Why was IMMMIGRATION ignored in the budget>?

treliac

ninky wrote: »

ultimately country borders are a human invention, as are passport controls and nationality. we are all citizens of the world. the aim should be for humans to be allowed to settle in whichever part of the globe best suits.

Nice idea but some parts are so well resourced in comparison to others that the world would become lop-sided.

itsnever2lateisit?

Guess I'll get sucked in, here goes - a few random points

Until WW1 passports didn't exist, so no immigration controls then

Funny how we all want strawberries in the summer for a quid a punnet, yet it is beneath too many to pick them for £5.50/hr, hence they are picked by East Europeans now (never used to be like that)

Below a picture postcardy view of an 'english' village



Yes it is in England, but it was built with immigrant money in the 14th Century

finally Dervish, in wanting to rid these shores of immigrants, do you include the largest immigrant group that have been here in numbers for centuries (long before the EU) ---- the Irish?


Perhaps I should jump into the sea, I am decended from french immigrants, but I dont work here, I work for a swiss company and suck 1000's of francs out of their economy each month and repatriate it here for a UK govt to fritter away

Cleaver

andy1976 wrote: »

Not really he is entitled to an opinion.

"Great britain freedom of speech" Is it hell

Matbe didn't curtail any free speech. Dervish was allowed to make her point, then got called a racist, which is pretty accurate. Both posts are perfect examples of free speech in action.

Cleaver

Whenever Dervish starts a thread, it reminds me of a 9 year old coming on and starting a thread along the lines of:

"I think we should eat sweets for every single meal. Sweets are yummy. Discuss".

And then mature, intelligent adults come on and reply that it'll rot your teeth, that you need a balanced diet and that sugar is not good for you in large amounts. This could be said over and over again, but if you don't have an intellectual capability to reason things in an itelligent way then there's no point.

Dervish is a racist. And before the 'free speech' brigade kick in, I'm more than happy for Dervish to come on here and be racist, that's her business. But it's also free speech to be able to respond.

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

So are shoes, chocolate and indeed, democracy. I fond of all three.

Incidently, re border controls human invention: nature has scores of examples of terratorial defence.

but chocolate would be chocolate, shoes and democracy would be the same whether you put them here or in, for example, australia.

you, however, whilst being materially the same wherever you crop up, only gain the definition of nationality by virtue of the area of the world you are born (or parents or grandparents depending on individually made up rules). you asked if you are british. this just shows what a nonsense the concept "british" is. take your genes, clone them, and "birth" them in different parts of the world and your nationality is changed, although materially you have not substantially altered.

ninky_2

treliac wrote: »

Nice idea but some parts are so well resourced in comparison to others that the world would become lop-sided.

but if there were no immigration controls it would all even out in the end. for example, if one part of the world became overpopulated due to it being desirable to live in it would eventually become less desirable so people would move away from it to other areas. areas only become overpopulated because of immigration controls.

for example, if the immigration controls of other countries were not so strict the uk would not be so overpopulated since many more would choose to move overseas (us, australia, canada etc etc). many simply stay in this country because of stricter controls in other countries that share a common language.

global overpopulation is the result of people reproducing by more than their number (for example a couple having more than two children), not the result of free movement around the planet.

ultra10

tomterm8 wrote: »

You make me ashamed to be British. My grandfather risked his life so we could be free, now you intentionally go out of your way to prevent people being free simply because of the colour of their skin.

Well we have something in common, you make me ashamed to be be British & my Great grandfather was also a Decorated WW1 vet (Ypres) as my Grandfather in WW2, I guess we just Disagree ..I wonder how your Grandfather would respond to wholesale collonisation of parts of the u.k by people (some of whom) would rather kill us that adopt our ways ??

BTW, Can you give me an Example of any of the "Colour of Skin" Laws you make referance too, you know the ones that are taken advantage of/ abused on an almost hourly basis, so we now have to have "Ethnic quotas" for just about everything !!
So "Colour of Skin laws" .. anyone ?? ... Oh !!!! you mean "Race" laws ?? silly me..sorry .... p.s see signature below

endure

ultra10 wrote: »

Well we have something in common, you make me ashamed to be be British & my Great grandfather was also a Decorated WW1 vet (Ypres) as my Grandfather in WW2, I guess we just Disagree ..I wonder how your Grandfather would respond to wholesale collonisation of parts of the u.k by people (some of whom) would rather kill us that adopt our ways ??

They'd be the same people (Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims) who raised the largest volunteer army the world has ever seen (1.5 million), put themselves in harm's way and fought on the same side as your Grandfather to help defend a country they'd never seen which had held them as empire subjects for the previous 150 years? What does your Grandfather have to say about the 1.5 million Indians who fought on our side in WWII?

ninky_2

bluey890 wrote: »

From a personal point of view, I don't like the idea of living in a country with a high population density, where its green spaces are either concreted over or used for farmland.

Ironically, if it continues, my partner and I may up sticks and move to a more spacious one with stronger border control, perhaps Australia for example.

We are both well educated and highly skilled - precisely the type of people the country should be trying to retain.

land use has nothing to do with immigration. much farmland is unused or badly used and could be turned to wilderness.

no one who has reproduced by more than their number (i.e. two children per couple) can really complain about overpopulation. genetic mixing can only strengthen the species (look what happens when they try to create 'breeds' of dogs).

the reason australia is so unpopulated is that large areas of it are uninhabitable / unpleasant to live in and that the culture of creating artificial human habitats (cities, agriculture) that allow for greater populations is relatively new to it.

there's no should or shouldn't about the 'type' of people this country should try to retain. i'm of the opinion that all human life is equal. i find superiority complexes a form of psychological delusion.

lifesuckssometimes

matbe wrote: »

ALERT ALERT ALERT!!!!!


Racist bigot on the loose.

Sorry where has OP made ANY racist comment in his post, again gun hoe replies from idiots living in gated houses in middle class areas. Who know !!!! all. To learn to be a doctor you go to college/uni to learn about life live in the real world:mad: