Migration & Immigration
Discussion
amusingduck said:
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.
I can kinda see the "It'll show how far we've come" line - the very fact that yesterday's headlines included "A Muslim woman spoke from the dispatch box for the FIRST TIME EVER!" shows that's still a factor.
There's a lot of people who would think it a terrible thing that somebody who happens to be a Kashmiri-born woman from an Islamic background (I have no idea how religious she is or isn't) is a government minister.
Come to think of it, there's a lot who think she shouldn't even be allowed in the country.
Roman Rhodes said:
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?It is however a policy that would probably meet with the approval of most of the population, so that is the why, as in governments should govern with the consent of the people.
You, and the great and good, wish to impose a different policy, but it is doubtful if any policy can survive in the long term without the support of the people. Brexit should have showed you that.
TooMany2cvs said:
amusingduck said:
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.
I can kinda see the "It'll show how far we've come" line - the very fact that yesterday's headlines included "A Muslim woman spoke from the dispatch box for the FIRST TIME EVER!" shows that's still a factor.
There's a lot of people who would think it a terrible thing that somebody who happens to be a Kashmiri-born woman from an Islamic background (I have no idea how religious she is or isn't) is a government minister.
Come to think of it, there's a lot who think she shouldn't even be allowed in the country.
There's a gulf of difference between not liking this sort of racism and thinking she shouldn't be allowed in the UK. For starters, she was born in Birmingham!
Roman Rhodes said:
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 ?
If a Utopian society awash with cash - no, but we don't live it that vision.
del mar said:
Nobody has yet answer my New Zealand question.
That's because as a rhetorical question or a real one it's a bit of a silly one. NZ is a former commonwealth country and as a result we have to adhere to rules we set at the time of the dissolution of the commonwealth regarding right to work and live in the UK for former commonwealth citizens.
Non-aboriginal New Zealanders are 80% likely to be of British origin anyway.
Aboriginal New Zealanders might well find it hard to emigrate to the UK for work purposes since the mid 90s when the UK changed its rules regarding Visas for commonwealth citizens meaning you now have to be able to show ancestry - which in effect means only white NZers (South Africans, Australians etc) can easily settle in the UK now as opposed to temporary working visas
The NZ economy is currently that much stronger than ours that we'd mostly be better off getting on a plane and moving to NZ in pursuit of a better lifestyle and working environment than if we stayed here.
Digga said:
TooMany2cvs said:
I can kinda see the "It'll show how far we've come" line - the very fact that yesterday's headlines included "A Muslim woman spoke from the dispatch box for the FIRST TIME EVER!" shows that's still a factor.
There's a lot of people who would think it a terrible thing that somebody who happens to be a Kashmiri-born woman from an Islamic background (I have no idea how religious she is or isn't) is a government minister.
Come to think of it, there's a lot who think she shouldn't even be allowed in the country.
I heard that headline on the news and cringed. It's patronising and also sets the individual MP, Nus Ghani, up for a fall, or at the very least to be under disproportionate scrutiny. Good look to her.There's a lot of people who would think it a terrible thing that somebody who happens to be a Kashmiri-born woman from an Islamic background (I have no idea how religious she is or isn't) is a government minister.
Come to think of it, there's a lot who think she shouldn't even be allowed in the country.
There's a gulf of difference between not liking this sort of racism and thinking she shouldn't be allowed in the UK. For starters, she was born in Birmingham!
Still, you'll have a sizable slice of the usual suspects who still regard her as a second-class citizen because her parents shouldn't have been here in the first place.
TooMany2cvs said:
Digga said:
TooMany2cvs said:
I can kinda see the "It'll show how far we've come" line - the very fact that yesterday's headlines included "A Muslim woman spoke from the dispatch box for the FIRST TIME EVER!" shows that's still a factor.
There's a lot of people who would think it a terrible thing that somebody who happens to be a Kashmiri-born woman from an Islamic background (I have no idea how religious she is or isn't) is a government minister.
Come to think of it, there's a lot who think she shouldn't even be allowed in the country.
I heard that headline on the news and cringed. It's patronising and also sets the individual MP, Nus Ghani, up for a fall, or at the very least to be under disproportionate scrutiny. Good look to her.There's a lot of people who would think it a terrible thing that somebody who happens to be a Kashmiri-born woman from an Islamic background (I have no idea how religious she is or isn't) is a government minister.
Come to think of it, there's a lot who think she shouldn't even be allowed in the country.
There's a gulf of difference between not liking this sort of racism and thinking she shouldn't be allowed in the UK. For starters, she was born in Birmingham!
Still, you'll have a sizable slice of the usual suspects who still regard her as a second-class citizen because her parents shouldn't have been here in the first place.
Digga said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Digga said:
TooMany2cvs said:
I can kinda see the "It'll show how far we've come" line - the very fact that yesterday's headlines included "A Muslim woman spoke from the dispatch box for the FIRST TIME EVER!" shows that's still a factor.
There's a lot of people who would think it a terrible thing that somebody who happens to be a Kashmiri-born woman from an Islamic background (I have no idea how religious she is or isn't) is a government minister.
Come to think of it, there's a lot who think she shouldn't even be allowed in the country.
I heard that headline on the news and cringed. It's patronising and also sets the individual MP, Nus Ghani, up for a fall, or at the very least to be under disproportionate scrutiny. Good look to her.There's a lot of people who would think it a terrible thing that somebody who happens to be a Kashmiri-born woman from an Islamic background (I have no idea how religious she is or isn't) is a government minister.
Come to think of it, there's a lot who think she shouldn't even be allowed in the country.
There's a gulf of difference between not liking this sort of racism and thinking she shouldn't be allowed in the UK. For starters, she was born in Birmingham!
Still, you'll have a sizable slice of the usual suspects who still regard her as a second-class citizen because her parents shouldn't have been here in the first place.
TooMany2cvs said:
Digga said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Digga said:
TooMany2cvs said:
I can kinda see the "It'll show how far we've come" line - the very fact that yesterday's headlines included "A Muslim woman spoke from the dispatch box for the FIRST TIME EVER!" shows that's still a factor.
There's a lot of people who would think it a terrible thing that somebody who happens to be a Kashmiri-born woman from an Islamic background (I have no idea how religious she is or isn't) is a government minister.
Come to think of it, there's a lot who think she shouldn't even be allowed in the country.
I heard that headline on the news and cringed. It's patronising and also sets the individual MP, Nus Ghani, up for a fall, or at the very least to be under disproportionate scrutiny. Good look to her.There's a lot of people who would think it a terrible thing that somebody who happens to be a Kashmiri-born woman from an Islamic background (I have no idea how religious she is or isn't) is a government minister.
Come to think of it, there's a lot who think she shouldn't even be allowed in the country.
There's a gulf of difference between not liking this sort of racism and thinking she shouldn't be allowed in the UK. For starters, she was born in Birmingham!
Still, you'll have a sizable slice of the usual suspects who still regard her as a second-class citizen because her parents shouldn't have been here in the first place.
vsonix said:
del mar said:
Nobody has yet answer my New Zealand question.
That's because as a rhetorical question or a real one it's a bit of a silly one. NZ is a former commonwealth country and as a result we have to adhere to rules we set at the time of the dissolution of the commonwealth regarding right to work and live in the UK for former commonwealth citizens.
Non-aboriginal New Zealanders are 80% likely to be of British origin anyway.
Aboriginal New Zealanders might well find it hard to emigrate to the UK for work purposes since the mid 90s when the UK changed its rules regarding Visas for commonwealth citizens meaning you now have to be able to show ancestry - which in effect means only white NZers (South Africans, Australians etc) can easily settle in the UK now as opposed to temporary working visas
The NZ economy is currently that much stronger than ours that we'd mostly be better off getting on a plane and moving to NZ in pursuit of a better lifestyle and working environment than if we stayed here.
Replace new Zealand with any country you want, I only used that as it wasn't controversial.
If they are ne benefits at all why do we want them ?
TooMany2cvs said:
del mar said:
If they are ne benefits at all why do we want them ?
Can that not be applied to internal migration, too?Why should people from Belfast just be able to move to Birmingham on a whim, but people from Dublin not? Or from Llandudno or Inverness?
Presumeably your kids are allowed into your living room when they want, so by your logic I'm assuming your neighbours kids are also allowed in when they want?
Edit: and ultimately internal cases of immigration can cause problems and need to be regulated against. Look at China's mass migration to the coasts for an example!
Edited by Shay HTFC on Friday 19th January 15:23
TooMany2cvs said:
Can that not be applied to internal migration, too?
Why should people from Belfast just be able to move to Birmingham on a whim, but people from Dublin not? Or from Llandudno or Inverness?
Leaving aside any moral aspects, because we are part of the same currency area, and freedom of movement is required in order to make shared currencies work ,along with large fiscal transfers of course.Why should people from Belfast just be able to move to Birmingham on a whim, but people from Dublin not? Or from Llandudno or Inverness?
Which leads to the next point that it benefits the nation for people to be able to move where they will generate most value and pay the most tax.
The nation state is fundamentally a practical concern, though all the trappings of it are very important to most of course.
del mar said:
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 ?
So you want them to pay tax to pay for your healthcare and benefits but not be able to claim them!You really are a greedy b££££££.
Mrr T said:
del mar said:
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 ?
So you want them to pay tax to pay for your healthcare and benefits but not be able to claim them!You really are a greedy b££££££.
Mrr T said:
del mar said:
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 ?
So you want them to pay tax to pay for your healthcare and benefits but not be able to claim them!You really are a greedy b££££££.
If you don't like the terms then just don't move to the country..??
anonymous said:
[redacted]
That's what's happened. Untrammeled immigration, political suicide for any party, goes on absolutely unaffected by politics. They have no choice. Witness the huge argument about numbers between George Osborne and Teresa May, when she was at the Home Office. Osborne just absolutely ignored her. Because, a. she is a ghastly woman and, b. we have to keep immigration where it is even to keep treading water as we are. It's a bit much for some on here to grasp. We don't allow immigration, we massively encourage it at all costs. Not because we are kind, but because we are precisely the opposite.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff