Migration & Immigration
Discussion
ATG said:
So why doesn't the govt "do something"? Because they realise that the public's attitude is irrational and that the cost of "doing something" effective would be money pissed down the drain. But they don't have the balls to try to lead the debate and change public opinion.
Instead they pay idiotic lip service to the public's prejudice. They rebrand "Border Force", give them silly new hats and make idiotic commitments to reduce immigration while making no effort to fulfil them. This failure to fulfil comitments gives the public the misperception that the system is out of control. It isn't out of control. There's simply hasn't been any attempt at change. But the misperception reinforces the public's existing prejudices, and down we spiral.
So much certainty on so little evidence.Instead they pay idiotic lip service to the public's prejudice. They rebrand "Border Force", give them silly new hats and make idiotic commitments to reduce immigration while making no effort to fulfil them. This failure to fulfil comitments gives the public the misperception that the system is out of control. It isn't out of control. There's simply hasn't been any attempt at change. But the misperception reinforces the public's existing prejudices, and down we spiral.
Most studies into the economic impact of immigration show only a marginal positive at best, and that is for all immigration from investment bankers down.
A significant proportion of immigrants both lower GDP per head and are a net fiscal cost over their lifetime and the public are supposed to be stupid for wanting to stop this immigration?
This is to ignore the non-financial costs of ever more immigration and adding more and more people to a relatively small already densely populated island. One where planning constraints means that insufficient housing and infrastructure will be built to accommodate the rising numbers.
TooMany2cvs said:
Digga said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Atomic12C said:
I've heard it said more often that many people are fighting back against political correctness these days as people are becoming much more aware of what it is - simply the fact that only one political viewpoint is deemed acceptable.
That's not what "political correctness" is. What it is is simply giving everybody basic respect - even if they aren't like you.Many people find that difficult.
TooMany2cvs said:
They're the ones who find it hard to give basic respect to people who are different to them, and they'd rather bluster than admit their bigotry.
If you say so. (No, you have just made a totally unsubstantiated claim.)Atomic12C said:
At the same time others should be entitled to their opinion, whether you agree with it or not.
I've heard it said more often that many people are fighting back against political correctness these days as people are becoming much more aware of what it is - simply the fact that only one political viewpoint is deemed acceptable.
Which in a democratic society is never going to work and will always meet strong opposition.
You can not have only one political viewpoint where the demographic is made up of left-wing and right-wing public.
That approach is called one-party rule, communism, dictatorships etc. etc.
Generally speaking - Immigration affects some people more than others, their opinions will differ based on the strength of the effects.
Its easy for one person to say uncontrolled/illegal immigration should not be stopped when they never see the effects, where as another person who lives in an area where immigration effects are high will have a strong view about it.
Many of these views have nothing to do with race. Some will. But again, people are entitled to their opinion.
If people are suppressed in their opinion what you find is "surprising" results come election/referendum time.
Note : Recent Austrian elections, German elections, Brexit, etc. etc.
And my point was that there is nothing like the oppression/suppression that those with anti-immigration sentiments like to portray. We have laws to counter extremes (which means that having an opinion and being able to express it don't necessarily go hand in hand) and quite rightly too. However, the 'victims' of PC (which, as a construct, has been entirely created by those of a right-wing disposition as a negative infringement of their right to 'say what I like') as they like to portray themselves simply don't like other people's opinions. No problem. I'm sure the feeling is reciprocated by those who have a more liberal view of society. Both views are 'allowed'. Only one side continually cries 'victim'!I've heard it said more often that many people are fighting back against political correctness these days as people are becoming much more aware of what it is - simply the fact that only one political viewpoint is deemed acceptable.
Which in a democratic society is never going to work and will always meet strong opposition.
You can not have only one political viewpoint where the demographic is made up of left-wing and right-wing public.
That approach is called one-party rule, communism, dictatorships etc. etc.
Generally speaking - Immigration affects some people more than others, their opinions will differ based on the strength of the effects.
Its easy for one person to say uncontrolled/illegal immigration should not be stopped when they never see the effects, where as another person who lives in an area where immigration effects are high will have a strong view about it.
Many of these views have nothing to do with race. Some will. But again, people are entitled to their opinion.
If people are suppressed in their opinion what you find is "surprising" results come election/referendum time.
Note : Recent Austrian elections, German elections, Brexit, etc. etc.
ATG said:
So why doesn't the govt "do something"? Because they realise that the public's attitude is irrational and that the cost of "doing something" effective would be money pissed down the drain. But they don't have the balls to try to lead the debate and change public opinion.
Instead they pay idiotic lip service to the public's prejudice. They rebrand "Border Force", give them silly new hats and make idiotic commitments to reduce immigration while making no effort to fulfil them. This failure to fulfil comitments gives the public the misperception that the system is out of control. It isn't out of control. There's simply hasn't been any attempt at change. But the misperception reinforces the public's existing prejudices, and down we spiral.
They don't do it because one they get jumped on by SJWs left wing media types who have far to big of a voice. And two it would be hard work and it covering up problems like the ageing population and growing public debt. Just passing the problem down the line give even larger problems to future generations to solve in the future. Instead they pay idiotic lip service to the public's prejudice. They rebrand "Border Force", give them silly new hats and make idiotic commitments to reduce immigration while making no effort to fulfil them. This failure to fulfil comitments gives the public the misperception that the system is out of control. It isn't out of control. There's simply hasn't been any attempt at change. But the misperception reinforces the public's existing prejudices, and down we spiral.
Also I would be quite happy for anyone to try and like you say lead the debate and change the public opinion. Show us the facts and info to prove to us not just economically but psychologically, socially benefits not just now but into the future.
Not-The-Messiah said:
They don't do it because one they get jumped on by SJWs left wing media types who have far to big of a voice.
How does a Government get "jumped on" and how does that affect the laws they implement?What's stopping you and those of a similar disposition "jumping" on the Government and affecting the laws they implement?
Not-The-Messiah said:
ATG said:
So why doesn't the govt "do something"? Because they realise that the public's attitude is irrational and that the cost of "doing something" effective would be money pissed down the drain. But they don't have the balls to try to lead the debate and change public opinion.
Instead they pay idiotic lip service to the public's prejudice. They rebrand "Border Force", give them silly new hats and make idiotic commitments to reduce immigration while making no effort to fulfil them. This failure to fulfil comitments gives the public the misperception that the system is out of control. It isn't out of control. There's simply hasn't been any attempt at change. But the misperception reinforces the public's existing prejudices, and down we spiral.
They don't do it because one they get jumped on by SJWs left wing media types who have far to big of a voice. And two it would be hard work and it covering up problems like the ageing population and growing public debt. Just passing the problem down the line give even larger problems to future generations to solve in the future. Instead they pay idiotic lip service to the public's prejudice. They rebrand "Border Force", give them silly new hats and make idiotic commitments to reduce immigration while making no effort to fulfil them. This failure to fulfil comitments gives the public the misperception that the system is out of control. It isn't out of control. There's simply hasn't been any attempt at change. But the misperception reinforces the public's existing prejudices, and down we spiral.
Also I would be quite happy for anyone to try and like you say lead the debate and change the public opinion. Show us the facts and info to prove to us not just economically but psychologically, socially benefits not just now but into the future.
Roman Rhodes said:
And my point was that there is nothing like the oppression/suppression that those with anti-immigration sentiments like to portray. We have laws to counter extremes (which means that having an opinion and being able to express it don't necessarily go hand in hand) and quite rightly too. However, the 'victims' of PC (which, as a construct, has been entirely created by those of a right-wing disposition as a negative infringement of their right to 'say what I like') as they like to portray themselves simply don't like other people's opinions. No problem. I'm sure the feeling is reciprocated by those who have a more liberal view of society. Both views are 'allowed'. Only one side continually cries 'victim'!
Very politically swayed reply there..... hence a good example of "political correctness" is political rather than "just being nice to each other".Only one side cries victim? Inferring that to be the right?
haha
The victim card is pulled by anyone well versed in political correctness (left AND right), its generally these days called being "politically offended".
One thing does strike me is that, not just you in particular, that many view immigration control as the equivalence of stopping immigration and having a gripe about another person's race.
Whereas to many with concerns it would be a case of the pure numbers of people arriving and how that will affect the services/resources of people already resident. There is also a strong concern about security when illegal migrants enter the UK or EU. The system of border controls was set up for these exact purposes.
One of the biggest problems is that people fleeing a conflict often take that conflict with them to the new country. There is plenty of violence on the immigration centres in Sweden, and later on in the suburbs, when people from different cultures/opposing sides don't mix. Christians, shias, gays and women fleeing persecution, find that they are being persecuted by the same people over here as well.
No one seems to have a solution for this, no one even thought that this could happen.
No one seems to have a solution for this, no one even thought that this could happen.
JagLover said:
So much certainty on so little evidence.
Most studies into the economic impact of immigration show only a marginal positive at best, and that is for all immigration from investment bankers down.
A significant proportion of immigrants both lower GDP per head and are a net fiscal cost over their lifetime and the public are supposed to be stupid for wanting to stop this immigration?
This is to ignore the non-financial costs of ever more immigration and adding more and more people to a relatively small already densely populated island. One where planning constraints means that insufficient housing and infrastructure will be built to accommodate the rising numbers.
That has always been my issue, if they are a drain on our resources why do we want them ? Most studies into the economic impact of immigration show only a marginal positive at best, and that is for all immigration from investment bankers down.
