NationStates Jolt Archive

According to a poll (http://tf1.lci.fr/infos/monde/europe/0,,3455839,00-trop-immigres-pour-allemands-italiens-anglais-.html), a majority of British (67%), Italian (55%) and German (55%) people think there are too many legal immigrants in their country, but "only" 35% of Americans and 32% of French people share this view.

That's still a hell of a lot (a third of the population :(), but it's much less than in other countries. So much for the claim (which I've sometimes heard) that the French and Americans are more intolerant / xenophobic (on average) than the average in other Western countries.

And it seems we Frogs have something in common with Americans. ;)

This poll is still depressing, though. Goes to show how many uneducated, prejudiced and ignorant people there are out there.

According to a poll (http://tf1.lci.fr/infos/monde/europe/0,,3455839,00-trop-immigres-pour-allemands-italiens-anglais-.html), a majority of British (67%), Italian (55%) and German (55%) people think there are too many legal immigrants in their country, but "only" 35% of Americans and 32% of French people share this view.

That's still a hell of a lot (a third of the population :(), but it's much less than in other countries. So much for the claim (which I've sometimes heard) that the French and Americans are more intolerant / xenophobic (on average) than the average in other Western countries.

And it seems we Frogs have something in common with Americans. ;)

This poll is still depressing, though. Goes to show how many uneducated, prejudiced and ignorant people there are out there.

I assume it won't upset you that 80% of Americans think ILlegal immigrants are a Major Problem.

*mutters about job stealing Normans*

http://www.funpic.hu/files/pics/00027/00027413.jpg

This poll is still depressing, though. Goes to show how many uneducated, prejudiced and ignorant people there are out there. Have you ever thought that there may be a problem with immigrants? I’m pretty sure 65% of Brits and 55% of French and Germans would resent being called uneducated, prejudiced and ignorant. In fact most educated people in this country can see that immigration is out of control, it’s no longer just the knife-wheeling skin heads that want to send them packing.

*mutters about job stealing Normans*

http://www.funpic.hu/files/pics/00027/00027413.jpg

Not bad. ;)

I also saw one, years ago, with a white man ranting about the need to "send all illegal immigrants home". A Native American appears beside him and says: "I'll help you pack".


Have you ever thought that there may be a problem with immigrants?

My mother is an immigrant. She's a teacher (and a very good one, according to the Education Ministry and her superiors), who's written school books and made positive contributions to society. My best friend's father is the son of an immigrant and a surgeon, and saves people's lives. Another friend's father is an immigrant, who writes books which have received positive critical acclaim. The list goes on. Most of the people I know have at least one immigrant parent or grandparent, and all contribute to making our country a better place. So you'll pardon me if I'm not convinced when people go "Oh noes! Teh immigrant problem!"

Have you ever thought that there may be a problem with immigrants? I’m pretty sure 65% of Brits and 55% of French and Germans would resent being called uneducated, prejudiced and ignorant. In fact most educated people in this country can see that immigration is out of control, it’s no longer just the knife-wheeling skin heads that want to send them packing.

The funny thing about that is, Germany doesn't HAVE immigrants. It's impossible to immigrate to Germany. At least that's the official statement of the government.
Germany used to "import" workers from Itay, Spain and Turkey, and was seriously surprised when they didn't go back after a few years. These days, you can only come to Germany if you're either from an EU member state, have family with German nationality, or can claim German ancestry. Only the 3rd case gives you the right to apply for citizenship.

Have you ever thought that there may be a problem with immigrants?

And what problem would that be?

I’m pretty sure 65% of Brits and 55% of French and Germans would resent being called uneducated, prejudiced and ignorant.

I'm actually pretty sure that 65% of Brits and 55% of French and Germans are never going to read this thread, but I'm sure if you have a good spam system you can let them know how much you sympathize with their hurt feelings.

In fact most educated people in this country can see that immigration is out of control

Ad populous.

, it’s no longer just the knife-wheeling skin heads that want to send them packing.

Yeah, it's the knife-wielding skinheads, and people who don't have the brains, education or guts to stand up to them. Like you.

My best friend's father is the son of an immigrant and a surgeon, and saves people's lives. In the past, mainly after the war, Migration helped this country. Immigration from the commonwealth realms was encouraged after the war for a cheap labour source. The problem now is that we don’t need many of the immigrants, of cause we need some but not as many as we are getting.
The problem is British people, wither their white, black or Indian. Are losing their jobs to immigrants who are able to work on slave wages. This mainly applies to jobs that use manual labour.
My mother is an immigrant. She's a teacher (and a very good one, according to the Education Ministry and her superiors), who's written school books and made positive contributions to society. My best friend's father is the son of an immigrant and a surgeon, and saves people's lives. Another friend's father is an immigrant, who writes books which have received positive critical acclaim. The list goes on. Most of the people I know have at least one immigrant parent or grandparent, and all contribute to making our country a better place. So you'll pardon me if I'm not convinced when people go "Oh noes! Teh immigrant problem!" Why couldn’t they have done those things in there own country?


Yeah, it's the knife-wielding skinheads, and people who don't have the brains, education or guts to stand up to them. Like you. Stand up to them? You do that by voting for a party with good immigration policies, not by beating them up. Education? I have taken part in debates and studied both sides of the immigration argument, and I am yet to be convinced. And if you still think I have no brains I can send you a copy of my "achievement levels" which are all A-A*

According to a poll (http://tf1.lci.fr/infos/monde/europe/0,,3455839,00-trop-immigres-pour-allemands-italiens-anglais-.html), a majority of British (67%), Italian (55%) and German (55%) people think there are too many legal immigrants in their country, but "only" 35% of Americans and 32% of French people share this view.

That's still a hell of a lot (a third of the population :(), but it's much less than in other countries. So much for the claim (which I've sometimes heard) that the French and Americans are more intolerant / xenophobic (on average) than the average in other Western countries.

And it seems we Frogs have something in common with Americans. ;)

This poll is still depressing, though. Goes to show how many uneducated, prejudiced and ignorant people there are out there.
Well, considering many more Americans are immigrants than in Europe (yes?)you'd expect Americans to be more tolerant to immigrants, simply because most of them are so. Your standard American-born Caucasian (who's still an immigrant, as has been said) may not be so tolerant, I don't know.

Stand up to them? You do that by voting for a party with good immigration policies, not by beating them up.

...except it's the nazis who have what you would call "good immigration policies." They share your xenophobia and bigotry.

Education? I have taken part in debates and studied both sides of the immigration argument, and I am yet to be convinced. And if you still think I have no brains I can send you a copy of my "achievement levels" which are all A-A*

There's education and education.

The funny thing about that is, Germany doesn't HAVE immigrants. It's impossible to immigrate to Germany. At least that's the official statement of the government.
Germany used to "import" workers from Itay, Spain and Turkey, and was seriously surprised when they didn't go back after a few years. These days, you can only come to Germany if you're either from an EU member state, have family with German nationality, or can claim German ancestry. Only the 3rd case gives you the right to apply for citizenship.

1) I call bullshit. Germany has, like, the most non-natives of any European country ever.

2) That all means I could get into Germany pretty easily...

...except it's the Nazis who have what you would call "good immigration policies." They share your xenophobia and bigotry. I am trying to keep this a balanced and civilised argument, and you start straight away calling me a Nazi. Yet I'm the uneducated one? The Nazis went WAY overboard with their immigration policies (understatement of the century). All I would like to see is more control on who can come into our country from abroad. If they have useful skill's that are needed they can come in, and if they prove themselves in that skill they can stay. But, they can be sent back at a moments notice. Immigrants that are over 65 and have been working the country for more than 15 years can stay indefinably and get the same benefits then any other pensioner.

1) I call bullshit. Germany has, like, the most non-natives of any European country ever.

2) That all means I could get into Germany pretty easily...

Of course it does, most of them are from Eastern Europe (Russia, Ukraine, Poland, etc.) who claim that their ancestors left Germany centuries ago, which gives them the right to immediate citizenship.

Unfortunately, yes, you could get into Germany pretty easy. Those people speak about as much German as you, and have about as much understanding for the culture and country, you should fit right in.

I am trying to keep this a balanced and civilised argument, and you start straight away calling me a Nazi.

No I didn't.

Yet I'm the uneducated one? The Nazis went WAY overboard with their immigration policies (understatement of the century).

Not really. They wanted the immigrants gone. In fact, that's what all those leaky boatfulls of Jews and non-Germans was about. They were being sent "packing," as you yourself put it.

They only started the planned execution when all that became un-economical. And it is the economy you are concerned about too - them furreners "taking" "our" jobs. Similarly, economics was at the heart of the german reich.

All I would like to see is more control on who can come into our country from abroad. If they have useful skill's that are needed they can come in, and if they prove themselves in that skill they can stay. But, they can be sent back at a moments notice.

How humane. But you don't apply that same rigorous standard to non-immigrants. Oh no! You can stay, regardless if your only skill is ranting against immigrants on an online forum and bragging about your test scores. Usefulness is not the real factor for you - just where they happened to be born. What their nationality is. Whether they are "British" enough.

How humane. But you don't apply that same rigorous standard to non-immigrants. Oh no! You can stay, regardless if your only skill is ranting against immigrants on an online forum and bragging about your test scores. Usefulness is not the real factor for you - just where they happened to be born. What their nationality is. Whether they are "British" enough. I can stay because this is my county, just the same as a 2nd generation Black or Indian can stay because, whither I like it or not, this is their county now, there families have been here 50 years+. If I wanted to go and live abroad then my rules would suit me fine.

Yes, where they were born is a factor. Being born in France would make me a Frenchman, with French culture and ideas, not an Englishman. India is for Indians, France is for the French and Britain is for the British. And when people move, bringing with them their ideas and customs that clash with the native peoples it only brings trouble.

I can stay because this is my county, just the same as a 2nd generation Black or Indian can stay because, whither I like it or not, this is their county now, there families have been here 50 years+. If I wanted to go and live abroad then my rules would suit me fine.
How could they? If Britain is only for 'the British' then surely any other state must only be for their 'indigenous' population too. So, if I'm going to assume you're not a hypocryte, that means you would have to apply the same standards to yourself as you would apply to an immigrant to the UK. Which means that you, in your eyes, would have no right to move to another country, just like any immigrant wanting to come to Britain.

Yes, where they were born is a factor. Being born in France would make me a Frenchman, with French culture and ideas, not an Englishman. India is for Indians, France is for the French and Britain is for the British. And when people move, bringing with them their ideas and customs that clash with the native peoples it only brings trouble.
That's a load of bull. According to that logic, it would be impossible for anyone born in Britain to have a 'culture clash' with anybody else. Yet - we have a British born and bred terrorist in the form of Richard Reid, the 7/7 bombers, born in Britain, gangs of thugs targeting innocent immigrants (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/tm_headline=forced-out-by-race%2Dhate-mob%26method=full%26objectid=19201083%26siteid=89520-name_page.html), and terrorism and intolerance in Northern Ireland for many years.

Seems to me that being born in Britain doesn't have anything to with preventing 'clashes', and they aren't the fault of people moving.

I can stay because this is my county, just the same as a 2nd generation Black or Indian can stay because, whither I like it or not, this is their county now, there families have been here 50 years+. If I wanted to go and live abroad then my rules would suit me fine.

This "if their families have been here 50 years, they can stay because it's their country" rule is something you just made up, it has no weight as far as your anti-immigration argument goes.

Yes, where they were born is a factor. Being born in France would make me a Frenchman, with French culture and ideas, not an Englishman. India is for Indians, France is for the French and Britain is for the British. And when people move, bringing with them their ideas and customs that clash with the native peoples it only brings trouble.

A factor? According to you it is the only factor. "My" country. "Their" country. And everyone should just stay put. All in a nice little box, but a xenophobic and unrealistic one.

This "if their families have been here 50 years, they can stay because it's their country" rule is something you just made up, it has no weight as far as your anti-immigration argument goes. You are missing the point. Immigration that happened in the past is of no concern to me and is irrelevant. The immigrants that came in after the wars are now part of our society and I don’t want them sent back. I include those people to be British. What I see as the problem is new immigrants coming in the future.

How could they? If Britain is only for 'the British' then surely any other state must only be for their 'indigenous' population too. So, if I'm going to assume you're not a hypocryte, that means you would have to apply the same standards to yourself as you would apply to an immigrant to the UK. Which means that you, in your eyes, would have no right to move to another country, just like any immigrant wanting to come to Britain. Yes that’s right, I would expect myself to be treated the same if I went to a foreign country than an immigrant coming into Great Britain.

That's a load of bull. According to that logic, it would be impossible for anyone born in Britain to have a 'culture clash' with anybody else. Yet - we have a British born and bred terrorist in the form of Richard Reid, the 7/7 bombers, born in Britain, gangs of thugs targeting innocent immigrants, and terrorism and intolerance in Northern Ireland for many years.

Seems to me that being born in Britain doesn't have anything to with preventing 'clashes', and they aren't the fault of people moving. I have never said that you cannot have clashes within your own indigenous groups. And Richard Reid and the July 7th bombers were Islamic extremists, a religion brought to this country by immigrants. Once again culture brought over to this country by immigrants has caused trouble.

*mutters about job stealing Normans*

http://www.funpic.hu/files/pics/00027/00027413.jpg

When I finished that comic I "LOLed" in real life. You sir, win in this thread. Please choose your prize.

As for people who have issues with immigrants I agree that our immigration policy is out of control. I'm for replacement-level immigration, nothing more and nothing less. I'm also against illegal immigration 100%. I don't care how racist it sounds. We have "X" amount of natural resources in this country and "Y" amount of open land for use. Allowing more people than our country, resources, land and infrastructure can handle is completely ludacris and, in my personal opinion, anyone who champions legalization of illegals and anything more than replacement-level legal immigration is only out to make themselves feel good for doing a "good deed". Those types of policies and politics are detrimental to our nations health and my "pursuit of happiness". So please excuse me for being selfish.

You are missing the point. Immigration that happened in the past is of no concern to me and is irrelevant. The immigrants that came in after the wars are now part of our society and I don’t want them sent back. I include those people to be British. What I see as the problem is new immigrants coming in the future.

So are you saying that immigrants only started becoming a problem essentially as soon as you typed this post?

According to a poll (http://tf1.lci.fr/infos/monde/europe/0,,3455839,00-trop-immigres-pour-allemands-italiens-anglais-.html), a majority of British (67%), Italian (55%) and German (55%) people think there are too many legal immigrants in their country, but "only" 35% of Americans and 32% of French people share this view.That may have to do with the different numbers of legal immigrants in these countries, may it not?

And it seems we Frogs have something in common with Americans. ;)

We both were revolting.... ;)

Snip-ity-snip...

So, basically, you're saying that the random chance of where you are born in the world should determine where you can live and work during your life, and that there is some sort of mystical line of passage that immigrant families pass to become worthy of living in Great Britain?

You make no sense...
Meh, probably just trying to overcome your own personal insecurities by attaching yourself to a larger concept of some glorious "British culture".
It's alright, we all do the same thing with something, be it religion or the football team you support or whatever.

So, basically, you're saying that the random chance of where you are born in the world should determine where you can live and work during your life, and that there is some sort of mystical line of passage that immigrant families pass to become worthy of living in Great Britain? Yes that is what I'm saying. But there is no mystical line of passage, they have to have a worthy skill. We don’t want a load of goat herders from the Himalayas who will serve no use what so ever.

So are you saying that immigrants only started becoming a problem essentially as soon as you typed this post? Don’t be so stupid. It has been a problem for some time now but we cannot do anything about that now. This is my plan for the future.

Have you ever thought that there may be a problem with immigrants? I’m pretty sure 65% of Brits and 55% of French and Germans would resent being called uneducated, prejudiced and ignorant. In fact most educated people in this country can see that immigration is out of control, it’s no longer just the knife-wheeling skin heads that want to send them packing.

Immigration into this Country isn't out of control. We also have one major factor that requires immigrants in this Country, we have a ageing population. Currently I believe the estimate is we have 4 to 1 young to old, but by 2050 that is expected to be 2 to 1 (please correct those numbers if you believe them inaccurate). This means we have too many old people who either can't work or will be claiming pensions or utilising health care. In order to pay for that we need people and the easiest way to do that is to bring in immigrants.

Goes to show how many uneducated, prejudiced and ignorant people there are out there.

Wow, so anyone who disagrees with you is undeducated, prejudiced and ignorant?

One issue with regards to the UK is one of finite space. The UK is an island...we really do have limited space. It is very noticeable when other nationalities come here.

One thing I do know about 'immigrants' is that while they work and play and pay taxes in the UK after a while many usually return to their nation of origin.

Personally I don't mind and quite enjoy living in a multi-cultural society.

*sighs*

I wonder where they did their tests in Britain, really.

In shitholes like Burnley, there's a lot of anti-immigrant feeling, just as there is in the very rich areas such as Kent and Buckinghamshire.

Most other places are pretty alright about immigration, really.

Well the Americans think everyone is illegal..

According to a poll (http://tf1.lci.fr/infos/monde/europe/0,,3455839,00-trop-immigres-pour-allemands-italiens-anglais-.html), a majority of British (67%), Italian (55%) and German (55%) people think there are too many legal immigrants in their country, but "only" 35% of Americans and 32% of French people share this view.

That's still a hell of a lot (a third of the population :(), but it's much less than in other countries. So much for the claim (which I've sometimes heard) that the French and Americans are more intolerant / xenophobic (on average) than the average in other Western countries.

And it seems we Frogs have something in common with Americans. ;)

This poll is still depressing, though. Goes to show how many uneducated, prejudiced and ignorant people there are out there.

whats up with your link...It looks like its in some kind of foreign language or something :p

That's still a hell of a lot (a third of the population :(), but it's much less than in other countries. So much for the claim (which I've sometimes heard) that the French and Americans are more intolerant / xenophobic (on average) than the average in other Western countries.

We still can be. You are only looking at one small aspect of this. Now do a poll asking if you think people are tolerant of other languages. Now other cultures. Now other religions.

Now ask them if they think all Muslims are evil.

I think at the very least your score for the US will plummet.

*mutters about job stealing Normans*

http://www.funpic.hu/files/pics/00027/00027413.jpg

lolz :D:D:p:p

Wow, so anyone who disagrees with you is undeducated, prejudiced and ignorant?

on immigration, pretty much yes. the anti-immigrant side literally has no argument other than random xenophobia.

Have you ever thought that there may be a problem with immigrants?

In the U.S. the problem isn't immigrants, it's illegal immigrants. I don't know how it is in the rest of Europe, but I understand both Spain and Italy are having a problem with illegal immigration.

The funny thing about that is, Germany doesn't HAVE immigrants. It's impossible to immigrate to Germany. At least that's the official statement of the government.
Germany used to "import" workers from Itay, Spain and Turkey, and was seriously surprised when they didn't go back after a few years. These days, you can only come to Germany if you're either from an EU member state, have family with German nationality, or can claim German ancestry. Only the 3rd case gives you the right to apply for citizenship.

Wow, and some people call the proposed immigration reform in the U.S. tough.

Look, imigration is always going to be an issue for several reason: Housing issues and if we have room for them; whether they should be accepted into our culture unconditionally, even though they don't want to give up some of there traditions, (for example, Muslims and that vail thingy they wear, and they claim that we are cutting them off?!)
The main question shouldn't how to stop more people getting in, it should be how to get rid of the ones here, if we do that, then new ones will stop coming because they'll realise how bad it is.

I'm also against illegal immigration 100%. I don't care how racist it sounds.

Don't apologize. It isn't racists to want to enforce the laws of your nation, nor is it racist to want people to come into your country legally. Your country has every right to establish and enforce its immigration laws. It also has the right to deport those who do not abide by those laws.

Immigration into this Country isn't out of control. We also have one major factor that requires immigrants in this Country, we have a ageing population. Currently I believe the estimate is we have 4 to 1 young to old, but by 2050 that is expected to be 2 to 1 (please correct those numbers if you believe them inaccurate). This means we have too many old people who either can't work or will be claiming pensions or utilising health care. In order to pay for that we need people and the easiest way to do that is to bring in immigrants. Try telling that to the people, people that DO exist and aren’t just some sort of "Xenophobe conspiracy" that have lost their jobs to the legal eastern European immigrants who will work for slave wage. We should at least be giving jobs to Englishmen/Scotsmen etc before our immigrant friends.

In the U.S. the problem isn't immigrants, it's illegal immigrants.

that's just something xenophobes say because they know enough to be ashamed of it. this is easily demonstrated by proposing that we change the law to retroactively grant everyone in the country citizenship, eliminate quotas and open up the border. if it was the illegality they were concerned with, they could have no objection to this change. but just the thought of it gets them foaming at the mouth.

HAHAHA imigrant friends, good one northnorthumberland. You don't have to have lost your job just to want people from this country, who have had to be here for there entire life, and haven't had an oppertunity to give something back to the country that taught them all they no. But no, people who have been smuggles here in the back of vans are getting all the work because they work for slave prices, anyone who says that imigration is good is probably gonna turn out as one of those people who will run these 'british sweat shops'

that's just something xenophobes say because they know enough to be ashamed of it. this is easily demonstrated by proposing that we change the law to retroactively grant everyone in the country citizenship, eliminate quotas and open up the border. if it was the illegality they were concerned with, they could have no objection to this change. but just the thought of it gets them foaming at the mouth. That’s because some people like their countries, their homes and their people. Many have died to protect those very things. Yet if that were to happen, boarders opened, quotas eliminated etc. 1st world countries would basically disintegrate as many millions of people from the 3rd world arrive. There would be not enough money for them all and all services would collapse from being over stretched, either that or leave the staving masses out on the street and give them nothing which would lead to violence and civil war. Image that happening to you own country for a minute.

Basically if we let 'useless' (unskilled) people in here, we would all end up in poverty because they would bring their problems here.

That’s because some people like their countries, their homes and their people. Many have died to protect those very things. Yet if that were to happen, boarders opened, quotas eliminated etc. 1st world countries would basically disintegrate as many millions of people from the 3rd world arrive. There would be not enough money for them all and all services would collapse from being over stretched, either that or leave the staving masses out on the street and give them nothing which would lead to violence and civil war. Image that happening to you own country for a minute.

of course, that ain't what actually happens. but when have facts ever gotten in the way of a good racist rant?

of course, that ain't what actually happens. but when have facts ever gotten in the way of a good racist rant? Alright then, you and your impractical political beliefs explain to me how letting a good proportion of the 3rd world into the UK, an already over populated county. Can benefit my country in any way AND how can they benefit the 3rd world countries themselves who would lose all useful people. Also, don’t you respect the fallen of whom have died to protect our country?

How can someone with 'soviet' in their name comment on racism? I can see where northnorthumberland is comming from. Say we take iran, full of terror and people trying to leave; and then we take England, a first world country, that is maybe on the worrying side of overcrowded. If we take England and open all its borders to anyone from Iran, we might aswell just add the two populations together, as a result of the 'hyper-growth' of our population, everything will be overwhelmed, there will be riots and the country will plummet; this will then spread to other countries, as more people flee the state of this country, and like a virus, it kills off the human race until there is few of us left to rebuild what it took the many several millenia to build. I ask you what you think would happen if we get rid of imigration quotas and other things stopping too many imigrants?

You are missing the point. Immigration that happened in the past is of no concern to me and is irrelevant. The immigrants that came in after the wars are now part of our society and I don’t want them sent back. I include those people to be British. What I see as the problem is new immigrants coming in the future.

So you are a total hypocrite.

Try telling that to the people, people that DO exist and aren’t just some sort of "Xenophobe conspiracy" that have lost their jobs to the legal eastern European immigrants who will work for slave wage. We should at least be giving jobs to Englishmen/Scotsmen etc before our immigrant friends.

Oh no, you lost your job. Cry me a fucking river. Capitalism is about competition. If you can't compete, that's too bad. But no, you want government to give you a job, protect "your" job, based purely on ethnicity.
You only prove everything despicable about the anti-immigrant crowd - you hate foreigners, you're paranoid, irrational... and in complete denial about your own bigotry.

Look, imigration is always going to be an issue for several reason: Housing issues and if we have room for them; whether they should be accepted into our culture unconditionally, even though they don't want to give up some of there traditions, (for example, Muslims and that vail thingy they wear, and they claim that we are cutting them off?!)

No one wants to give up their traditions to be "accepted" into your mythological concept of a national culture. Did Jewish immigrants to the US stop celebrating Jewish religions, stop wearing Jewish clothes and stop speaking in Hebrew? No. But you have a double standard now. Irish, Germans, Jews - they can all keep their traditions. BUT OHNOES the Muslims and Hispanics have to "Assimilate" into "our" culture!


The main question shouldn't how to stop more people getting in, it should be how to get rid of the ones here, if we do that, then new ones will stop coming because they'll realise how bad it is.

Oh, swell. Just make life tough for immigrants, then ship them off. You'll do well in the Fourth Reich. Fuck.

HAHAHA imigrant friends, good one northnorthumberland. You don't have to have lost your job just to want people from this country, who have had to be here for there entire life, and haven't had an oppertunity to give something back to the country that taught them all they no. But no, people who have been smuggles here in the back of vans are getting all the work because they work for slave prices, anyone who says that imigration is good is probably gonna turn out as one of those people who will run these 'british sweat shops'

Well, for someone like you - with no education, no skills, and a personality worthy of Frankenstein, I imagine you do think immigrants are getting "all the jobs."

Basically if we let 'useless' (unskilled) people in here, we would all end up in poverty because they would bring their problems here.

Brilliant economic argument. No, I mean it. Unskilled labor -> total economic collapse.

YOU are useless. YOU are unskilled. And unlike immigrants, you don't seem to be willing to even think for yourself. If you ask me, you don't DESERVE a job. Give me ten hardworking immigrants over one spoiled, whiny bigot ANY DAY.

Alright then, you and your impractical political beliefs explain to me how letting a good proportion of the 3rd world into the UK, an already over populated county. Can benefit my country in any way AND how can they benefit the 3rd world countries themselves who would lose all useful people. Also, don’t you respect the fallen of whom have died to protect our country?

Every time you throw in that last sentence, you invalidate the rest of your argument.

Every time you throw in that last sentence, you invalidate the rest of your argument.

The sad thing is, he expects it to be some sort of debate-winning quip. Like people who go "why do you hate our freedoms?" Apparently expecting the opponent to break down in tears, saying, "I don't know, but I do! I hate freedom *sniff*"

Look, imigration is always going to be an issue for several reason: Housing issues and if we have room for them; whether they should be accepted into our culture unconditionally, even though they don't want to give up some of there traditions, (for example, Muslims and that vail thingy they wear, and they claim that we are cutting them off?!)
The main question shouldn't how to stop more people getting in, it should be how to get rid of the ones here, if we do that, then new ones will stop coming because they'll realise how bad it is.
Why shouldn't people be allowed to follow their own customs and traditions in this country? This country is lucky enough to be a liberal democracy where people have freedom of religion, speech and expression. You, I'm sure, would be up in arms if you were told that you had to live someone else's way of life, religion and culture - so you should extend that freedom to others. Otherwise, our country just becomes another Burma or an Iran.

Kicking out immigrants is all well and good, but I just hope you don't ever need a doctor, someone to serve you in a café or your streets kept clean.

Try telling that to the people, people that DO exist and aren’t just some sort of "Xenophobe conspiracy" that have lost their jobs to the legal eastern European immigrants who will work for slave wage. We should at least be giving jobs to Englishmen/Scotsmen etc before our immigrant friends.
Most jobs filled by immigrants are jobs that either the 'indigenous' population won't do, or don't have the skills for.

HAHAHA imigrant friends, good one northnorthumberland. You don't have to have lost your job just to want people from this country, who have had to be here for there entire life, and haven't had an oppertunity to give something back to the country that taught them all they no. But no, people who have been smuggles here in the back of vans are getting all the work because they work for slave prices, anyone who says that imigration is good is probably gonna turn out as one of those people who will run these 'british sweat shops'
I'm going to ask Free Soviets: does this post deserve the dignity of a response or not?

That’s because some people like their countries, their homes and their people. Many have died to protect those very things. Yet if that were to happen, boarders opened, quotas eliminated etc. 1st world countries would basically disintegrate as many millions of people from the 3rd world arrive. There would be not enough money for them all and all services would collapse from being over stretched, either that or leave the staving masses out on the street and give them nothing which would lead to violence and civil war. Image that happening to you own country for a minute.
And here comes a straw man!

Basically if we let 'useless' (unskilled) people in here, we would all end up in poverty because they would bring their problems here.
So, were my great-grandparents, who fled anti-Semitism in Russia, just 'bringing their problems here'?

of course, that ain't what actually happens. but when have facts ever gotten in the way of a good racist rant?
Always, unfortunately.

YOU are useless. YOU are unskilled. And unlike immigrants, you don't seem to be willing to even think for yourself. If you ask me, you don't DESERVE a job. Give me ten hardworking immigrants over one spoiled, whiny bigot ANY DAY. And you've know me personally for how long, I mean honestly, I bet You're not properly even Half English. Why don't you go and destroy a factory or tube station, you F**king Hippy!!

And you've know me personally for how long, I mean honestly, I bet You're not properly even Half English. Why don't you go and destroy a factory or tube station, you F**king Hippy!!

Actually I'd rather finish up my degree in accounting and start my own business. Incidentally, immigrants in the US are more likely to start their own businesses than any other group. What this means is that, far from "taking your job," they are *creating* jobs and adding significantly to the economic well-being of the nation.

But don't let facts get in the way of some racist rant about "half English."

So, were my great-grandparents, who fled anti-Semitism in Russia, just 'bringing their problems here'? Are you calling your grandparents useless or unskilled? Because I'm sure that they would love that. Also, are you Jewish, because Anti-semetic means that they are hunted for being jewish.

Alright then, you and your impractical political beliefs explain to me how letting a good proportion of the 3rd world into the UK, an already over populated county. Can benefit my country in any way AND how can they benefit the 3rd world countries themselves who would lose all useful people. Also, don’t you respect the fallen of whom have died to protect our country?

immigration causes economic benefits and rising wages. thems just the facts. and then immigrants send remittances home, which are more directly helpful and numerically larger than international aid.

your last line is fucking stupid.

Incidentally, immigrants in the US are more likely to start their own businesses than any other group. What this means is that, far from "taking your job," they are *creating* jobs and adding significantly to the economic well-being of the nation. Or they just can't get there own jobs, and as a result, start a business, which will may fail, thus bring down all the statistics for the country. And FYI, if never lost a job to an immigrant.

How can someone with 'soviet' in their name comment on racism? I can see where northnorthumberland is comming from.
Because he, unlike yourself, bases his posts on rational, intelligent debate. You base yours on irrational xenophobia and populist slogans. That's why.

In any case, your name has Evil in it. That means you're evil. Go away, evil, I shall smite you!

Works both ways, doesn't it?

Say we take iran, full of terror and people trying to leave; and then we take England, a first world country, that is maybe on the worrying side of overcrowded.
Oh, Lord, where do I begin? Iran isn't full of terror, hence the absence of suicide bombings on the streets of Tehran, and there's no such country as England. And it's not on the 'worryingly side of overcrowded' either.

If we take England and open all its borders to anyone from Iran, we might aswell just add the two populations together, as a result of the 'hyper-growth' of our population, everything will be overwhelmed, there will be riots and the country will plummet; this will then spread to other countries, as more people flee the state of this country, and like a virus, it kills off the human race until there is few of us left to rebuild what it took the many several millenia to build. I ask you what you think would happen if we get rid of imigration quotas and other things stopping too many imigrants?
I suggest you look up 1)a good deal of history, because it's clear you don't know that the UK is 300 years old, not 'milennia', and the definition of the 'slippery slope' and 'straw man' fallacies.

And, I'll give you something to get rid of that nasty ol' assumption that all refugees go to the UK:
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/practice/basics/facts.htm#factthree

Every time you throw in that last sentence, you invalidate the rest of your argument. May I ask why?

Greater Trostia. Why do you feel it right to destroy our argument with irrational insults. If you cannot respond to other people views in any other way then you are being completely hypocritical. I may not agree with you or many other things, but I am yet to start spouting of insults at everybody who disagrees with me. You just want me to start acting like yourself so you will have more "ammunition" to throw at me.

If you are truly the tolerant person you claim to be you would partake in a sensible and civilized debate rather than start throwing insults about.
immigration causes economic benefits and rising wages. thems just the facts. and then immigrants send remittances home, which are more directly helpful and numerically larger than international aid.

your last line is fucking stupid.

Of course a few killed immigrants coming into the country is a good thing, but millions of un-skilled one's? Where is your argument for that? And if my last line is so stupid why don’t you answer it?

Evil Beards: you are sort of discrediting my whole argument here.

Or they just can't get there own jobs, and as a result, start a business, which will may fail, thus bring down all the statistics for the country.

No one starts a business because "they just can't their own job."

And yes, a business may fail. But even that helps the nation. It adds wealth, to creditors and financiers if no one else. It provides management expertise and market data. But no, according to you, immigrants just take "their" problems here and are A Bad Thing.

And FYI, if never lost a job to an immigrant.

So what the hell are you complaining about?

Are you calling your grandparents useless or unskilled? Because I'm sure that they would love that. Also, are you Jewish, because Anti-semetic means that they are hunted for being jewish.
Way to dodge the point. But since this is all irrelevant and I would like some general banter, I'll humour you. No, I'm not Jewish, because the definition of a Jew (ethnically) is, I believe, someone born of a Jewish mother, and my Jewish relatives come from my mother's paternal side. I believe they were unskilled, as many in Russia were.

If you want to answer my point, it was that refugees don't 'bring their problems here'. Mine didn't.

Greater Trostia. Why do you feel it right to destroy our argument with irrational insults. If you cannot respond to other people views in any other way then you are being completely hypocritical. I may not agree with you or many other things, but I am yet to start spouting of insults at everybody who disagrees with me. You just want me to start acting like yourself so you will have more "ammunition" to throw at me.


There's nothing irrational about my insults.

If you are truly the tolerant person you claim to be you would partake in a sensible and civilized debate rather than start throwing insults about.

When did I claim to be tolerant? I'm tolerant of immigrants, I don't discriminate against them, generalize, stereotype, advocate fascist measures like deportation and garrison states, I don't make up nonsense about how they "bring their problems" here or how they "take our jobs." That doesn't mean I'm a nice guy who never has a bad word to say about opponents online.

Look here Newer Burmecia, Firstly you steal a name from Final Fantasy 9. Secondly you should really read fucking history, the US is 300 years old, idiot, not the UK, second, England is a country, I should know, I live here. And you claim to base your arguments on rational facts. You are such a hypocrit. Also, you can drop the high and mighty act, and drag yourself back down to the real world, because here's the inside scoop, they do bring there problems here, they come here to escape fighting, and just start fights with people who escaped here from the same war, but from the other side, thus wasting our police resources.

Look here Newer Burmecia, Firstly you steal a name from Final Fantasy 9.
Boo hoo hoo! *Snivels*

Secondly you should really read fucking history, the US is 300 years old, idiot, not the UK,
I'll try and do this in words of less than one syllable.

UK, founded by the Act of Union 1707
This year: 2007

2007 subtract 1707 is...300!

Interestingly, there is one technical flaw in this argument, although it's generally overlooked by historians, and seen as invalid. I wonder if you know what it is.

second, England is a country, I should know, I live here.
So do I. If England is a country, then who is its Head of State and Head of Government? P.S. if you say Elizabeth II and Tony Blair, you'll fail.

And you claim to base your arguments on rational facts. You are such a hypocrit
Considering you can't even work out the age of your own country, as compared to the descendant of evil immigrants, I don't worry about what you think about my facts.

Also, you can drop the high and mighty act, and drag yourself back down to the real world, because here's the inside scoop, they do bring there problems here, they come here to escape fighting, and just start fights with people who escaped here from the same war, but from the other side, thus wasting our police resources.
I want a source verifying that what you're saying is correct in a large majority of cases of people fleeing persecution.

I'll start my counter-argument now.
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/practice/basics/facts.htm#factfive

I'm going to ask Free Soviets: does this post deserve the dignity of a response or not?

it's getting increasingly difficult to justify doing so

also, anyone else getting the feeling that these two low postcount nations that just so happened to be created at approximately the same time, and just so happen to be from the same general place, and just so happen to both be spouting the same bnp nonsense, might not be so distinct at all?

Look here, the union of the crowns happened in 1603, following the death of queen Elizabeth the first, and the Coming of King James the fifth of scotland, the first of England. However during the 17th century, there was both the first and second civil wars, which resulted in Oliver Cromwell becoming the lord protector of England. Also, England's head of State is queen Elizabeth the second. And if it's someone else, can you please inform me of who, so i can alert the rest of my country to it and therefore expose the imposter we have on our thrown?

[QUOTE=Newer Burmecia;12698346]I want a source verifying that what you're saying is correct in a large majority of cases of people fleeing persecution.[QUOTE] I never said a large majority of cases. And a refugee website is never going to provide a two sided opionion surely.

it's getting increasingly difficult to justify doing so
I don't know whether knowing people think like this is more depressing, or whether ripping them to shreds is more enjoyable.

also, anyone else getting the feeling that these two low postcount nations that just so happened to be created at approximately the same time, and just so happen to be from the same general place, and just so happen to both be spouting the same bnp nonsense, might not be so distinct at all?
Yes.

Well done there nancy drew, you worked tell the date and have a limited knowledge of geography, i mean do you think that we all live in one big town up here, and everyone knows each other, i fairly willing to bet that loads of people joined on that date, or did we break the rules by joining up on the same day, I'm so sorry if i hurt your feelings by doing this, but honestly, if you can't take it, you shouldn't talk on this forum, someone might insult you, and you may need a little cry. F**king pansy.

also, anyone else getting the feeling that these two low postcount nations that just so happened to be created at approximately the same time, and just so happen to be from the same general place, and just so happen to both be spouting the same bnp nonsense, might not be so distinct at all? We did create our nations at the same time as I introduced him to it, and we both live in the same area, the same village in fact. He is called Jamie and lives in the Meadows (by the fire station) and my name is Guy and I live on the other side of the village by the Pub and the Hotel. I introduced him to the forums. We go to school together.

Look here, the union of the crowns happened in 1603, following the death of queen Elizabeth the first, and the Coming of King James the fifth of scotland, the first of England.
But England and Scotland remained two different countries.

So the UK wasn't formed buy the Union of the Crowns.

However during the 17th century, there was both the first and second civil wars, which resulted in Oliver Cromwell becoming the lord protector of England.
And the UK is no longer a Commonwealth with a Lord Protector as a Head of State and Government. It collapsed into the separate Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland.

So the UK wasn't formed by the English Civil War.

Also, England's head of State is queen Elizabeth the second.
I told you you'd fail, so why bother? Elizabeth II is the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And the UK and England are not synonymous.

And if it's someone else, can you please inform me of who, so i can alert the rest of my country to it and therefore expose the imposter we have on our thrown?
England does not have a Head of State, because it isn't a country.

[QUOTE=Newer Burmecia;12698346]I want a source verifying that what you're saying is correct in a large majority of cases of people fleeing persecution.[QUOTE] I never said a large majority of cases. And a refugee website is never going to provide a two sided opionion surely.
For starters, the onus of proving your claim - which you made first - that asylum seekers bring their troubles to the UK, is on you. The website I provided is well sourced with both government and police statistics. It is those sources and statistics which you have to prove is biased to weaken my argument, not the Refugee Council website.

Well done there nancy drew, you worked tell the date and have a limited knowledge of geography, i mean do you think that we all live in one big town up here, and everyone knows each other, i fairly willing to bet that loads of people joined on that date, or did we break the rules by joining up on the same day, I'm so sorry if i hurt your feelings by doing this, but honestly, if you can't take it, you shouldn't talk on this forum, someone might insult you, and you may need a little cry. F**king pansy.
Here's a hint: flaming doesn't strengthen your argument, whatever it may be.

Considering you can't even work out the age of your own country, as compared to the descendant of evil immigrants, I don't worry about what you think about my facts.
To nitpick, are you saying England == UK? I'm pretty sure that's wrong...

To nitpick, are you saying England == UK? I'm pretty sure that's wrong...
I'm arguing that England =/= UK.;)

that's just something xenophobes say because they know enough to be ashamed of it. this is easily demonstrated by proposing that we change the law to retroactively grant everyone in the country citizenship, eliminate quotas and open up the border. if it was the illegality they were concerned with, they could have no objection to this change. but just the thought of it gets them foaming at the mouth.

Doing that only rewards illegal behavior and penalizes those who are waiting in line to come in legally. A person who is against illegal immigration is not a xenophobe although a person who is against all immigration probably is one.

of course, that ain't what actually happens. but when have facts ever gotten in the way of a good racist rant?

Is he a racist or a realist? Some of the points he brings up are open to debate, so debate the issue. But...I guess it's easier to go with a personal attack than to debate the idea. :(

According to a poll (http://tf1.lci.fr/infos/monde/europe/0,,3455839,00-trop-immigres-pour-allemands-italiens-anglais-.html), a majority of British (67%), Italian (55%) and German (55%) people think there are too many legal immigrants in their country, but "only" 35% of Americans and 32% of French people share this view.

That's still a hell of a lot (a third of the population :(), but it's much less than in other countries. So much for the claim (which I've sometimes heard) that the French and Americans are more intolerant / xenophobic (on average) than the average in other Western countries.

And it seems we Frogs have something in common with Americans. ;)

This poll is still depressing, though. Goes to show how many uneducated, prejudiced and ignorant people there are out there.

Bit of a logical disconnect there. The two thoughts may have a correlation, but they are not the same thing.

It's like how some polls ask the question "Jews stick together more than other ethnicities. Yes/No?"

Some people answer yes because they think that cohesiveness and a respect for tradition are a good thing in Jewish culture. Some people answer yes because they think that Jews are involved in an evil conspiracy to control the world. But people will still use that question to show that whatever percentage of the population answers yes is anti-semitic.

Doing that only rewards illegal behavior and penalizes those who are waiting in line to come in legally. A person who is against illegal immigration is not a xenophobe although a person who is against all immigration probably is one.

Yeah. Doing things right only punishes those who had to endure us doing it wrong. It would be like if we came up with a cure for cancer tomorrow. Would that be fair to all the people who died of cancer today? Of course not. So it's better that we don't cure cancer. Or fix our immigration policy.

Actually I'd rather finish up my degree in accounting and start my own business. Incidentally, immigrants in the US are more likely to start their own businesses than any other group. What this means is that, far from "taking your job," they are *creating* jobs and adding significantly to the economic well-being of the nation.

But don't let facts get in the way of some racist rant about "half English."

Immigrants may be more likely to start their own business may be true, but what % of them do and how many people are usually employed by them?

Yeah. Doing things right only punishes those who had to endure us doing it wrong. It would be like if we came up with a cure for cancer tomorrow. Would that be fair to all the people who died of cancer today? Of course not. So it's better that we don't cure cancer. Or fix our immigration policy.

You can not compare cancer and immigration, it doesn't even make sense to try.

Immigrants may be more likely to start their own business may be true, but what % of them do and how many people are usually employed by them?

A study by Wadhwa, an executive in residence at Duke University's Pratt School of Engineering, and a team of researchers found that one in four technology and engineering companies founded in the U.S. between 1995 and 2005 had at least one founder who was foreign-born.

Nationwide, immigrant-founded companies generated $52 billion in sales in 2005 and employed 450,000 people.

In every decennial census from 1880 to 1990, immigrants are more likely to be self-employed than natives.

A study by Wadhwa, an executive in residence at Duke University's Pratt School of Engineering, and a team of researchers found that one in four technology and engineering companies founded in the U.S. between 1995 and 2005 had at least one founder who was foreign-born.

Nationwide, immigrant-founded companies generated $52 billion in sales in 2005 and employed 450,000 people.

In every decennial census from 1880 to 1990, immigrants are more likely to be self-employed than natives.

Good. Now what are the statistics for illegal immigrants as opposed to legal immigrants?

I live in Canada, where every single person, except First Nations people, come from immigrants. My mom came to this country in 1962 and has been a teacher for over 30 years. I couldn't imagine living in a country that wasn't this multi-cultural. If i moved to a country full of nothing but white people, it would be weird for me, and i am white.

What counts as a useful skill? Teaching, medicine, manual labor, art? I don't think every single person who tries to come into this country should, if someone has a criminal record, it would probably be better to keep them out, if they have a contagious disease they are not willing to get treatment for, we should probably keep them out. I think pretty much anyone else though is welcome. As long as they are going to contribute to society in some way, i don't really care why they come here.

I don't think only people fleeing oppression should be able to come here. If someone wants to move here just because they have always wanted to live here, or because there is some city in this country they love, they are welcome. If they want to move here for someone they love, they are welcome. If they are an artist or something and want to move here for the natural beauty, they are welcome.

Obviously every country only has limited space, some more limited than others. That doesn't mean though that the only people who should move somewhere else are those who have to. I live in the second largest country on earth, land-wise, but we only have 30 million people. We still have plenty of room.

As for assimilation, i do think that it's always better for people if they can try and learn the language of the country they move to, and naturally they probably will adopt some of the local customs. I would never expect anyone who moved here though to just drop all their own traditions. This is a country that offers freedom of religion, and expression and speech. People should never have to abandon their faith when they get here, they should never have to abandon speaking their local language at home, they should never have to abandon their culture.

I do think illegal immigration is different. If you are going to come into a country, you should do your best to do it legally. If someone does come in illegally though, i think we need to see what exactly they are running from, why they are so desparate to use illegal means to get here.

Try telling that to the people, people that DO exist and aren’t just some sort of "Xenophobe conspiracy" that have lost their jobs to the legal eastern European immigrants who will work for slave wage. Why do you think that these employers who pay these immigrants such low wages can get away with it? Is it perhaps because the employees are afraid to report the low wages for fear of deportation? If this is the case, then why would someone complaining about people working for low wages perpetuate the system that keeps the wages low? Wouldn't it make more sense to open the borders so the low wages can be reported and everyone can be brought up to at least the legal minimum wage? Why would you oppose something while supporting the thing that perpetuates what you oppose?

In every decennial census from 1880 to 1990, immigrants are more likely to be self-employed than natives. Only in America, any stats for Europe? Why do you think that these employers who pay these immigrants such low wages can get away with it? Is it perhaps because the employees are afraid to report the low wages for fear of deportation? If this is the case, then why would someone complaining about people working for low wages perpetuate the system that keeps the wages low? Wouldn't it make more sense to open the borders so the low wages can be reported and everyone can be brought up to at least the legal minimum wage? Why would you oppose something while supporting the thing that perpetuates what you oppose?
Native Brits very rarely work for the minimum wage, as it is a pitiful wage and they cannot afford to. Now if, hypothetically, the boarders were opened and immigrants of all shape and colour came to work. Then the problem is only likely to get worse because with such a glut in the workforce employers could threaten there workers with a sacking if they complained about their low wages as they could easily employ many of the unemployed for slave wages.

Why do you think that these employers who pay these immigrants such low wages can get away with it? Is it perhaps because the employees are afraid to report the low wages for fear of deportation? No. Its because that back home what is seen as slave wages in this country can be seen as an excellent wage in a country like Bulgaria when a mansion style house can be bought for as little as £30,000. Whereas it would cost over £1,000,000 in this country for the same thing.

Good. Now what are the statistics for illegal immigrants as opposed to legal immigrants?

Soon as you cite the appreciable difference that relates to the point.

Native Brits very rarely work for the minimum wage, as it is a pitiful wage and they cannot afford to. Now if, hypothetically, the boarders were opened and immigrants of all shape and colour came to work. If the minimum wage is so low, then why do Brits accept it as the minimum wage?

Then the problem is only likely to get worse because with such a glut in the workforce employers could threaten there workers with a sacking if they complained about their low wages as they could easily employ many of the unemployed for slave wages.This could only happen if immigrants are only taking jobs and not creating all that many.

No. Its because that back home what is seen as slave wages in this country can be seen as an excellent wage in a country like Bulgaria when a mansion style house can be bought for as little as £30,000. Whereas it would cost over £1,000,000 in this country for the same thing.Yes, but this isn't a problem unless the wages that they're being paid in Britain are illegally low.

The funny thing about that is, Germany doesn't HAVE immigrants. It's impossible to immigrate to Germany. At least that's the official statement of the government.
Germany used to "import" workers from Itay, Spain and Turkey, and was seriously surprised when they didn't go back after a few years. These days, you can only come to Germany if you're either from an EU member state, have family with German nationality, or can claim German ancestry. Only the 3rd case gives you the right to apply for citizenship.

It's cool, because germans lecture the rest of the world about 'tolerance'.

If the minimum wage is so low, then why to Brits accept it as the minimum wage? Because it is the bare-minimum. It is possible to live but not all that well.

This could only happen if immigrants are only taking jobs and not creating all that many. What jobs would these be?

Yes, but this isn't a problem unless the wages that they're being paid in Britain are illegally low. They are illegally low, but the poles don’t complain for the very reason I have just given.

Because it is the bare-minimum. It is possible to live but not all that well.Well, even if this is the case, the workers can always unionize and get higher wages that way.

What jobs would these be?If they start a business, whichever jobs their employees do.

They are illegally low, but the poles don’t complain for the very reason I have just given.It wouldn't matter if the money they're being paid is good money by Bulgarian standards; they're living in England and have to pay the higher cost of living,

What jobs would these be?

does the addition of more people not require the production of more goods and services where you are from? or are you now providing for all of that with robots?

Doing that only rewards illegal behavior and penalizes those who are waiting in line to come in legally.

no, it rewards legal behavior and punishes no one, what with becoming the law and all.

your point amounts to saying we should never decriminalize anything, ever. or even change the rules at all. and that's just silly.

Well, even if this is the case, the workers can always unionize and get higher wages that way. People are happy with the minimum wage because most people aren’t on it, and see no need for change.

If they start a business, whichever jobs their employees do. If they already had the money to start a Business in Britain then wouldn’t need to be here.

It wouldn't matter if the money they're being paid is good money by Bulgarian standards; they're living in England and have to pay the higher cost of living, You think they would be living at the same standard of living as their English counterparts? Not the case. Many live in low rent, low quality housing, caravans or free hostel type accommodation given to them by there employers. Many of them send their money back home to their families.

People are happy with the minimum wage because most people aren’t on it, and see no need for change.But if what you say would happen would come true, people would be accepting the minimum wage, and more people would be on it, thus facilitating the need for change.

If they already had the money to start a Business in Britain then wouldn’t need to be here.This assumes that it's equally easy to get a loan in their home countries and that the business would do equally well.

You think they would be living at the same standard of living as their English counterparts? Not the case. Many live in low rent, low quality housing, caravans or free hostel type accommodation given to them by there employers. Many of them send their money back home to their families.If they were working for slave wages, as you say, they wouldn't have any money to send back to their families.

Only in America, any stats for Europe?

Not offhand, no.

But you know, what with Europe being mostly socialist, business doesn't quite thrive as well there as the US anyway.

Good. Now what are the statistics for illegal immigrants as opposed to legal immigrants?

Irrelevant.

I still don't understand why a person should only move to another country if they need to. I'm sure most people who move from Canada to the United States, and vice versa, don't need to. Does that mean they shouldn't? Why can't people move to another country just because they want to, as long as they contribute?

I can stay because this is my county, just the same as a 2nd generation Black or Indian can stay because, whither I like it or not, this is their county now, there families have been here 50 years+. If I wanted to go and live abroad then my rules would suit me fine.

Yes, where they were born is a factor. Being born in France would make me a Frenchman, with French culture and ideas, not an Englishman. India is for Indians, France is for the French and Britain is for the British. And when people move, bringing with them their ideas and customs that clash with the native peoples it only brings trouble.

Is that how it is, or a normative theory of yours?

*mutters about job stealing Normans*

http://www.funpic.hu/files/pics/00027/00027413.jpg

lol

That’s because some people like their countries, their homes and their people. Many have died to protect those very things. Yet if that were to happen, boarders opened, quotas eliminated etc. 1st world countries would basically disintegrate as many millions of people from the 3rd world arrive. There would be not enough money for them all and all services would collapse from being over stretched, either that or leave the staving masses out on the street and give them nothing which would lead to violence and civil war. Image that happening to you own country for a minute.

That's soo not true....The way the United States became populated, especially during the early 1800s was by completely opening up their borders for all to migrate. Granted, at that time communications and transportation were'nt good so mostly Europeans came, but the Europeans came in the millions, and quickly integrated into the society, and created new sub-cultures even <Utah, for example>. 1st world countries wouldn't disintegrate because wages would rise in third-world countries to make it possible for people with a job in the home country be able to have the exact same standard of living as one in the same profession in a job in the 1st world country, if loads of people in the same profession were leaving for the 1st world. So after a while, the 3rd-world country wouldnt have so many people leaving, which would mean no more immigrants.

The problem with legal immigration is more the lack of feedback loops and psychological biases. People from say Zambia looking to immigrate to Britain tend to subconsciously filter out negative info about Britain. The British tourism and Immigration agencies probably dont tell immigrants about the real problems they will face when they get to Britain. Hence, you have these Zambian immigrants who get to Britain, don't like it, can't leave because they're too poor to, and who are telling other Zambians not to immigrate to Britain, but because these Zambians think Britain is a good place, they'll still immigrate there.

So really, if you want to discourage immigration to the 1st world, do it via realistic information to people seeking to immigrate there.

Allow me, for the sake of reason, sanity, and preventing the impending swarm of ad hominems, to point out Godwin's law.

"As a thread grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress."

Lets try not to equate someone's philosophy or worldview with the arguably worst evil to have ever walked the Earth, shall we? It isn't very polite.

Seems the thread now may have drifted away from the Nazis, but for a while there was a Nazi moment.

I've heard that the Brits are tollerant but they aren't accepting.

Allow me, for the sake of reason, sanity, and preventing the impending swarm of ad hominems, to point out Godwin's law.

"As a thread grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress."

That is not part of Godwin's Law, and makes no logical sense either. I refute your claim and make comparisons to nazis - and anything else, even apples and oranges! - as my whimsy pleases!

Lets try not to equate someone's philosophy or worldview with the arguably worst evil to have ever walked the Earth, shall we? It isn't very polite.

I was comparing a policy of deporting all non-nationalities, with the exact same policy. Maybe if you want fewer nazi comparisons, get certain bigots on this forum to quit advocating nazi policies.

I was comparing a policy of deporting all non-nationalities, with the exact same policy. Maybe if you want fewer nazi comparisons, get certain bigots on this forum to quit advocating nazi policies.

my absolute favorite was when vox day of wingnut daily (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114773136464356381) actually came out and said (of bush calling mass roundups impractical if not impossible):

And he will be lying, again, just as he lied when he said: “Massive deportation of the people here is unrealistic – it’s just not going to work.”

Not only will it work, but one can easily estimate how long it would take. If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn’t possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don’t speak English and are not integrated into American society.

Strange, the two most tolerant nations can't tolerate each other.

Oh no, you lost your job. Cry me a fucking river. Capitalism is about competition. If you can't compete, that's too bad. But no, you want government to give you a job, protect "your" job, based purely on ethnicity.
If someone loses their job due to immigration policy you can hardly expect them to be the most enthusiastic supporter for it. People can't be expected to support a system which is driving their wages down rock bottom. As for capitalism, I don't see why it's something so sacred. If an aspect of capitalism is detrimental to the lives of ordinary people then it should be challenged. A government should serve the people, not just big business.

I've heard that the Brits are tollerant but they aren't accepting.

I heard that they do hate. A study released indicated that the most hated nation was France followed by Germany...

And the same study concluded that they love Italy!

(It was on TV 6 months ago or something, so I have no linky. 'm sry)

I think I shall put this here too:

According to the Bible, (Exodus 22: 21, or perhaps 22: 20) it says not to oppress immigrants.*Grabs popcorn and sits down*

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;12699705']If someone loses their job due to immigration policy you can hardly expect them to be the most enthusiastic supporter for it.

No one loses their job due to "immigration policy." And frankly, I don't have sympathy for people losing their jobs. It happens all the time. You don't own your job.

As for capitalism, I don't see why it's something so sacred. If an aspect of capitalism is detrimental to the lives of ordinary people then it should be challenged.

An aspect of anything can be detrimental in that way. But capitalism isn't sacred, it just works. That is why the immigrants come here in the first place.

A government should serve the people, not just big business.

America IS business. 25 million businesses in the US, and most everyone is employed by a business (whether "big" or not) and everyone benefits when business is healthy. For example if you get fired from a job, you can get another because it's not like there's only one job. But, there is when you have too much government overregulation in a silly attempt to save people from the harsh realities of economics.

You can not compare cancer and immigration, it doesn't even make sense to try.

I'm not comparing cancer and immigration. I'm pointing out the stupidity of the "logic" whereby people argue that we shouldn't do things right from now on because it would be unfair to the people who are wronged by the way we do things now.

That's soo not true....The way the United States became populated, especially during the early 1800s was by completely opening up their borders for all to migrate. Granted, at that time communications and transportation were'nt good so mostly Europeans came, but the Europeans came in the millions, and quickly integrated into the society, and created new sub-cultures even <Utah, for example>. 1st world countries wouldn't disintegrate because wages would rise in third-world countries to make it possible for people with a job in the home country be able to have the exact same standard of living as one in the same profession in a job in the 1st world country, if loads of people in the same profession were leaving for the 1st world. So after a while, the 3rd-world country wouldnt have so many people leaving, which would mean no more immigrants. But the USA was basically an empty wilderness waiting to be developed. The 1st world nowadays is already developed and doesn’t need all the immigrants to get things going.

that's just something xenophobes say because they know enough to be ashamed of it. this is easily demonstrated by proposing that we change the law to retroactively grant everyone in the country citizenship, eliminate quotas and open up the border. if it was the illegality they were concerned with, they could have no objection to this change. but just the thought of it gets them foaming at the mouth.

No, they don't like it because it's bullshit. You can't just change the law because you don't like it.

Hey, I got an idea! Let's make everything legal! Then there'll be no crime!

Bet you're not so keen on that one, huh?

But the USA was basically an empty wilderness waiting to be developed.

except for all them injuns...

The 1st world nowadays is already developed and doesn’t need all the immigrants to get things going.

but, immigrants are an essentially unmitigated good thing, socially and economically, for the current inhabitants. and it is horrifically unjust to restrict freedom of movement and offer some people advantages purely on the basis of arbitrary lines behind which they were born.

Seriously? Who are people kidding? I don't understand what the hell is wrong with people who like to pretend that immigration does not cause any problem, such a stupidly naive thing to believe. Almost as naive is believing that peopel who are against immigration are racist and biggoted.

No, they don't like it because it's bullshit. You can't just change the law because you don't like it.

sure you can. it's done all the time.

so how exactly is it bullshit? remember, the basic premise is "illegal immigration bad because it is illegal, while legal immigration is good. so how can one object to making all immigration legal immigration?

Hey, I got an idea! Let's make everything legal! Then there'll be no crime!

Bet you're not so keen on that one, huh?

no, but then again, i have never claimed that what is wrong with murder is that it is illegal. so i have a solid place to stand in an argument against legalizing it.

Seriously? Who are people kidding? I don't understand what the hell is wrong with people who like to pretend that immigration does not cause any problem, such a stupidly naive thing to believe. Almost as naive is believing that peopel who are against immigration are racist and biggoted.

i only have data for usia, but in that case all the data says that immigration creates jobs, raises wages, and lowers crime. and the anti-immigration side doesn't have a single even halfway plausible argument, but seems to hang out with known nazis kinda frequently. fuck, lou dobbs cites white supremacist propaganda on cnn to justify his racist rants.

i only have data for usia, but in that case all the data says that immigration creates jobs, raises wages, and lowers crime.

Can I see this data? Especially for the last one, how could immigration possibly have any affect on lowering crime? That just sounds like another colleration =/= causation flaws.

Can I see this data? Especially for the last one, how could immigration possibly have any affect on lowering crime? That just sounds like another colleration =/= causation flaws.

http://www.ailf.org/ipc/special_report/sr_022107.pdf for the last one. more later.

Seriously? Who are people kidding? I don't understand what the hell is wrong with people who like to pretend that immigration does not cause any problem, such a stupidly naive thing to believe. Almost as naive is believing that peopel who are against immigration are racist and biggoted.

In my experience, most people who want to restrict immigration, especially in Europe, are afraid of the cultures and religions that immigrants bring, more so even than the jobs they might take (although legal immigrants have the same minimum wage as everyone else. I felt like that should be pointed out). So yes, they are racist and bigoted, and then they think up arguments to make them seem otherwise. You know the biggest reason for not letting Turkey into the EU? It's Muslim. Europeans don't want to allow all those CRAAAAAZY Muslim people to wander into their countries and convert their children. Which, while understandable, is still somewhat bigoted.

You know the biggest reason for not letting Turkey into the EU? It's Muslim. Europeans don't want to allow all those CRAAAAAZY Muslim people to wander into their countries and convert their children. Which, while understandable, is still somewhat bigoted.

Also, they're not actually PART OF EUROPE. They're as much European as France is South American.

Also, they're not actually PART OF EUROPE. They're as much European as France is South American.Ahem... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Thrace

Ahem... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Thrace

Yes, three kilometers. We don't care.

Yes, three kilometers. We don't care.

Why would Australia care?

Yes, three kilometers. We don't care.So the Turks living in Thrace can correctly argue that they're a part of Europe. If they wish to be a part of the European Union, they can argue for it based on this fact.

but, immigrants are an essentially unmitigated good thing, socially and economically, for the current inhabitants. and it is horrifically unjust to restrict freedom of movement and offer some people advantages purely on the basis of arbitrary lines behind which they were born. Economically a small No. of immigrants is good, to take up the slack. But to open our boarders to the rest of the world would mean literally millions of people, something our infrastructure simply couldn’t handle, if fact some of our services like the NHS are already stretched out to the limit.
Many things are Unjust, but border control is not one of them. Where you are born is a natural thing, no-body really has a say in it so if you born in some terrible place then that’s just bad luck. Also I could say it would be unjust to open the borders because it would ruin our country and many lives of the immigrants that would get here and find out its not all that great; some times you have to be cruel to be kind.

You know the biggest reason for not letting Turkey into the EU? It's Muslim. Europeans don't want to allow all those CRAAAAAZY Muslim people to wander into their countries and convert their children. Which, while understandable, is still somewhat bigoted.

that could possibly be a reason. But you have to combine that with to other points.
A large and growing population
A nation where only 2/3% of it is actually in europe.

Few people seem to have a problem with Bosnia joining the union when it meets the requirements yet 50% (+/-) of the population is muslim.

Also should the UK/France/Holland be allowed to leave the EU and join ASEAN if they wanted too? As part of their territories are in South America?

PS. I'm only against turkey not join the EU currently due to the new borders it would open up. In the future though why not.

One key difference between the US and other nations vis-a-vis immigration is that the US is a nation of immigrants. Even if you consider everyone who was around prior to the Revolution 'native', you still have a MASSIVE influx starting in the late 19th century. Most Americans are at least partially descended from those.

Other nations may fear immigration because it could destroy their cultural identity. America's identity is BASED on immigration. All the US cares about is controlling immigration so the system doesn't collapse. If we diverted a large portion of the government bureaucracy to dealing with immigration, the US could have an open doors policy on immigration. Hmm, perhaps we should have a Department of Immigration...

But to open our boarders to the rest of the world would mean literally millions of people, something our infrastructure simply couldn’t handle, if fact some of our services like the NHS are already stretched out to the limit.

how did you ever manage to survive any population growth at all?

Many things are Unjust, but border control is not one of them. Where you are born is a natural thing, no-body really has a say in it so if you born in some terrible place then that’s just bad luck.

penalizing people for things that are no fault of their own is justice in your world?

Also I could say it would be unjust to open the borders because it would ruin our country

you could, but you'd need some real evidence to make that even passably plausible

http://www.ailf.org/ipc/special_report/sr_022107.pdf for the last one. more later.

That in no way proves anything. All that has shown is that immigration has gone up, at the same time crime has gone down in the last decade. It doesn't show that immigration is responsible for this at all, and doesn't show that crime rate would have decreased at the same or an even slower rate had there been no immigration which is what is required to even begin to prove your point.

In my experience, most people who want to restrict immigration, especially in Europe, are afraid of the cultures and religions that immigrants bring, more so even than the jobs they might take (although legal immigrants have the same minimum wage as everyone else. I felt like that should be pointed out).

So you've met a few nationlists. They are not the only people for restrictions on immigration, how about most economists.


So yes, they are racist and bigoted

Based on the few people you have met?

You know the biggest reason for not letting Turkey into the EU? It's Muslim.

What nonscence. It's because they refuse to agree to any policies on human rights that countries in the EU are required to believe in.

According to a poll (http://tf1.lci.fr/infos/monde/europe/0,,3455839,00-trop-immigres-pour-allemands-italiens-anglais-.html), a majority of British (67%), Italian (55%) and German (55%) people think there are too many legal immigrants in their country, but "only" 35% of Americans and 32% of French people share this view.

That's still a hell of a lot (a third of the population :(), but it's much less than in other countries. So much for the claim (which I've sometimes heard) that the French and Americans are more intolerant / xenophobic (on average) than the average in other Western countries.

And it seems we Frogs have something in common with Americans. ;)

This poll is still depressing, though. Goes to show how many uneducated, prejudiced and ignorant people there are out there.

The only reason the Germans and the UKers have lower numbers then the French is because legal immigrants get treated as equal citizens there, as opposed to France where they get shit on by the system...legally designed.

The US has lower numbers then the UK or Germany because luckily enough there at least some people who remember that hte US is built on immigrants and that we depend on the import of persons to continue to be America.

I have serious doubts that if France treated its Legal Aliens as good as they are treated in Germany and the UK that the French people would be so happy about having them.

...

Usuallly I could give a shit about popular opinion of Europe but this really pisses me off.

The UK is a free and tolerant society by their legislation, it doesnt matter what a poll suggests. France isnt, and again it doesnt matter what a poll suggests.

One key difference between the US and other nations vis-a-vis immigration is that the US is a nation of immigrants. Even if you consider everyone who was around prior to the Revolution 'native', you still have a MASSIVE influx starting in the late 19th century. Most Americans are at least partially descended from those.

Other nations may fear immigration because it could destroy their cultural identity. America's identity is BASED on immigration. All the US cares about is controlling immigration so the system doesn't collapse. If we diverted a large portion of the government bureaucracy to dealing with immigration, the US could have an open doors policy on immigration. Hmm, perhaps we should have a Department of Immigration...

Hell yeah.

That in no way proves anything. All that has shown is that immigration has gone up, at the same time crime has gone down in the last decade.

dude, learn to read.

dude, learn to read.

I've read all the main points. The other factors in there are mostly irrellavent to your absurd claim that immigration somehow lowers crime rate. It is a very long article and obviously I don't have time to read it all, so if you think there is a part of that article that proves your point you'll have to quote it.

It is a very long article

20 pages, counting title page and endnotes, filled with pages of charts, and done in a rather large font. i think your definition of 'very long' requires adjustment.

so if you think there is a part of that article that proves your point you'll have to quote it.

"Immigrants Have Lower Incarceration Rates than Natives"

in other words, more immigrants, less crime (per capita, obviously, but also in general as 'native' birth rate drops below replacement)

20 pages, counting title page and endnotes, filled with pages of charts, and done in a rather large font. i think your definition of 'very long' requires adjustment.


Well I was basing it on how long my acrobat reader was taking to load it, and it normally only takes long for big articles.


"Immigrants Have Lower Incarceration Rates than Natives"

That doesn't show that immigration lowers crime.

http://www.ailf.org/ipc/special_report/sr_022107.pdf for the last one. more later.

Hmm, facts that I see

Crime is lower in the USA-YAY!
Immigration is up-Meh I'm one of those immigrants, nothing to do with it but that's cool I guess
Immigrants aren't arrested as much compared to native born-Yeah no kidding we don't want to be jailed then deported. Plus there is alot more native born than immigrants in the USA. Plus most immigrants now need a work or student visa. Very rarely you are just accepted as some no skilled worker. If most of US immigrants are already guaranteed a job or a college position and are educated, or have family that is already set up in the US no wonder why they won't commit crime. They wouldn't want to ruin this opportunity.
High School dropout immigrants aren't going to jail as much as native dropouts- I believe the fear of getting sent back home might come into effect too.

Just because immigrants aren't going to jail as much, that has no effect on the real crime rates. Immigrants make up a fraction of the total US population. Immigrants do not want to risk their status and usually immigrants in the USA now are much more heavily screened for criminal backgrounds. The large passenger ships full of poor immigrants don't really happen anymore. Today immigrants are usually educated or have family already in the USA. The whole poor, tired, huddled masses yearning to be free are sent back.

Plus this does not include illegal immigrants which probably would add more to the crime rate since illegal immigrants are criminals. I came into the US through paper work, medical screenings, criminal background checks, etc etc etc. You are supposed to go through the bureaucracy just like everyone else. People with the arrogance to just defy that are criminals and they should be treated as such. Wait in line just like the millions of others waiting.

That doesn't show that immigration lowers crime.

only if you believe that birth raises crime (which, while possible, is a stupid way to talk about crime)

only if you believe that birth raises crime (which, while possible, is a stupid way to talk about crime)

Just because there are less immigrants in jail then natives doesn't mean that immigrants have any direct influence in the actual crime rate.

Just because there are less immigrants in jail then natives doesn't mean that immigrants have any direct influence in the actual crime rate.

yes, it does. since you've accepted the move to crime rates (which i should have been clearer about in the original than i was), then this is a pure math question. you have one population with a crime rate of x. you have another with a lower crime rate of y. combine the populations and you have a crime rate for the total population that is lower than x. and if you removed the low crime rate immigrants from the total population, the total population's crime rate would jump back up instantaneously.

unless you are just proposing that immigrants are extraordinarily sneaky and successful criminals across all education levels and cultural backgrounds...

yes, it does. since you've accepted the move to crime rates (which i should have been clearer about in the original than i was), then this is a pure math question. you have one population with a crime rate of x. you have another with a lower crime rate of y. combine the populations and you have a crime rate for the total population that is lower than x.

Lets say x has 100 people and 20 criminals, and y has 50 people and 10 criminals. Combine the populations together and you have 150 people with 30 criminals, more crime. It may lower the crime rate (in this case make it even) per capita, but that doesn't lower crime overall which is what I was orignally asking for (I should have been more clear on that as well).

Measuring crime per capita is a flawed way of measuring crime imo, it's more important to measure the levels of crime in each individual city since how close the population is exposed to crime is more important then how many people commit crimes in proportion to the population overall.

Measuring crime per capita is a flawed way of measuring crime imo, it's more important to measure the levels of crime in each individual city since how close the population is exposed to crime is more important then how many people commit crimes in proportion to the population overall.

but it is only as a rate that you get a meaningful number. straight numbers can't tell you shit. unless you think you'd be less likely to get murdered if you lived in gary, indiana (54 murders in 2004) than in chicago (448 murders). wow, it's like nearly ten times better in gary! oh, wait, gary had 52.6 murders per 100,000 while chicago only had 15.5.

but it is only as a rate that you get a meaningful number. straight numbers can't tell you shit. unless you think you'd be less likely to get murdered if you lived in gary, indiana (54 murders in 2004) than in chicago (448 murders). wow, it's like nearly ten times better in gary! oh, wait, gary had 52.6 murders per 100,000 while chicago only had 15.5.

I know, look at the second half of my post.

how did you ever manage to survive any population growth at all?



penalizing people for things that are no fault of their own is justice in your world?



you could, but you'd need some real evidence to make that even passably plausible

1. Population growth is very slow and gradual. I’m talking millions of people in a couple of weeks or a month or two.

2. Helping people for things that are of no fault of my own, or anybody else. Why should I?

3. The only example I can think of is in Africa when there is a civil war (again) and all the refugees spill over to the next country, what happens to them, they all end up in appalling conditions of a refugee camp. It’s a poor example but it’s all I can think of.

Now you get me some evidence that millions of immigrants coming into a European size country in 2007. Can be a good thing.