Biggest population in Europe?

lostinrates

dervish wrote: »

Also better for British people to have 2 homes in this country than to accpet the multitidnous raft of problems that unchecked immigration brings.

Why?

do not two separate households on a hypothetical simialar income, rather than one household with two houses, represent increased potential spending in UK?

(before you get cranky, it is possible I might end up a two house-household)

dervish

Generali wrote: »

Immigration to the UK is limited, at least when it comes to potential migrants from outside the EU.

Play the ball not the (wo)man, fair enough. Also, let's stick to facts rather than getting lost in hyperbole.

How can you say it is 'limited' when there are about 800,000 ILLEGAL immigrants here?! :eek:

Generali

I think I'm going to give up on this immigration stuff. I find the other side of the argument unpleasant so I'll bow out here.

To those arguing on the anti-immigration side - feel free to think you've won or made a point or whatever. I'd just rather not discuss stuff with people whose views I find amoral (as opposed to immoral).

Enjoy the rest of the debate guys!

vivatifosi

lostinrates wrote: »

I think some very non-xenophobic arguments about immigration are valid, and it merits futher discussion. Ironically I think the biggest block to sensible discussion about this, at all levels, is probably those who want everyone 'to go home' as opposed to those who are determined to be PC. I belong to neither camp, and I do want to see sensible proposals at goverment level about migration.

Thats my thought too lir. As I see it there are three groups of people that get lumped together in one: migrants to the country that have a legal right to be here (either through work permit or from being from another EU state), economic migrants that don't have a legal right to be here (illegal immigrants) and those seeking political asylum.

In the case of the first group, they have a right to be here, people should get over it. Its the flip side of the great right that we all have as individuals to go work in the Costas, Paris, Krakow, Stockholm or wherever takes our fancy.

In the case of the second group, if you think people are working illegally they are probably being exploited by their employers and on below even minimum wage. So shop the employer if they are doing something illegal.

In the third instance we have a duty in law to house those seeking political asylum from horrific regimes and its right that we do that. My DH works for an airline, so I know from what his colleagues have told me that people flush their passports down the toilets to claim asylum at the point of entry when they are not from the country that they claim to be from. In this instance there are certain destinations that are more known for this (in much the same way as the drug routes are known), so as such drug flights are targeted by customs, why not have a sterile area in airports where these flights are sent to, the customs is handled at the gate? Then anyone who tries to get into the airport and mingle with other customers cannot get that far, and if they've already disposed of their passport its clear where they've come from, they can be investigated and repatriated to their known country of exit. As a backup you could also get the airline to photocopy the travel docs of everyone prior to boarding, that way even if the evidence has been flushed, a backup copy is available.

People are always going to look for a better life, so would we if we were in their situation. If we want the issues addressed, we need to deal with the causes: they would not work here if there was nobody to employ them (though at the same time ask yourself if that's somewhere you want to live) and they would not get into the country if we closed immigration loopholes. Those are issues for the government to address.

At the same time there is one big question that I never hear the answer to: if illegal immigrants and asylum seekers can get into Europe, why are so many so keen to get to the UK, when they are already within the safety of the EU? Of all the questions in the immigration debate that's the one I would like to know the answer to the most, because the answers people give to that have the potential to build the most workable solutions.

lostinrates

vivatifosi wrote: »

Thats my thought too lir. As I see it there are three groups of people that get lumped together in one: migrants to the country that have a legal right to be here (either through work permit or from being from another EU state), economic migrants that don't have a legal right to be here (illegal immigrants) and those seeking political asylum.

In the case of the first group, they have a right to be here, people should get over it. Its the flip side of the great right that we all have as individuals to go work in the Costas, Paris, Krakow, Stockholm or wherever takes our fancy.

In the case of the second group, if you think people are working illegally they are probably being exploited by their employers and on below even minimum wage. So shop the employer if they are doing something illegal.

In the third instance we have a duty in law to house those seeking political asylum from horrific regimes and its right that we do that. My DH works for an airline, so I know from what his colleagues have told me that people flush their passports down the toilets to claim asylum at the point of entry when they are not from the country that they claim to be from. In this instance there are certain destinations that are more known for this (in much the same way as the drug routes are known), so as such drug flights are targeted by customs, why not have a sterile area in airports where these flights are sent to, the customs is handled at the gate? Then anyone who tries to get into the airport and mingle with other customers cannot get that far, and if they've already disposed of their passport its clear where they've come from, they can be investigated and repatriated to their known country of exit. As a backup you could also get the airline to photocopy the travel docs of everyone prior to boarding, that way even if the evidence has been flushed, a backup copy is available.

People are always going to look for a better life, so would we if we were in their situation. If we want the issues addressed, we need to deal with the causes: they would not work here if there was nobody to employ them (though at the same time ask yourself if that's somewhere you want to live) and they would not get into the country if we closed immigration loopholes. Those are issues for the government to address.

At the same time there is one big question that I never hear the answer to: if illegal immigrants and asylum seekers can get into Europe, why are so many so keen to get to the UK, when they are already within the safety of the EU? Of all the questions in the immigration debate that's the one I would like to know the answer to the most, because the answers people give to that have the potential to build the most workable solutions.

viva, I like you.;) :beer:

Rochdale_Pioneers

With reference to the notion that Britain is full, can I draw people's attention to northern England, Scotland and Wales outside the northern and southern coastal strips. Vast expanses of empty land - we are not full. Parts of England may well be, but not "Britain".

Midas

Given the economic downturn and the diminishing value of sterling, I would have thought the UK was an increasingly unattractive place for economic migrants. I think the figures in this report are guess work at best.

dervish

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

With reference to the notion that Britain is full, can I draw people's attention to northern England, Scotland and Wales outside the northern and southern coastal strips. Vast expanses of empty land - we are not full. Parts of England may well be, but not "Britain".

you dont measure wheterh a country is full by the empty land.

You look at infrastructure, services etc.

Our oads are full, the NHS is straining, the green belt is being destroyed etc.

lostinrates

dervish wrote: »

Our oads are full, .

I'm so sorry, I realise this is a typo but its kinda humourous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oad

piggeh

vivatifosi wrote: »

At the same time there is one big question that I never hear the answer to: if illegal immigrants and asylum seekers can get into Europe, why are so many so keen to get to the UK, when they are already within the safety of the EU? Of all the questions in the immigration debate that's the one I would like to know the answer to the most, because the answers people give to that have the potential to build the most workable solutions.

I guess even if everything else was equal, they would still prefer to come here because we have a diverse cultural mix already. We have communities of most major/minor ethnic groups. If you were to go to a foreign country wouldn't you rather join with fellow British (well, debatable) rather than end up in a country where no one shares your cultural background.