How can you seriously think mass immigration is a good thing?

[AntiImmigrant]

[Speaking about the UK here. If you're not from the UK, and don't know the circumstances I'm speaking of, yet respond anyway, feel free to fuck off.]

How can anyone seriously consider immigration to be a good thing for society? Let's have a look at the facts:

- The UK is currently experiencing a housing crisis, whereby first time buyers struggle to get houses because houses are relatively scarce. Now admittedly price has gone down recently because of the economic collapse, but the real shortage of houses remains.

Given that more people are born every day, but we still don't have anymore land, how can anyone morally think more immigration is a good thing? We barely have enough houses to make sure the current population is OK, nevermind more!

- We are a relatively tiny island who can't realistically hold anymore people. Our healthcare service is in debt. There's too many cars on the roads already. Because of the current economic crisis, it's safe to assume a fair number of jobs will be lost. What benefit could there possibly be for the UK to important anymore immigrants?

In my opinion the practise needs to be banned completely. Britain is struggling to hold it's current population, and a country should be looking after its own interests, not others.

[Anti Freedom]

If fucking off is the same as beating off, then I am fine.

How can anyone with a heart deny these immigrants the freedom to enter a land to support themselves and their interests? I mean, if they are moving to a nation with:

"a housing crisis", "too many cars on the roads", "current economic crisis", and where "jobs will be lost"

then I must feel sorry for them that they live in a place so bad that the UK looks good in comparison, and thus send my sympathy over to them.

[synthesis]

a country should be looking after its own interests, not others.

Why?

Why should individuals within a country look after the country's interests rather than their own?


What benefit could there possibly be for the UK to important anymore immigrants?

Probably so they can be isolated, terrorized and coerced into cheap labor. But that's something you should take up with the government and business elites in your country, not us.

We would prefer that their places of origin become suitable places to live and that emigration would become purely a matter of their personal choice rather than an economic necessity.

[Bilan]

Most of your criticisms are of poor infrastructure, and neglect of development of transport and housing services by the government and private companies - considering how much shit in the UK has been privatised, the latter holds alot of responsibility.

you're simply using immigrants as a scape goat.

oh, and I'm not from the UK. Incidently, I am from the planet earth, and interestingly, immigration is common everywhere - not just the UK. Thinking that the UK is some how a separate, isolated, and 'worst off' case is just ridiculous.

[danyboy27]

from a purely pragmatic, logical point of view, if the uk has a piece of land cant contain anymore people, then this guy is right, somehow, but i would definitively need studies to back it up.

dont blame the immigrants, they usually go to the nearest place where they can find:

-freedom
-jobs
-human right
-healthcare

if you really want to stop immigration, you should consider support a project involving kicking the asses of the piss poor dictatorship that holding them in constant povrety and allow them to have the same right and priviledges than you.

[Dr Mindbender]

[Speaking about the UK here. If you're not from the UK, and don't know the circumstances I'm speaking of, yet respond anyway, feel free to fuck off.]

How can anyone seriously consider immigration to be a good thing for society?

Er, because we have skill shortages and need immigrants to plug the skills gaps?



Let's have a look at the facts:
oh joy.



- The UK is currently experiencing a housing crisis, whereby first time buyers struggle to get houses because houses are relatively scarce. Now admittedly price has gone down recently because of the economic collapse, but the real shortage of houses remains.
thats an indictment of capitalism, not immigrants.

Immigrants are only fleeing the policies that we pursue in their countries. In the case of Eastern Europe, they are fleeing untethered capitalism.



Given that more people are born every day, but we still don't have anymore land, how can anyone morally think more immigration is a good thing? We barely have enough houses to make sure the current population is OK, nevermind more!
Most of the uk's land is owned privately by a bunch of toffs who use it up for their golf courses and private areas.

Redistribute these lands and it won't be an issue. Secondly i don't buy this argument about the uk being poor because of a population inundation, both germany and japan have more people per sq km yet have higher GDP's and standards of living.



- We are a relatively tiny island who can't realistically hold anymore people.
bollocks, for the above reason.


Our healthcare service is in debt.
Its in debt because it's underfunded and our government spends all our money on shit like the iraq war and the olympics.


There's too many cars on the roads already. Because of the current economic crisis, it's safe to assume a fair number of jobs will be lost. What benefit could there possibly be for the UK to important anymore immigrants?
who else is going to occupy the menial jobs that workshy brits are too proud to get out of bed to do?

There was an excellent documentary on earlier in the year where they interviewed a bunch of chavs outside the dole office and told them ''theres a farmer employing people for £7 an hour picking vegetables'' to which they replied ''it's just a bunch of poles''. They interviewed the same farmer who said that about 2 englishmen in as many years came to him for work.



In my opinion the practise needs to be banned completely. Britain is struggling to hold it's current population, and a country should be looking after its own interests, not others.
Its not struggling to hold it's ruling class population. It needs redistribution not segregation and exclusion.

[Sankofa]

Perhaps if Britain wouldn't have colonized so many other nations and fucked them over economically, you wouldn't have so many people immigrating from former colonies, eh?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Perhaps if Britain wouldn't have colonized so many other nations and fucked them over economically, you wouldn't have so many people immigrating from former colonies, eh?

Perhaps Britain should have never given those colnies independence, eh?

[danyboy27]

Perhaps Britain should have never given those colnies independence, eh?

i love how people blame a country for something that have been done hundred of year ago, making the habitants of this country dirrectly responsable for what happened back then.

[Forward Union]

[Speaking about the UK here. If you're not from the UK, and don't know the circumstances I'm speaking of, yet respond anyway, feel free to fuck off.]

Well I actually agree with you that mass migration is essentially a bad phenomina. But I think this for almost completely the opposite reasons.


- The UK is currently experiencing a housing crisis, whereby first time buyers struggle to get houses because houses are relatively scarce. Now admittedly price has gone down recently because of the economic collapse, but the real shortage of houses remains.

Yes, I think you'll find there's actually ample housing. There are almost certainly enough empty buildings to house the section of the population in precarious housing, or the homeless. There's also loads of "space" to b uild more housing. I mean, we're not crowded atall, most of the UK is empty, probably 1 person every mile. But Cities are poorly designed and packed tight.


Given that more people are born every day, but we still don't have anymore land, how can anyone morally think more immigration is a good thing? We barely have enough houses to make sure the current population is OK, nevermind more!

Again, every factual premise here is wrong. Although I wil laccept more people are born every day.


We are a relatively tiny island who can't realistically hold anymore people.

You're right, we might sink.


Our healthcare service is in debt.

Right, and how much money have we spent on Bombs, tanks, guns etc? Not only that, how much money have we been giving to Iraq and Afghanistan to make sure their now unstable regions are held tight? Billions. Billions which could have gone into the NHS, but havent done, because they priorotise war, and admittedly want to fuck the NHS. And expand the private sector. It's all the bosses and polititans fault.

Rather than sqabbling over who can sit in our little sinking boat and who can't, while we ALL get fucked by the toffs, we should be standing and fighting the bosses for a better society, based on need not greed. Where people won't need to cling to the sides of trains for days, loosing some kids on the way, just to get a house and a small alowance.


There's too many cars on the roads already.

Agreed, but a very small amount probably driven by the poorest section of society I suspect.


Because of the current economic crisis, it's safe to assume a fair number of jobs will be lost. What benefit could there possibly be for the UK to important anymore immigrants

Well Legal Immigrants are normally Doctors, Surgeons, Bussinessmen, Scientists etc. Asylum seekers admitedly are not meant to be beneficial, but they need our help and we provide it; that said, last time I read, asylum seekers overall contribute 800 million to the economy per anum...

[Dr Mindbender]

Another drive by troll i think. :lol:

[vomit_from_your_mouth]

Too much immigration from a certain country causes problems.

I see the same people who accused me of being annoying are doing the same in other threads...

[Dr Mindbender]

Too much immigration from a certain country causes problems.
why a certain country? What difference does it make if they come from various countries?


I see the same people who accused me of being annoying are doing the same in other threads...
Well to be fair to you, you were repeating the same arguments we've heard a hundred times and returning very little intellectually.

[ZeroNowhere]

God is dead, and thus these magical lines that he drew on the globe don't matter any more. Why does everybody seem to pretend that national borders were created out of pixie dust and frogs' legs?

[Dr Mindbender]

God is dead, and thus these magical lines that he drew on the globe don't matter any more.
Nobody argues that national borders were created by god, even theists will concede that national borders are manmade.


Why does everybody seem to pretend that national borders were created out of pixie dust and frogs' legs?
What are you talking about? :confused:

[Sankofa]

Perhaps Britain should have never given those colnies independence, eh?

Perhaps maybe never colonized them in the first place? :confused:

Another option: After Britain gave said colonies their independence, if they had paid back all the wealth and capital they had stolen for centuries by the way of
imperialism, maybe there would be no need for immigration for a better life in Britian?


i love how people blame a country for something that have been done hundred of year ago, making the habitants of this country dirrectly responsable for what happened back then.

I didn't "blame" British citizens for anything, merely pointing out a historic fact. It isn't fair that you have to deal with the consequences for the past, the crimes of your fathers as it were, but it is what it is.

[danyboy27]

I didn't "blame" British citizens for anything, merely pointing out a historic fact. It isn't fair that you have to deal with the consequences for the past, the crimes of your fathers as it were, but it is what it is.


yea but that historical fact dont mean anything in that case, if there is effictively no more room in england, i dont think we cant use it has an argument, there is no more room, there is no more room, that it that all.

even if the brittish would have lets the whole world alone, i am pretty sure the peoples living here would still try to gon in england.

canada didnt invaded nobody and we got a immigration boon right now.

[Sankofa]

yea but that historical fact dont mean anything in that case, if there is effictively no more room in england, i dont think we cant use it has an argument, there is no more room, there is no more room, that it that all.



The "no more room!" argument was debunked earlier in the thread.

Historical facts do play a part. If Britain didn't make itself excessively rich of the exploitation of whole continents, there would be immigration en mass like there is now.

Did the British Empire give a fuck about the social conditions when they went murdering and enslaving people all over the globe?


canada didnt invaded nobody

:lol: I'm sure the Indigenous population would beg to differ.

As far as Canada's immigrants; where are the immigrants coming from? Generally immigrants move to another country for better lives in contrast to their home countries poor conditions.

Many of these immigrants come from countries ruined by imperialist powers. History is not an insignificant, the actions of the past directly influence and effect situations today.

[Demogorgon]

The UK is far from over-populated, indeed if anything it is suffering from having an insufficient population. The reality is that countries that are over-populated tend to have people moving away from them towards countries with more room, not the other way around.

Really though, saying people should be prevented from moving from country to country is as absurd as saying they should be prevented from moving from city to city or even house to house.

[Robert]

It may be objectionable on humanitarian grounds, but I don't think it's absurd. There is a population of Turks in southern France in a town I know fairly well. The French don't like the Turkish presence because their culture and lifestyles are different. It affects the city atmosphere. I am sure the Turks think it's an improvement, the French think the reverse.

What the French (should) see coming next are demands that their children be taught at public expense by Turkish speaking teachers. How about turkish interpreters in the hospitals? Seems fair to the Turks, unfair to the French.

It's not racism. I can hardly tell a Turk from a southern Gaul, myself.

Where is the "absurdity"?

[synthesis]

A lot of people have a pretty simplistic view of colonialism.


Perhaps Britain should have never given those colnies independence, eh?

After World War II, not allowing colonies a form of nominal independence wasn't an option. There just weren't enough resources to squash nationalist movements as they had done in the past.

Britain opted to sacrifice political control due to the fear that revolution would also wrest economic power from British-affiliated conglomerates in those countries.

To assert that the colonialist powers "gave" independence away out of benevolence like Christmas gifts is totally ahistorical.

At the same time...



After Britain gave said colonies their independence, if they had paid back all the wealth and capital they had stolen for centuries by the way of
imperialism, maybe there would be no need for immigration for a better life in Britian?

Those countries would still be fucked up. Governments in most post-colonial countries are deeply corrupt due to the fact that the political structures remained largely the same despite the change in personnel - they never abandoned the fundamental philosophy of stealing from the people.

In all probability, those governments would have taken the "reparations" they were given to distribute and gone on to buy yachts for themselves and their family members.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

i love how people blame a country for something that have been done hundred of year ago, making the habitants of this country dirrectly responsable for what happened back then.

The British government is still imperialist and it's still responsible for exploiting and impeding progress in the third world.

[Sankofa]

Those countries would still be fucked up. Governments in most post-colonial countries are deeply corrupt due to the fact that the political structures remained largely the same despite the change in personnel - they never abandoned the fundamental philosophy of stealing from the people.

In all probability, those governments would have taken the "reparations" they were given to distribute and gone on to buy yachts for themselves and their family members.

Well, of course that's true. I didn't mean to make an over-simplification:

Many post-colonial countries were taken over by corrupt people, due to the fact that the policy of "freeing" a country by a colonizer was to simply drop the ball and walk away, causing civil wars in the wake of power vacuums or by imperialist intervention, where progressive leaders were assasinated and neo-colonial dictators who served the interests of imperialism rather than the people were installed (i.e. Mobutu and the Congo).

I didn't mean simple reparations were due, there should have been a lot more responsibility on old colonial powers to clean up their mess (and add to the fact that many "freed" countries are still serving the interests of outsiders) and fix what they broke; but I think the original point I was trying to make is graspable.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Colonizers didn't "drop the ball and go away", they continued to exert control over former colonies in new ways, which is precisely why they never left their condition of underdevelopment. It's the objective of imperialist policies to keep poor countries in their place.

[Sankofa]

Colonizers didn't "drop the ball and go away", they continued to exert control over former colonies in new ways. Please read a history book.

I expressed that very same fact in the previous post. How about you quit acting like an asshole and read yourself?

[Jazzratt]

The UK has a population density per square kilometre of 246. THat's quite low, especially when compared to, say, Singapore which has one of 6,489. Overcrowding just isn't a problem for the UK.

[al8]

What the French (should) see coming next are demands that their children be taught at public expense by Turkish speaking teachers. How about turkish interpreters in the hospitals? Seems fair to the Turks, unfair to the French.

Or that the french would think it fair. Why? Because having compitent bilingual second generation immigrants is a positive thing. In that it creates compitent groups of people that can facilitate communication between the countries. In Denmark for example the state funds teachers to educate immigrant children their mother toungue. And this does not impede on learning the native language, especially since this is an auxilluary thing to standard corriculum.

[Dr Mindbender]

The UK has a population density per square kilometre of 246. THat's quite low, especially when compared to, say, Singapore which has one of 6,489. Overcrowding just isn't a problem for the UK.

You're right. Our problem is that a few fat bastards own a disporportionately high amount of land as i've already said.