We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The rise of Extremism in Economically tough times
Comments
-
America at the time did of course have lots of free land (obviously not utilised by anyone) loads of resources under utilised ....
Well yes, that's the argument that the settlers used as they proceeded to dispossess the natives.....
and is obviously a barking comparison.
I agree. It's absolutely barking to try and persuade suspicious Brits that immigration is a 'good thing' by pointing to the USA as an example of how immigration 'benefited' a nation. Even the stupidest Brit can't fail to see that the result was that the immigrants took over....The same way as increasing the population to pay for the elderly because that generation does the same and the next the population getting ever higher. Still lets just stop people paying for themselves.
So now you're arguing that it's a stupid idea to allow lots of young immigrants to settle in this country in order to pay for the elderly?0 -
Well yes, that's the argument that the settlers used as they proceeded to dispossess the natives.
Which natives? All "the natives" or "American Indians" are many different ethnic groups and were all immigrants once, since mankind originates in Africa. How do you know which "native" ethnic group owns the whole of the Americas?
The Celts were in the UK before The Vikings, The Romans, The Angles, The Saxons and William the Conqueror. People of Celtic origin are easy to spot - they are ginger. Do only ginger people have a claim on the UK because they were here first?What do we do when we fall? We get up, dust ourselves off and start walking in the right direction again. Perhaps when we fall, it is easy to forget there are people along the way who help us stand and walk with us as we get back on track.0 -
Which natives? All "the natives" or "American Indians" are many different ethnic groups and were all immigrants once, since mankind originates in Africa. How do you know which "native" ethnic group owns the whole of the Americas?
The Celts were in the UK before The Vikings, The Romans, The Angles, The Saxons and William the Conqueror. People of Celtic origin are easy to spot - they are ginger. Do only ginger people have a claim on the UK because they were here first?
indeed so but what is your conclusion
-that it is OK to invade and kill off the previous group of immigrants
-that all the world's an equal stage and you are happy for unlimited movement of people without constraint
- or what exactly?0 -
BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »Furthermore, many of us grew up long enough ago to remember a place where people were overwhelmingly white, British-born and British in their attitudes, outlooks, eating habits, and what have you.
Were they though?
Of my 4 grandparents. One was German, one was French , another Welsh and one a Londoner. The UK has always been multicultural. What cannot be catered for is being swamped.0 -
indeed so but what is your conclusion
So what is "your" conclusion? That everyone should stay put? Nothing in the world should change ever?-that it is OK to invade and kill off the previous group of immigrants
Nobody could have know that American Indians would be so effected by western diseases, could they? It would have happened eventually. Unless, people just stayed in exactly the same spot as they were born. In which case we would all live in a very crowded spot in Africa. Is that what you're suggesting?-that all the world's an equal stage and you are happy for unlimited movement of people without constraint
- or what exactly?
You seen to be perfectly happy for people to die trying to emigrate to a better life and to starve to death in their country of origin. I'm not sure you are in the position to take the moral high ground here.
If you feel so threatened by immigrants - maybe you need to work harder? Get better qualifications or training? The problem is yours. You should own it.
To paraphrase Tony Blair last week - people don't need an excuse or someone to blame for their problems - they need education and training. Giving people someone to blame turns then into victims - when what they need is to be empowered - and I type that has someone who comes from a poor background. To get out of a hole people need a "can do" attitude. Blaming someone else will get you nowhere fast PDQ.0 -
Which natives? .
We are all descended from immigrants. SFW. That is no moral justification to engage in ethnic cleansing and so forth, now is it?....Nobody could have know that American Indians would be so effected by western diseases, could they? It would have happened eventually. ...
That is the point that is being disputed specifically as regards the North American Indians. It is perfectly true that the initial settlement of the eastern seaboard of what is now the USA was greatly assisted by the fact that the impact of western disease had a significant effect on the native population. But the USA did not move westwards into an "empty land". They fought wars to dispossess the Indians. They broke treaties. They commited war crimes. They practiced genocide. And they weren't fighting against 'savages'. They were often fighting against people who had learnt from centuries of contact with European settlers, and even had things like towns, newspapers, and democratically elected governments.
Thus to cite the experience of the USA as an argument in favour of immigration seems a trifle bizarre.
P.S. You're wrong about Celts as well. They are not all 'ginger'.0 -
So what is "your" conclusion? That everyone should stay put? Nothing in the world should change ever?
Nobody could have know that American Indians would be so effected by western diseases, could they? It would have happened eventually. Unless, people just stayed in exactly the same spot as they were born. In which case we would all live in a very crowded spot in Africa. Is that what you're suggesting?
You seen to be perfectly happy for people to die trying to emigrate to a better life and to starve to death in their country of origin. I'm not sure you are in the position to take the moral high ground here.
If you feel so threatened by immigrants - maybe you need to work harder? Get better qualifications or training? The problem is yours. You should own it.
It is rightly pointed out that people have migrated around the globe for a least a couple of million years.
Taking the arbitrary view that we were 'humans' for the last 50,000 years then again we have certainly migrated over that period too.
It is undoubtedly true that historically, many migrations have been accompanied by extreme violence, oppression and slavery : history is the story of the victors.
Only some-one every ignorant or very self deluded could possible see the take over of either north or south america as an 'accidental' killing of the indigenous people or an 'accidental' occupation of the land or the accidental introduction of slavery.
In any event, it does not seem unreasonble to ask some-one who favours more immigration whether they favour unlimited immigration : and is so on the historical level of the survival of the fittest
or on a welcome mat basis.
My personal view is that I wish to maintain my current living conditions and maintain this green and pleasant land broadly as it is.
I do not myself, share my income with the rest of the world, nor do I wish to live at the same poverty level as the world average.
Certainly not a 'high moral' position at all but one based on self interest.
I invite you to give your view.0 -
My personal view is that I wish to maintain my current living conditions and maintain this green and pleasant land broadly as it is.
I do not myself, share my income with the rest of the world, nor do I wish to live at the same poverty level as the world average.
Certainly not a 'high moral' position at all but one based on self interest.
I invite you to give your view.
That's a desire rather than a view on immigration.
You seem to be advocating that immigration ceases immediately, we wait for technological advances that will allow fewer workers to support greater numbers of non-producers. If that fails to materialise we import large numbers of immigrants en masse some years in the future - maybe in around 30 years so they don't become part of the ageing problem?
This may seem like an elaborate strawman but you do seem to prefer to interrogate other people's views on this subject rather than express your own.0 -
-
That's a desire rather than a view on immigration.
You seem to be advocating that immigration ceases immediately, we wait for technological advances that will allow fewer workers to support greater numbers of non-producers. If that fails to materialise we import large numbers of immigrants en masse some years in the future - maybe in around 30 years so they don't become part of the ageing problem?
This may seem like an elaborate strawman but you do seem to prefer to interrogate other people's views on this subject rather than express your own.
I don't see we have an immediate problem with too few workers and too many jobs.
Therefore I do not see the need or the advantage to deliberately importing millions more people.
I however do believe that a modest rate of immigration is beneficial economically and socially desirable.
If at a future time we find that there are loads of unfilled vacancies and no workers available then that is the time to consider allowing more immigration.
I think that we have a lovely prosperous country and don't see any advantages is having to build new road/rails/ houses/ offices and suffer longing commuting times, overcrowding, crowded beeches / countryside / mountains etc. when we have no pressing need.
I thought I'ld basically said this all before but happy to repeat it.
Many people seem to support immigration either as an economic benefit or for other social reasons.
Most seems reluctant to say how many or whether there should be any limit.
That is their choice but I think it reasonable to ask.
So I shall:
what is your view - unlimited?
or if limited how many?
or prefer not to say?
and why -for self interested economic reasons
-social justice reasons?
-mixture of both?
-other?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.9K Spending & Discounts
- 244.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.2K Life & Family
- 258.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards