Migration & Immigration
Discussion
America takes approx 1million immigrants per annum mainly from the poorer countries.
In that same time those countries have produced another 80 million human beings.
The numbers will never stack up to solve the problem.
And the immigrants are often the brighter more able individuals, leaving the original countries with less people likely to enact a change in their home countries.
In that same time those countries have produced another 80 million human beings.
The numbers will never stack up to solve the problem.
And the immigrants are often the brighter more able individuals, leaving the original countries with less people likely to enact a change in their home countries.
The Dangerous Elk said:
Globalisation HAS done that for Millions and Millions of the world poor = China
I add, at massive cost to the Western countries in money and social division
how is it working out for sub saharan africa ? genuine question. while the chinese may have a few more sheckles in their pockets i don't think the living and working conditions of the majority are something any western nation would aspire to, though we may well end up there soon enough due to globalisation.I add, at massive cost to the Western countries in money and social division
Edited by The Dangerous Elk on Wednesday 17th January 12:59
Yipper said:
1. The Great Migration is *a problem today in almost every single country on Earth*. It is a global challenge. From Vietnam (3rd world) to Hungary (2nd world) to the US (1st world), governments and citizens are struggling with the problem of resources, language and culture. It is NOT just a UK issue for teeth-sucking Lefties or jackboot Righties.
2. There is NOT a bottomless pit of cash or a magic money tree or infinite land. The UK (or any other country on the planet) cannot support every person with a begging bowl or plane ticket. It is basic, real-world economics.
3. The *real underlying question* is not "why won't British and European and American racists let in more people from abroad and give them free cash", but "why are those countries' *governments* so bad that people want to flee them in their millions in the first place". Contrast Hong Kong, liberated from monstrous Britain in 1997 and now one of the richest countries on Earth, with Jamaica, liberated from monstrous Britain in 1962 and now one of the poorest countries on Earth. The psuedo-intellectual Left and shouty Right need to focus their anger on the sh*thole governments -- they're the real baddies here. People who can't even organize decent healthcare, education, law, order and infrastructure for their own citizens.
sums up my position perfectly. pounds shillings and pence in the individuals pocket are only part of quality of life. something missed by many on here.2. There is NOT a bottomless pit of cash or a magic money tree or infinite land. The UK (or any other country on the planet) cannot support every person with a begging bowl or plane ticket. It is basic, real-world economics.
3. The *real underlying question* is not "why won't British and European and American racists let in more people from abroad and give them free cash", but "why are those countries' *governments* so bad that people want to flee them in their millions in the first place". Contrast Hong Kong, liberated from monstrous Britain in 1997 and now one of the richest countries on Earth, with Jamaica, liberated from monstrous Britain in 1962 and now one of the poorest countries on Earth. The psuedo-intellectual Left and shouty Right need to focus their anger on the sh*thole governments -- they're the real baddies here. People who can't even organize decent healthcare, education, law, order and infrastructure for their own citizens.
sidicks said:
del mar said:
Bigkeeko may have been a little "rough and ready" with his terminology, but he isn't wrong.
Third world migration brings no benefits to the UK at all.
Financially they are a drain
Culturally some of their old ways cause us problems
Socially they add nothing.
No, as well as being offensive, he is still wrong, as are you.Third world migration brings no benefits to the UK at all.
Financially they are a drain
Culturally some of their old ways cause us problems
Socially they add nothing.
There are definitely benefits from some migration and without question some people add value to this country, financial or otherwise.
Of course there are aspects that work - 100 Doctors from India is of benefit but those that do not contribute far outweigh those that do.
Resolutionary said:
bigkeeko said:
I'm scum and a disgrace but I work and have something to offer the system unlike 90% plus of rapefugees. If anyone hasn't caught on it is a obvious attempt to get the boot from this liberal, apologist mangina of a forum. So Mods, get on it.
You're a bit of a stain aren't you? I've met my fair share of refugees and would certainly welcome another hundred if they provide a barrier between me and the sort of rhetoric you insist on spouting.del mar said:
En masse what are the benefits of immigration from the 3rd world that we have seen ?
Of course there are aspects that work - 100 Doctors from India is of benefit but those that do not contribute far outweigh those that do.
That’s quite a different issue from what the OP or you were implying previously.Of course there are aspects that work - 100 Doctors from India is of benefit but those that do not contribute far outweigh those that do.
del mar said:
En masse what are the benefits of immigration from the 3rd world that we have seen ?
Of course there are aspects that work - 100 Doctors from India is of benefit but those that do not contribute far outweigh those that do.
Well it keeps those in the benefits agency employed and busyOf course there are aspects that work - 100 Doctors from India is of benefit but those that do not contribute far outweigh those that do.
Re your second point may I direct you to a thread on here about printing of qualifications (that seems to be missing at the moment, perhaps it's gone for a reprint
)sidicks said:
del mar said:
Bigkeeko may have been a little "rough and ready" with his terminology, but he isn't wrong.
Third world migration brings no benefits to the UK at all.
Financially they are a drain
Culturally some of their old ways cause us problems
Socially they add nothing.
No, as well as being offensive, he is still wrong, as are you.Third world migration brings no benefits to the UK at all.
Financially they are a drain
Culturally some of their old ways cause us problems
Socially they add nothing.
There are definitely benefits from some migration and without question some people add value to this country, financial or otherwise.
Going back to the OP, I'd say that the main reason for the issue of people wanting to migrate from less developed countries (s
tholes is a rather crass and misleading description of countries which often have a wide spectrum of wealth/poverty/infrastructure/technology) is one of timescale. Individuals have a relatively short time on the planet but it takes countries decades and centuries to develop. An ambitious individual simply won't want to wait for their country to catch up - they will look for opportunities elsewhere. There are positives and negatives to this but it seems to me that effort/money to help less developed countries get to the point that their citizens can fulfil their lives (in terms of safety, employment and standard of living) in their country of origin is effort/money well spent. That isn't anti-immigration it is anti the reasons that so many have the NEED to migrate.sidicks said:
del mar said:
En masse what are the benefits of immigration from the 3rd world that we have seen ?
Of course there are aspects that work - 100 Doctors from India is of benefit but those that do not contribute far outweigh those that do.
That’s quite a different issue from what the OP or you were implying previously.Of course there are aspects that work - 100 Doctors from India is of benefit but those that do not contribute far outweigh those that do.
You are right some have been of benefit to us, if society could break it down and say;
Indian migration has been good Somalian has not Pakistani has not etc then yes we could look at the aspects that work for us and develop that.
(I don't know if these countries are of benefit or not it was just an example).
But I don't think we are at a position to say / discuss that, we can only talk about "all immigration", which if you take mine and bigkeeko's view is doing a disservice to many.
Roman Rhodes said:
I'm in the unusual position of agreeing with Sid!
Going back to the OP, I'd say that the main reason for the issue of people wanting to migrate from less developed countries (stholes is a rather crass and misleading description of countries which often have a wide spectrum of wealth/poverty/infrastructure/technology) is one of timescale. Individuals have a relatively short time on the planet but it takes countries decades and centuries to develop. An ambitious individual simply won't want to wait for their country to catch up - they will look for opportunities elsewhere. There are positives and negatives to this but it seems to me that effort/money to help less developed countries get to the point that their citizens can fulfil their lives (in terms of safety, employment and standard of living) in their country of origin is effort/money well spent. That isn't anti-immigration it is anti the reasons that so many have the NEED to migrate.
Ok, that’s fine this once, but please don’t make a habit of it!Going back to the OP, I'd say that the main reason for the issue of people wanting to migrate from less developed countries (s
tholes is a rather crass and misleading description of countries which often have a wide spectrum of wealth/poverty/infrastructure/technology) is one of timescale. Individuals have a relatively short time on the planet but it takes countries decades and centuries to develop. An ambitious individual simply won't want to wait for their country to catch up - they will look for opportunities elsewhere. There are positives and negatives to this but it seems to me that effort/money to help less developed countries get to the point that their citizens can fulfil their lives (in terms of safety, employment and standard of living) in their country of origin is effort/money well spent. That isn't anti-immigration it is anti the reasons that so many have the NEED to migrate.del mar said:
En masse what are the benefits of immigration from the 3rd world that we have seen ?
Of course there are aspects that work - 100 Doctors from India is of benefit but those that do not contribute far outweigh those that do.
Maybe benefit for us but what about them?Of course there are aspects that work - 100 Doctors from India is of benefit but those that do not contribute far outweigh those that do.
No one seems to care about the countries we're draining from.
Atomic12C said:
As for foreign aid, it was sold to the public as what you describe, but in fact it turns out to also contain a large portion of foreign bribes.
And the others that responded to my point on this.Half of my company's revenue is derived from Foreign Aid funded projects, projects that I work on in those countries so I have a hands on insight into it.
Some of the negatives some have raised do remain an issue but nowhere to the degree the popular press suggests and appropriate spending has become far more significant of late. Very rarely is money sent. We (the UK...and others) do not send money. We fund aid. In many cases, if I work on a DFID project, we bill for our work in the UK, in sterling for the work we do in wherever. Other projects will be billed to the World Bank, UN, EU or whoever is administering the funds. The only thing that leaves the country is me so there is nothing to bribe anyone with.
I don't want Foreign Aid to hijack this thread. The point I was making was that many of those who are the most vocal about immigration tend also to be the most vocal against the means that can (or at least have the potential to) tackle the problem without the need to resort to the thinking of the far, far right.
wc98 said:
The Dangerous Elk said:
Globalisation HAS done that for Millions and Millions of the world poor = China
I add, at massive cost to the Western countries in money and social division
how is it working out for sub saharan africa ? genuine question. while the chinese may have a few more sheckles in their pockets i don't think the living and working conditions of the majority are something any western nation would aspire to, though we may well end up there soon enough due to globalisation.I add, at massive cost to the Western countries in money and social division
Edited by The Dangerous Elk on Wednesday 17th January 12:59
It was not long ago that Chairman Mao was releasing the Red Guards and his second wave of "Reforms" resulting in starvation for millions. (lets forget education, housing, power etc)
del mar said:
Resolutionary said:
bigkeeko said:
I'm scum and a disgrace but I work and have something to offer the system unlike 90% plus of rapefugees. If anyone hasn't caught on it is a obvious attempt to get the boot from this liberal, apologist mangina of a forum. So Mods, get on it.
You're a bit of a stain aren't you? I've met my fair share of refugees and would certainly welcome another hundred if they provide a barrier between me and the sort of rhetoric you insist on spouting.The "me me me" generation, unsurprisingly, are against that kind of thing.
The Dangerous Elk said:
It has not yet, but to try and argue that it has not saved millions of people in China (and other far East) is just missing the facts of recent history by a country mile.
It was not long ago that Chairman Mao was releasing the Red Guards and his second wave of "Reforms" resulting in starvation for millions. (lets forget education, housing, power etc)
fair point ,well made. there is a way to go but i concede that big picture you are spot on.It was not long ago that Chairman Mao was releasing the Red Guards and his second wave of "Reforms" resulting in starvation for millions. (lets forget education, housing, power etc)
Roman Rhodes said:
sidicks said:
del mar said:
Bigkeeko may have been a little "rough and ready" with his terminology, but he isn't wrong.
Third world migration brings no benefits to the UK at all.
Financially they are a drain
Culturally some of their old ways cause us problems
Socially they add nothing.
No, as well as being offensive, he is still wrong, as are you.Third world migration brings no benefits to the UK at all.
Financially they are a drain
Culturally some of their old ways cause us problems
Socially they add nothing.
There are definitely benefits from some migration and without question some people add value to this country, financial or otherwise.
It's all very well talking about making these places a better place to live with development aid. The reality of the last few decades is that our foreign policy (and that of our allies) has contributed significantly to the causes of mass migration to Europe. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen and so on. You reap what you sow.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff