when in Rome do as the Romans do', I don't think there would be such a fuss from some members of the 'indigenous' society!

Posted by: user23 Nov 18 2009, 06:22 PM

"We have getting on for 70 million" is just "our own people" phrased differently.

What's your plan for getting more of "our own people" to become doctors and dentists?

Posted by: Iommi Nov 18 2009, 07:07 PM

"Since 1997, however, the number of medical school places in Britain has almost doubled. There are now enough home-grown graduates to fill training posts, reducing or eliminating the need to import doctors. "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3321919.ece

Another point user23 and others seem to miss is what does it do to other countries having the best leave their home land? Is it ethical to not care how emigration affects the countries those people leave?

Posted by: On the edge Nov 18 2009, 08:28 PM

Most medical courses are well over subscribed. Why don't we try market forces? Qualify a lot more Doctors - who would then command lower wages so there would be more to go round...Doctors I know don't like this solution.

Posted by: user23 Nov 19 2009, 08:17 AM

You raise a good point. There are enough graduates but due to emigration to countries where they're valued more there aren't enough to fill all the posts in the UK, hence having to import doctors and dentists.

What's your plan to solve this? Paying them more is not an option by the way as you'll annoy the "we're already taxed too much" and "private health care costs too much in rip-off Britain" lobby.Thus reducing the standard of doctors in this country and ensuring more of the good ones emigrate. Not a great plan.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 19 2009, 08:47 AM

I haven't said reducing standards, as Adam Smith pointed out, in these circumstances standards and pay aren't connecred.

Posted by: Iommi Nov 19 2009, 09:24 AM

That isn't what the article (if you read it) says. There is enough coming through, we don't have to import.


As you demonstrably misrepresented the original point, this passage is redundant.


We do lose some to good hospitals else where, but we are only looking at this from one angle. One needs also to find solutions to reduce the need for doctors and this is happening already. NHS direct and better health awareness, etc.

At the end of the day, the 'we need immigration to float the health service' is an old argument that isn't quite the case any more. AND you seem to ignore another often over-looked point - is it ethical to 'drain' poor countries of their best doctors and nurses, etc?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 19 2009, 10:08 AM

Perhaps User 23 is in Ostrich mode and cannot see beyond immigration being the resolution of all Britains ills.

We have some estates in this Country where 49% of the population of that estate is on incapacity benefit. 49%???? WTF............

For some British people benefits are a way of life. I even heard one Labour MP talking about young teenage girls that had become pregnant explain that it was a 'Career Choice' and it was up to them.

So what they are saying is that if you are a 14 year old girl from a rough estate whats the best option....

Option 1) School / College / University / Debt / Flog your guts out at work for 10 to 15 years. Buy a house.

Option 2) Legs akimbo. House.

I know this is getting away from the original discussion but it is part of the overall problem. Labours Justification for mass immigration is the lack of morals and workshy attitiude of large swathes of Britains that rely on benefits.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 19 2009, 05:09 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229113/Britains-soaring-population-course-hit-74million.html

Posted by: user23 Nov 19 2009, 06:54 PM

I have. If we pay doctors less the good ones are more likely to go abroad to places where they're paid more, thus reducing standards here.Are you suggesting the bulk are all "scrounging immigrants" or that we can train 49% of council estate residents up to be doctors and dentists?

Posted by: Iommi Nov 19 2009, 07:02 PM

Or just go to the private sector? In any case, all Doctor's here have to reach a minimum standard which I'm happy to accept. Not quite so easy to 'vet' immigrants though.


Unless you have just taken a very strong 'thick' pill, surely you don't really believe that's what he meant? Or are you just trying to deflect attention from your specious arguments?

Posted by: user23 Nov 19 2009, 07:11 PM

I was just pointing out he seems to be off on an off topic sprint down the right wing and it might not be long before we encounter "..and another thing, all them Darkies..".

Posted by: On the edge Nov 19 2009, 07:16 PM

Whilst there is a little truth in that, they wouldn't all go. This was exactly the same excuse the city banks and finance people used to pay at such stupid rates. Even at top wack - I didn't see any foreign firms in the queue for Fred Goodwin!

Posted by: user23 Nov 19 2009, 07:26 PM

Of course some trained Doctors go into better paid professions as well as going overseas. Someone here said we have enough people trained in this country to fill all the medical positions without employing immigrants. If this is true then it's obvious training more Doctors isn't the answer, we have enough trained people already and can't get them to fill the posts so training more and lowering wages would be waste of money and a lowering of the standards.

Back on topic, I'm willing to admit I could be incorrect in all I've posted on here, so can anyone give me a definitive answer to what's wrong with people of a different ethnicity working in this country?

Posted by: Iommi Nov 19 2009, 09:35 PM

There isn't one, but people feel that recent governments have failed to control the balance of immigration. I don't think any one has said there should be no immigration, that is something you seem to bring up, but that there should be more care about the system. I understand, however, that some countries suffer a brain drain and so from an ethical point of view we should be more judicious about this.

I also think that some schools should focus more on skills based tuition, than just academics. We might then be able to 'provide' jobs for people that would be able to be sparkies and plumbers, professions where we do sometimes struggle to have enough.

As for towns with 40 odd percent of people on incapacity benefits, that I fear is a result of governments not planning what to do with people that have for generations been geared towards going down big holes in the ground or building things to float on water and such like, to find that there is no need for anyone in the UK to do these activities anymore.

I remember at collage, we had a tutor that was from South Asia. A pleasant enough fellow, but I couldn't understand a sodding' word he said.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 19 2009, 09:44 PM

We'd find it very hard indeed to define a 'native' Englishman - which suggests there isn't anything wrong with different people working together. From what I can see here, the argument is simply about numbers. Some feel there are too many of us of any type. Southern England is crowded, so this point of view is arguably the 'North / South' divide on a global basis!

Posted by: Iommi Nov 19 2009, 09:46 PM

I'd accept: someone who was born in England.

Posted by: JeffG Nov 19 2009, 09:48 PM

I don't think anyone suggested any such thing. At least I sincerely hope not. The debate has been about people of a different nationality coming to this country, as far as I'm aware.

Posted by: user23 Nov 20 2009, 08:30 AM

Go on then, explain why a Norwegian doctor or a Nigerian bus driver won't be as good as a British one.

Posted by: Iommi Nov 20 2009, 08:53 AM

Go on then, explain what it does to countries that lose valuable skilled people.

But for the trillionth time, this isn't about no immigration, it is about managed immigration. People know that over a third of people who work in the NHS were not born here, but when you have 3,000,000 unemployed, it is crazy to keep allowing people in, beyond asylum seekers, if people can be sourced indigenously.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 20 2009, 09:17 AM

So its not a debate about immigration, its a debate about volume. Therefore easily satisfied by having a larger number emigrate. The real question should be what is the maximum number this land mass can accommodate economically.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 20 2009, 09:34 AM

I started this debate and it is a debate about volume. And you do have a point but are way off target. Many million more people are entering this Country than are leaving it and at the moment I cannot see that change (unless you want enforced repatriation?). By stating'easily solved by having a large number emigrate' is nonsense. Policy and direction is required by Government in this area but they are scared to act through fear of the 'R' word being branded. A big mistake in my opinion.

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 20 2009, 09:42 AM

I agree, the topic has become very convoluted.
The point is that there is no or little control over the level of immigration into this country, a point freely admitted by some politians and that there are too many people living here who are abusing the benefits system and not making any contribution to society also recognised as real.
I just want to see a government that is in control firstly of it's own members and then the daily management of the Country.

Posted by: Iommi Nov 20 2009, 10:29 AM

Which goes back to my point about a population policy.

Posted by: JeffG Nov 20 2009, 10:47 AM

No I won't. Who could explain a fallacy? I've not been part of this debate but have been following it. You're the one who brought ethnicity into it. Now you're talking in riddles (as usual).

Posted by: On the edge Nov 20 2009, 11:37 AM

Well summed up. In fact, one or two have tried to drag the R issue into this thread which certainly supports your view. Even when its done 'in a positive way' - it kills any sensible debate.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 20 2009, 11:48 AM

The BNP have "Policy & Direction" on immigration and they are branded "Racist".

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 20 2009, 12:59 PM

And that is part of the problem. As they are the only ones who deal with it they will get votes. If the main parties were to have policy and direction the BNP would become an irrelevance, as they should be in any fair and civilised society.

Posted by: Roost Nov 20 2009, 03:51 PM

Every one is far too scared of the 'R' word now to even consider such a thing.
Much as I hate to say it, I think we could learn somethings from the Aussies and the Septics.

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 20 2009, 03:56 PM

Apparently Mr Kevin Rudd, the Aussi Prime Minister made a statement on Wednesday stating that Australia won't change or bend it's culture to suit immigrants and if they don't like that they can leave.
Not sure how true this is but it is going around the e-mail circuit.

Posted by: JeffG Nov 20 2009, 08:28 PM

The Septics??

Posted by: Iommi Nov 20 2009, 09:43 PM

Tanks.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 23 2009, 05:21 PM

If the Police catch this gang and it is found they are illegal immigrants...

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=11687

should they be...

A) Deported or
B. Imprisoned then Deported
C) Given a slap on the wrist, told not to to it again, be given a house and a car and lots of benefits and told they are welcome to stay and mug other elderly people.

Posted by: user23 Nov 23 2009, 06:54 PM

Of course I'm not taking in riddles, how rude.

Perhaps just don't understand what's being said?

Posted by: JeffG Nov 23 2009, 07:17 PM

The riddle is: how can I explain your examples, when they can't be explained, because they are not true. I am sure a Norwegian doctor or a Nigerian bus driver would be every bit as good as a British one.

Did anyone say otherwise? Certainly not me - up until now, I have not expressed an opinion either way.

I'm afraid my understanding is limited to sensible use of the English language

Posted by: Sarah Nov 23 2009, 10:01 PM

Surely this topic was meant to be a discussion about immigration, as in whether or not it should be capped, not a comparison of the abilities of British versus foreign workers.

The country can only accommodate a certain number of people, so when we have reached that number (and we probably have already exceeded it), we need to call a halt. As the government have already stated that full employment for all will never again be possible, it seems rather stupid to allow even more in to compete for the already dwindling number of posts available.

I don't consider my opinion to be racist, merely realistic. I'm quite happy to see foreigners living and working here, and lets face it many do jobs our layabouts wouldn't get out of bed for, but there are many Brits who do want work and it just isn't there for them.

Let's look after the ones who do want to work and get a bit harder on the ones who are too lazy to get off their backsides. Make immigrants welcome, but look at the figures properly and decide how many we can sensibly take.

Posted by: user23 Nov 24 2009, 12:35 PM

Again very rude, and all because you don't follow how the conversation is progressing. Don't take it so personally if you don't understand something, just ask for clarification on the bits you don't get.

To have a sensible debate about immigration one must first look at why people migrate to this country, the number one reason being for work.

Saying "we're full, let's close the borders" (which of course isn't true, other countries have a far greater population density) without looking at the reasons for migration is as daft as cutting off the water supply to one's house because the water tank was full.

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 24 2009, 12:51 PM

[quote name='user23' date='Nov 24 2009, 12:35 PM' post='11348']
Saying "we're full, let's close the borders" (which of course isn't true, other countries have a far greater population density)
[\quote]
The UK has the highest population density within Europe.

[quote]
without looking at the reasons for migration is as daft as cutting off the water supply to one's house because the water tank was full.
[\quote]
Actually you might just want to do that particularly if you had lost control of the ability to do that .
You would also want to do it if the tank was overflowing causing damage to your house.

Posted by: Iommi Nov 24 2009, 01:36 PM

OK...then what?


Most sensible people would use a stopcock.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 24 2009, 04:42 PM

Rubbish - is this an example of the accuracy of your posts?

We are no better than 8th in Europe after Monaco, Gibraltar, Jersey, Guernsey, San Marino, the Netherlands and Belgium.

Of course the last two are the real comparison as the rest are tiny. The Netherlands has almost twice the population density of the UK.

More interesting to me was to see that we are only just ahead of Germany (640 v 600 people / sq mile). The UK is 52 and Germany 54 in the world list. Compare this to Monaco at 42,500 / sq mile and it looks like we have got plenty of space left

Source: Wikipedia (okay I know it isn't perfect...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density

Posted by: Iommi Nov 24 2009, 05:00 PM

Any problems that might exist due to migration is likely to be down to region rather than country. For example, I suspect South East England is a lot more densely populated than Britain. Indeed, I suspect SE England is more densely populated than England.

Further more, I understand that England has 383 people per square Kilometre (ppsk) (mid- 2004). Netherlands has 393 ppsk (Jul 2002). I doubt that we are far behind the Netherlands now. The European countries that are denser in population than England tend to be countries with a population lower than 500,000.

Posted by: user23 Nov 24 2009, 06:54 PM

As has already been pointed out, that statement is false
Most sensible people would use a stopcock when their cold water tank was full?

That's also not true.

Posted by: Iommi Nov 24 2009, 07:15 PM

You're right, I should have said cistern.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 24 2009, 10:09 PM

Ball valve?

Posted by: Iommi Nov 24 2009, 11:03 PM

As you clearly wish to perpetuate this pointless line of debate, I understand it is a float valve. Now can we get back to the point?

Posted by: Newbury Expat Nov 24 2009, 11:17 PM

Looks like the conversation about immigration has literally ended up in the toilet

Posted by: Iommi Nov 24 2009, 11:37 PM

According to Wikipedia (I have noticed anomalies, so accuracy is questionable).

The European countries with the highest proportion of non-native residents are small nations or microstates:
Andorra.........77% of ....82,000 are immigrants.
Monaco..........70% of ....32,000 are immigrants.
Luxembourg......37% of ...480,000 are immigrants.
Liechtenstein...35% of ....34,000 are immigrants.
San Marino......32% of ....29,000 are immigrants.
Switzerland.....23% of 7,5000,000 are immigrants.

Countries in which immigrants form between 10% and 20% of the population:
Latvia........19%
Estonia.......15%
Austria.......15%
Ukraine.......15%
Croatia.......15%
Cyprus........14%
Ireland.......14%
Moldova.......13%
Germany.......12%
Sweden........12%
Belarus.......12%
Italy.........12%
Spain.........11%
France........10%
Netherlands...10%

Countries in which immigrants form between 5% and 10% of the population:
Denmark
Norway
Iceland
Belgium
Russia
Greece
Portugal
Slovenia
United Kingdom

European countries with the smallest proportion of immigrants:
Albania..................2.0%
Poland...................2.0%
Bosnia and Herzegovina...1.0%
Romania..................0.5%

Posted by: Iommi Nov 25 2009, 12:05 AM

list of countries by immigrant population as of 2005

a...b................c............d......e...
1...United States....38,355,000...20.5...12.9
2...Russia...........12,080,000....6.5....8.5
3...Germany..........10,144,000....5.4...12.3
4...Ukraine...........6,833,000....3.7...14.7
5...France............6,471,000....3.6...10.2
6...Saudi Arabia......6,361,000....3.4...25.3
7...Canada............6,200,000....3.3...18.8
8...India.............5,700,000....3.0....0.5
9...United Kingdom....5,408,000....2.9....9.0

a Rank
b State
c Number of immigrants
d % of world's immigrant population
e % of National population

Posted by: Iommi Nov 25 2009, 12:36 AM

% Unemployment Rate as of March '09

Spain...........17.4
Latvia..........16.1
Lithuania.......15.5
Estonia.........11.1
Ireland.........10.6
Slovakia........10.5
Hungary..........9.2
France...........8.8
Portugal.........8.5
Sweden...........8.0
Greece...........7.8
Poland...........7.7
Germany..........7.6
Finland..........7.4
Belgium..........7.3
Italy............6.9
Malta............6.7
United Kingdom...6.6
Luxembourg.......6.1
Bulgaria.........5.9
Romania..........5.8
Denmark..........5.7
Czech Republic...5.5
Slovenia.........5.0
Cyprus...........4.9
Austria..........4.5
Netherlands......2.8


United States....8.5
European Union...8.3
Japan............4.4

Posted by: blackdog Nov 25 2009, 01:18 AM

So it looks like a high population density is good for employment - perhaps we should start advertising for more immigrants.

Posted by: Iommi Nov 25 2009, 01:49 AM

If the figures are any way accurate, then it would suggest that immigration is no greater here than in any other developed country.

With regards density, England's major cites have areas of unemployment ranging from 12% to 20%.

Like I said, I believe the issue with immigration is more to do with regions within countries, rather than a country as a whole.

Posted by: Andy1 Nov 25 2009, 01:35 PM

Has your post been moderated

Posted by: blackdog Nov 25 2009, 07:46 PM

Of course immigration happens within a country as well as between countries. Everyone living in Newbury who wasn't born in Newbury is an immigrant at one level. So, rather than build thousands of houses around Newbury could we not simply send away all those who have moved here in the last 20 years?

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 25 2009, 09:01 PM

No I was just suggesting the correct name for the valve in your cold water tank that stops it overflowing.

Is it a ball valve or a float valve we need at our ports to regulate immigration?

Or have I lost the plot here??

Posted by: user23 Nov 26 2009, 08:02 AM

That's a good point. Perhaps we should start at home in limiting migration and we should not allow anyone to move more than 50 miles from where they were born? This is what it really boils down to and if some areas are supposedly over populated that's the kind of legislation we should be bringing in. This would be easy to do if the new ID Card scheme were made mandatory. For this to work it would also be necessary to keep your papers, sorry, ID card on you at all times.

I wonder how many current residents of Newbury we would be sending "back to where they came from"?

Posted by: noobree Nov 26 2009, 09:39 AM

'For example, I suspect South East England is a lot more densely populated than Britain'

It certainly is, but it always surprises me how easy it is to get away from people here in West Berkshire. Go for a long in walk in our glorious countryside and you'll meet very few people - at this time of the year, hardly anyone.

Re. immigration - get used to it, you ain't seen nothing yet. It's an inevitable consequence of globalisation, a phenomenon we Brits started way back in the 16th Century. And with one in three of the population already over 50 we're going to need all the paid help we can get.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 26 2009, 09:42 AM

I tried to start a serious debate on this topic but as usual it has been hijacked. When we have 120 million residents (80 million of which wil be crammed into a small part of the Country) I hope you will be happy. So you are pro immigration and want a free for all and I want to limit and control numbers. As far as I can see I have put forward an argument for limited migration and you have not managed to put up a defence for a free for all. So you get silly with comments like this. Quite sad really.

Posted by: Iommi Nov 26 2009, 11:53 AM

The trouble is, the paid helpers get old to, so do we just keep getting more (as the average age of the population increases)? The argument about needing younger, able bodied tax payers, seems like a too-short a term fix for me.

Posted by: user23 Nov 26 2009, 01:29 PM

It's not a silly comment, it's the logical progression of your argument if we are to limit overcrowding in certain areas of the UK, stop people from moving into Newbury be they from Norfolk or Nairobi. I've explained why we need immigration in this country if nothing else to keep the NHS and Social Services going. You've chosen to ignore this.

What's silly is the projection of "120 million residents" in the UK. Who's figures are these, who's predicted this? To me this seems like another of the fallacies like "we're the most densely populated country in Europe" one that the right wing trot out to support their flimsy argument.

No wonder you're upset, your debate has been "hijacked" by people who know the facts!

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 26 2009, 01:34 PM

If thats your point of view then fair enough. we live in a democracy the last time I checked so I believe in freedom of speech. I'll just agree to disagree. p.s. I don't lke being labelled as right wing just because I have different views on this topic than you. By that reasoning you must be part of the 'loony left'

Posted by: Iommi Nov 26 2009, 01:48 PM

As you have chosen to ignore my point regards the affect immigration has on some of the countries these skilled, hard working and fit people leave.

Posted by: user23 Nov 26 2009, 08:20 PM

Yes if I'm labelling you as Right Wing it would be fair to call me Left Wing.

Not sure about the "loony" though, unless you think Right Wing in itself is an insult.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 30 2009, 09:37 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8385069.stm

Whats the betting the 400,000 are invited to Britain?
And see what happens when the public are 'trusted' in a referendum?

Now how do go about claiming asylum in Switzerland....

Posted by: JeffG Nov 30 2009, 10:30 AM

What a daft comment!

Posted by: Iommi Nov 30 2009, 10:57 AM

Around 23% of the population are immigrants mind, so it can't be that hard.

Posted by: zeospike Dec 1 2009, 04:45 PM

Would that be our fathers in the European Union? We only got Free Speech legislation about 10 years ago passed down and watered down by Parliament on the way. Gosh Darn (as the swear-bot made d@mn look a lot worse as ****) those foreigners! Coming over here and enshrining freedom of speech for all of us!!

Posted by: user23 Dec 1 2009, 06:52 PM

Whilst we're inventing things to worry about and scaremongering why not add that they'll no doubt all be carrying knives too?

What's the betting the incidents of getting stones out of horses hooves and opening corked bottles will go through the roof.

Posted by: Bloggo Dec 2 2009, 08:50 AM

No it was mine and others fathers who gave their lives to keep to keep this Country free.

Posted by: Torchy Dec 2 2009, 11:26 AM

And what do you mean by "free"?

Posted by: Iommi Dec 2 2009, 12:23 PM

Free from tyranny, which is different from free to do, or say, as one wishes.

Posted by: alex Dec 2 2009, 02:58 PM

I always thought why our government do not stop issuing work visas and have seen a BBC programme which shows accepting the visa application for all of them whoever applies. I think it may be a better idea for the Uk embassy in their respective countries to keep strict filters accordingly and limit the flow at the first instance.