A significant proportion of immigrants both lower GDP per head and are a net fiscal cost over their lifetime and the public are supposed to be stupid for wanting to stop this immigration?
This is to ignore the non-financial costs of ever more immigration and adding more and more people to a relatively small already densely populated island. One where planning constraints means that insufficient housing and infrastructure will be built to accommodate the rising numbers.
Nobody has yet answer my New Zealand question.
1st and 2nd generation immigrants should not be allowed to claim benefits and should have to contribute towards schooling and health, if they don't / cant then why do we want them ?
del mar said:
JagLover said:
So much certainty on so little evidence.
Most studies into the economic impact of immigration show only a marginal positive at best, and that is for all immigration from investment bankers down.
A significant proportion of immigrants both lower GDP per head and are a net fiscal cost over their lifetime and the public are supposed to be stupid for wanting to stop this immigration?
This is to ignore the non-financial costs of ever more immigration and adding more and more people to a relatively small already densely populated island. One where planning constraints means that insufficient housing and infrastructure will be built to accommodate the rising numbers.
That has always been my issue, if they are a drain on our resources why do we want them ? Most studies into the economic impact of immigration show only a marginal positive at best, and that is for all immigration from investment bankers down.
A significant proportion of immigrants both lower GDP per head and are a net fiscal cost over their lifetime and the public are supposed to be stupid for wanting to stop this immigration?
This is to ignore the non-financial costs of ever more immigration and adding more and more people to a relatively small already densely populated island. One where planning constraints means that insufficient housing and infrastructure will be built to accommodate the rising numbers.
Nobody has yet answer my New Zealand question.
1st and 2nd generation immigrants should not be allowed to claim benefits and should have to contribute towards schooling and health, if they don't / cant then why do we want them ?
del mar said:
JagLover said:
So much certainty on so little evidence.
Most studies into the economic impact of immigration show only a marginal positive at best, and that is for all immigration from investment bankers down.
A significant proportion of immigrants both lower GDP per head and are a net fiscal cost over their lifetime and the public are supposed to be stupid for wanting to stop this immigration?
This is to ignore the non-financial costs of ever more immigration and adding more and more people to a relatively small already densely populated island. One where planning constraints means that insufficient housing and infrastructure will be built to accommodate the rising numbers.
That has always been my issue, if they are a drain on our resources why do we want them ? Most studies into the economic impact of immigration show only a marginal positive at best, and that is for all immigration from investment bankers down.
A significant proportion of immigrants both lower GDP per head and are a net fiscal cost over their lifetime and the public are supposed to be stupid for wanting to stop this immigration?
This is to ignore the non-financial costs of ever more immigration and adding more and more people to a relatively small already densely populated island. One where planning constraints means that insufficient housing and infrastructure will be built to accommodate the rising numbers.
Nobody has yet answer my New Zealand question.
1st and 2nd generation immigrants should not be allowed to claim benefits and should have to contribute towards schooling and health, if they don't / cant then why do we want them ?
Roman Rhodes said:
So you both only see humans as commodities and their value dictated by the market?
Immigration should be a two way street benefiting both the immigrant and the destination country. The potential immigrant should bring both an economic and social benefit. That is a proposition that IMO most of the country would agree. Hence why it is getting more and more tired for people like you to portray this as some of extremist position.
You want open borders, great, you are free to campaign for it. Just stop demonizing those who don't.
W124 said:
Because we need cheap labour.
I'm not certain we really do.Certainly though, big business (zero hours contracts etc. etc.) and the black economy (car washing, takeaway staff) can use cheap (even illegal) labour, and have a potentially inexhaustible appetite for it, but that does not equate to it being good for the economy or the country, especially long term and when considered against the already strained infrastructure.
Digga said:
'm not certain we really do.
Certainly though, big business (zero hours contracts etc. etc.) and the black economy (car washing, takeaway staff) can use cheap (even illegal) labour, and have a potentially inexhaustible appetite for it, but that does not equate to it being good for the economy or the country, especially long term and when considered against the already strained infrastructure.
Question of how "cheap" it is as well once earnings have to be topped up by in work benefits. Cheap for the employer certainly, but for society?Certainly though, big business (zero hours contracts etc. etc.) and the black economy (car washing, takeaway staff) can use cheap (even illegal) labour, and have a potentially inexhaustible appetite for it, but that does not equate to it being good for the economy or the country, especially long term and when considered against the already strained infrastructure.
Digga said:
Not-The-Messiah said:
ATG said:
So why doesn't the govt "do something"? Because they realise that the public's attitude is irrational and that the cost of "doing something" effective would be money pissed down the drain. But they don't have the balls to try to lead the debate and change public opinion.
Instead they pay idiotic lip service to the public's prejudice. They rebrand "Border Force", give them silly new hats and make idiotic commitments to reduce immigration while making no effort to fulfil them. This failure to fulfil comitments gives the public the misperception that the system is out of control. It isn't out of control. There's simply hasn't been any attempt at change. But the misperception reinforces the public's existing prejudices, and down we spiral.
They don't do it because one they get jumped on by SJWs left wing media types who have far to big of a voice. And two it would be hard work and it covering up problems like the ageing population and growing public debt. Just passing the problem down the line give even larger problems to future generations to solve in the future. Instead they pay idiotic lip service to the public's prejudice. They rebrand "Border Force", give them silly new hats and make idiotic commitments to reduce immigration while making no effort to fulfil them. This failure to fulfil comitments gives the public the misperception that the system is out of control. It isn't out of control. There's simply hasn't been any attempt at change. But the misperception reinforces the public's existing prejudices, and down we spiral.
Also I would be quite happy for anyone to try and like you say lead the debate and change the public opinion. Show us the facts and info to prove to us not just economically but psychologically, socially benefits not just now but into the future.
spectator said:
Exactly a year ago this week I was at a dinner party when a famous opinion pollster leaned over to me and said: ‘You know, the best thing about this election is that within two years Chuka Umunna will be the leader of the Labour party and Sajid Javid the leader of the Conservatives.’
I really cannot understand people who think this way.Surely, the end goal of tackling racism and prejudice is to have a society that is blind to skin color, race, etc? How does the above attitude further that goal?
If people are, or have been treated differently because of their skin colour, how does treating them differently because of their skin colour (but in a "good" way) help to stop it from happening?
We will, I'm sure, see a non-white PM at some point. I hope that when we do, they win because they're the best person for the job, and not because we haven't had that shade of skin yet. I hope that when we do, they are praised and/or criticized on their performance, not because of their skin.
JagLover said:
Immigration should be a two way street benefiting both the immigrant and the destination country. The potential immigrant should bring both an economic and social benefit.
Why? Who decided that?JagLover said:
You want open borders, great, you are free to campaign for it. Just stop demonizing those who don't.
You have no idea what I ‘want’ it would seem. Nor have I demonised anyone.amusingduck said:
I really cannot understand people who think this way.
Surely, the end goal of tackling racism and prejudice is to have a society that is blind to skin color, race, etc? How does the above attitude further that goal?
If people are, or have been treated differently because of their skin colour, how does treating them differently because of their skin colour (but in a "good" way) help to stop it from happening?
We will, I'm sure, see a non-white PM at some point. I hope that when we do, they win because they're the best person for the job, and not because we haven't had that shade of skin yet. I hope that when we do, they are praised and/or criticized on their performance, not because of their skin.
Agreed just look at our current Prime Minister the fact she is a woman isn't relevant and I can't remember it hardly ever being mentioned. She is criticised on the job she is doing not because she is a woman. Surely, the end goal of tackling racism and prejudice is to have a society that is blind to skin color, race, etc? How does the above attitude further that goal?
If people are, or have been treated differently because of their skin colour, how does treating them differently because of their skin colour (but in a "good" way) help to stop it from happening?
We will, I'm sure, see a non-white PM at some point. I hope that when we do, they win because they're the best person for the job, and not because we haven't had that shade of skin yet. I hope that when we do, they are praised and/or criticized on their performance, not because of their skin.
Can't help think though if it was a labour woman prime minister it would be mentioned more. Purely as a defence strategy if she failed and made bad decisions it's an excuse. "She failed because of Prejudice against women and the system is against her" they would say. It's the same excuse used in many occasions regarding race. But will also admitted used by many with regards to immigration, an excuse for there own failures.
JagLover said:
Digga said:
'm not certain we really do.
Certainly though, big business (zero hours contracts etc. etc.) and the black economy (car washing, takeaway staff) can use cheap (even illegal) labour, and have a potentially inexhaustible appetite for it, but that does not equate to it being good for the economy or the country, especially long term and when considered against the already strained infrastructure.
Question of how "cheap" it is as well once earnings have to be topped up by in work benefits. Cheap for the employer certainly, but for society?Certainly though, big business (zero hours contracts etc. etc.) and the black economy (car washing, takeaway staff) can use cheap (even illegal) labour, and have a potentially inexhaustible appetite for it, but that does not equate to it being good for the economy or the country, especially long term and when considered against the already strained infrastructure.
There is no consideration of the future consequences. Its good, in the immediate short term, for companies and their shareholders.
I made no value judgement about it. Personally I think it a skilfully executed con of the highest order. Others may think differently.
It amuses me that the consideration of the issue is simply ‘Is immigration good or bad’ - never ‘what is the driver for this process and who is responsible?’
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff