You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Anti immigration parties on the rise
March 28 2024 2.36pm

Anti immigration parties on the rise

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 21 of 22 < 17 18 19 20 21 22 >

 

jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 04 Sep 15 2.11pm

Quote npn at 04 Sep 2015 2.04pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 04 Sep 2015 1.56pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 04 Sep 2015 1.40pm

Quote Willo at 04 Sep 2015 1.26pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 04 Sep 2015 12.45pm

How many refugees will come and when will this crisis abate ? The bottom line is that the World as it is now will produce an almost endless stream of refugees and migrants seeking refuge or a better life in Europe. How many can we or should we take ? ?

The Government has announced that it will take in more refugees from Syria. The problem is that as things evolve there will be cries for more and from more places. This could be the thin end of the wedge.



I see it simply. Britain and indeed Europe is finite in terms of capacity for people. This is not so much about land but resources. The potential for migration from Africa, Asia and indeed South America is virtually infinite in the future. Do we close the drawbridge sooner while we don't have a crisis or later when we already do ?
We can't "save" everyone.


Actually, this isn't true at all, provided we change the ruling on economic and working migration. If we do, its perfectly achievable. Last year, there were 24,914 asylum applications. That's actually less than the number of people who emigrate from the UK each year (323,000 last year). So its perfectly sustainable

The highest ever recorded Asylum application level was 2002, when 84,193 people applied for asylum.

Success rates on Asylum are 41% of applications being granted. So in terms of Asylum we have a very large capacity to adjust.

UK migration has never been about Refugees and Asylum, economic and EU zone migration is where the problems may lie. 42% of migration to the UK is from the EU zone, only five percent is from Asylum (and we're the 5th biggest accepter of Asylum in the UK).

The problem of the UK isn't Asylum, even if we'd accepted all 84193 people in 2002, it would still have been a net loss on the number of people who left the UK that year.

What we need to do, is restrict EU working migration and working visas into the UK, which are used by companies to drive down wages. Been saying that since the whole thing was introduced.

But Asylum hasn't ever really been a problem for the UK.



I actually agree with the point (that we could cope with quite high numbers) but you are guilty of cherry-picking your stats to support your argument there.

You're comparing asylum seekers against emigrants, completely disregarding number of non-asylum immigrants who come over every year

That's what I'm saying, the immigration problems of the UK, are with working migration, notably the EU working migrants (specicifcally being used to keep wages low, and thus unemployment artificially high).

If you ask me, that's the kind of immigration policy I could get behind, one where we restrict the intake of cheap labour from overseas, for corporate profit, rather than ensuring UK based companies and government focus on employment of the UK unemployed to fill those vacancies.

Win for everyone, except the people who oppose migration for reasons of race and xenophobia.


 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 04 Sep 15 3.04pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 04 Sep 2015 1.56pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 04 Sep 2015 1.40pm

Quote Willo at 04 Sep 2015 1.26pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 04 Sep 2015 12.45pm

How many refugees will come and when will this crisis abate ? The bottom line is that the World as it is now will produce an almost endless stream of refugees and migrants seeking refuge or a better life in Europe. How many can we or should we take ? ?

The Government has announced that it will take in more refugees from Syria. The problem is that as things evolve there will be cries for more and from more places. This could be the thin end of the wedge.



I see it simply. Britain and indeed Europe is finite in terms of capacity for people. This is not so much about land but resources. The potential for migration from Africa, Asia and indeed South America is virtually infinite in the future. Do we close the drawbridge sooner while we don't have a crisis or later when we already do ?
We can't "save" everyone.


Actually, this isn't true at all, provided we change the ruling on economic and working migration. If we do, its perfectly achievable. Last year, there were 24,914 asylum applications. That's actually less than the number of people who emigrate from the UK each year (323,000 last year). So its perfectly sustainable

The highest ever recorded Asylum application level was 2002, when 84,193 people applied for asylum.

Success rates on Asylum are 41% of applications being granted. So in terms of Asylum we have a very large capacity to adjust.

UK migration has never been about Refugees and Asylum, economic and EU zone migration is where the problems may lie. 42% of migration to the UK is from the EU zone, only five percent is from Asylum (and we're the 5th biggest accepter of Asylum in the UK).

The problem of the UK isn't Asylum, even if we'd accepted all 84193 people in 2002, it would still have been a net loss on the number of people who left the UK that year.

What we need to do, is restrict EU working migration and working visas into the UK, which are used by companies to drive down wages. Been saying that since the whole thing was introduced.

But Asylum hasn't ever really been a problem for the UK.


I wouldn't dispute your figures and I don't think we are near a crisis yet.
I would however suggest that stats like this rather fly in the face of intuitive logic. The World population is increasing enormously year on year. Not surprisingly, most are born in the same places where poverty and overcrowding are a problem.
By contrast, Europe and The USA are far less populated and their increase in population due to migration not birthrate.
Unless the death rate is greater than net population increase in Europe and the USA, we will reach a population crisis at some time in the future.

Whether people come here as asylum seekers or economic migrants they are still numbers. They will have children and will therefore contribute many fold to a an ever increasing population. In three generations, that one person will become maybe 6 or more. This current influx is relatively small but it won't be the last.
The simple question is when is enough enough ?

There will always be suffering and good moral reasons to help others. Should we always do this at the potential detriment to ourselves ? In an ideal world I would help everyone but we don't live in an ideal world.


Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (04 Sep 2015 3.05pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 04 Sep 15 3.37pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 04 Sep 2015 3.04pm

I wouldn't dispute your figures and I don't think we are near a crisis yet.
I would however suggest that stats like this rather fly in the face of intuitive logic. The World population is increasing enormously year on year. Not surprisingly, most are born in the same places where poverty and overcrowding are a problem.

I'm from an Psychology background, so I can tell you that 'intuitive logic' isn't reliable or valid as a means of determining 'truth'.

The figures are based on information from the Immigration service via the ONS. I think they're probably reasonable. What they show is that Asylum has always been manageable within the number of people leaving the UK.

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 04 Sep 2015 3.04pm

By contrast, Europe and The USA are far less populated and their increase in population due to migration not birthrate.
Unless the death rate is greater than net population increase in Europe and the USA, we will reach a population crisis at some time in the future.

Actually this also is a misconception, most of Africa is massively under populated as a rule, the problem is to do with dispersion, and is related to infrastructure to support distributed populations. The problems in Africa isn't population sizes, but concentration. A good example of this can be seen in China, which has massive population centers, with vast amounts of uninhabited country.

The UK has a massive population, but it also has the infrastructure in place for it to be distributed across the entire country (where as if it was in Gambia, everyone outside the major cities and towns would probably starve).

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 04 Sep 2015 3.04pm
Whether people come here as asylum seekers or economic migrants they are still numbers. They will have children and will therefore contribute many fold to a an ever increasing population.

Not really true though, all the figure needs to be sustainable is to fall below the figure of emigration. Which is the salient point, presently around 300,000 people emigrate each year, but 500,000 migrate in each year. Ideally you want those figures to more or less balance.

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 04 Sep 2015 3.04pm

In three generations, that one person will become maybe 6 or more. This current influx is relatively small but it won't be the last.
The simple question is when is enough enough ?

This isn't really supported by evidence either, the growth of population in the UK from Birth rates isn't so dramatic as to be a major problem (the rate of births to deaths is around 80,000 more births). The major factor in UK population stems from the difference between emigration and immigration not accounting for Asylum).

So between them Births and Asylum accounted for around 104,000 people in the UK extra, compared to 'economic migration and working' which contributed 500,000. Emigration accounted for the reduction of the UK population by 300,000.

The problem isn't Asylum, its corporate profiteering from using cheap migrant labour to fill vacancies in the UK (which incidently has led to wage stagnation).

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 04 Sep 2015 3.04pm
There will always be suffering and good moral reasons to help others. Should we always do this at the potential detriment to ourselves ? In an ideal world I would help everyone but we don't live in an ideal world.

Yes we should, because the detriment isn't actually real. The problem lies with general immigration (EU and Non-EU) not Asylum or birth rates. The area we need to focus on is the areas where the largest affect can be achieved, to bring the migration and emigration figures together.


We already have a population crisis in terms of sustainability, on a global basis. Have done pretty much since the turn of the 20th century. But that's a separate issue.


 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 04 Sep 15 3.53pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

A lot to take in there.

OK. Let's cut to it. Forget intuitive logic but ask yourself this.
If the Worlds population is increasing rapidly which we know it is, where will all those extra people go in the future ?

I maintain that it is inevitable that a large proportion will migrate to places where they can improve their prospects. In other words where we are.

Unless the worlds population stops increasing, which is unlikely baring natural disaster,the population of Europe and North America will therefore have to increase with the majority of that increase coming from migration and their descendants.

Since the worlds population will increase at a greater rate year on year until it reaches a critical point of unsustainability, I don't really see how this can be disputed.
EDIT.(again)

You are right of course about economic migrants and all that. I am talking about the wider issue of population density and patterns of movement over time.

Wars, famine are all symptomatic of population increase and distribution against resources and culture.
It will only become worse over time. It has to unless we find a way to restrict population growth.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (04 Sep 2015 3.54pm)

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (04 Sep 2015 4.01pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 04 Sep 15 4.12pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 04 Sep 2015 3.53pm

A lot to take in there.

OK. Let's cut to it. Forget intuitive logic but ask yourself this.
If the Worlds population is increasing rapidly which we know it is, where will all those extra people go in the future ?

This is a different argument, because any resolution for such eventualities needs to be targeted at that problem. It doesn't relate to asylum.

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 04 Sep 2015 3.53pm

I maintain that it is inevitable that a large proportion will migrate to places where they can improve their prospects. In other words where we are

The surely part of the solution is to improve the infrastructure and resources in those countries. As I pointed out most of Africa is massively under populated. What is missing is infrastructure to allow the population to spread out over the country, rather than concentrations of large population in the cities and towns.

And that means improving the life expectations and opportunities of the third world (education, health, roads, air transit). A probable knock on from increased standards of living and life expectations is a reduction in birthrates.

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 04 Sep 2015 3.53pm
Unless the worlds population stops increasing, which is unlikely baring natural disaster,the population of Europe and North America will therefore have to increase with the majority of that increase coming from migration and their descendants.

Not necessarily, Around 80% of China, for want of an example, is uninhabited, yet its major cities suffer from gross overpopulation etc.

Stopping migration won't affect the worlds population growth, that requires a very different solution. All it does is concentrate the problems, and create greater problems. Pollution for example in China and India, is more dramatic because its focused in concentrated areas of dense population, rather than distributed across a whole nation.

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 04 Sep 2015 3.53pm
Since the worlds population will increase at a greater rate year on year until it reaches a critical point of unsustainability, I don't really see how this can be disputed.

It can't but it has no bearing on refugees. Its a separate problem that will increasingly impact the UK, simply because no one is actually ever interested in addressing the problems, notably to do with inequality in the global community.

In terms of the consumption of resources, its not the people in African nations that are the problem. Its our demand that drives the problems. The average American will consume 43 times as many natural resources as a third world citizen.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 04 Sep 15 4.19pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 04 Sep 2015 3.53pm

Wars, famine are all symptomatic of population increase and distribution against resources and culture.
It will only become worse over time. It has to unless we find a way to restrict population growth.

[Link]

Utopia.

We need to be responsible. We neuter cats and dogs, so that their desire to breed does create a population problem.

We need to do the same with humans. Its more human than culls, famine, epidemics, war etc. And it has to be done fairly, for everyone globally.

We need to stop breeding indiscriminately, and instead grow as a species. Random selection of fertility on a global scale, not along racial or national bias, but on a truly random basis (for very scientific reasons you want populations to grow by random factors, rather than selective factors, to ensure diversity).

But that's an entirely different situation than immigration.


 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 04 Sep 15 4.33pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 04 Sep 2015 4.19pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 04 Sep 2015 3.53pm

Wars, famine are all symptomatic of population increase and distribution against resources and culture.
It will only become worse over time. It has to unless we find a way to restrict population growth.

[Link]

Utopia.

We need to be responsible. We neuter cats and dogs, so that their desire to breed does create a population problem.

We need to do the same with humans. Its more human than culls, famine, epidemics, war etc. And it has to be done fairly, for everyone globally.

We need to stop breeding indiscriminately, and instead grow as a species. Random selection of fertility on a global scale, not along racial or national bias, but on a truly random basis (for very scientific reasons you want populations to grow by random factors, rather than selective factors, to ensure diversity).

But that's an entirely different situation than immigration.


Every country in the top 50 odd are African or middle eastern bar two groups of Pacific islands.

The UK, US and Germany for example are all outside of the top 150 countries for highest birth rates.

 


Optimistic as ever

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 04 Sep 15 5.15pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 04 Sep 2015 4.19pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 04 Sep 2015 3.53pm

Wars, famine are all symptomatic of population increase and distribution against resources and culture.
It will only become worse over time. It has to unless we find a way to restrict population growth.

[Link]

Utopia.

We need to be responsible. We neuter cats and dogs, so that their desire to breed does create a population problem.

We need to do the same with humans. Its more human than culls, famine, epidemics, war etc. And it has to be done fairly, for everyone globally.

We need to stop breeding indiscriminately, and instead grow as a species. Random selection of fertility on a global scale, not along racial or national bias, but on a truly random basis (for very scientific reasons you want populations to grow by random factors, rather than selective factors, to ensure diversity).

But that's an entirely different situation than immigration.


The two might be separate in one sense but increased population will lead to more migration. You are obviously a smart fellow so I can't understand why you can't see this. The regions that are most densely populated will have a knock on effect to us, as is already happening. That effect will increase as the World population increases.
The various specific causes of these migrations are rather beside the point.

Finite resources plus population increase = trouble. Migration = trouble heading our way. It is inevitable unless it is artificially controlled.

The fact is that Europe and the US nave had reduced birth rates in recent years. We are not the problem. To say that any form of birth control should be indiscriminate is rather ignoring the facts. The poorest areas have the most children. This has to be addressed for their sake and ours.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 04 Sep 15 6.32pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 04 Sep 2015 1.28pm

Refugees are in in all the border countries with Syria, to the tune of 3m, about 5% of that so far making their way into the EU.



The ones trying to get to western Europe went the Turkey route....This needs to be recognised.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View elgrande's Profile elgrande Flag bedford 04 Sep 15 6.45pm Send a Private Message to elgrande Add elgrande as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 04 Sep 2015 1.56pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 04 Sep 2015 1.40pm

Quote Willo at 04 Sep 2015 1.26pm

Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 04 Sep 2015 12.45pm

How many refugees will come and when will this crisis abate ? The bottom line is that the World as it is now will produce an almost endless stream of refugees and migrants seeking refuge or a better life in Europe. How many can we or should we take ? ?

The Government has announced that it will take in more refugees from Syria. The problem is that as things evolve there will be cries for more and from more places. This could be the thin end of the wedge.



I see it simply. Britain and indeed Europe is finite in terms of capacity for people. This is not so much about land but resources. The potential for migration from Africa, Asia and indeed South America is virtually infinite in the future. Do we close the drawbridge sooner while we don't have a crisis or later when we already do ?
We can't "save" everyone.


Actually, this isn't true at all, provided we change the ruling on economic and working migration. If we do, its perfectly achievable. Last year, there were 24,914 asylum applications. That's actually less than the number of people who emigrate from the UK each year (323,000 last year). So its perfectly sustainable

The highest ever recorded Asylum application level was 2002, when 84,193 people applied for asylum.

Success rates on Asylum are 41% of applications being granted. So in terms of Asylum we have a very large capacity to adjust.

UK migration has never been about Refugees and Asylum, economic and EU zone migration is where the problems may lie. 42% of migration to the UK is from the EU zone, only five percent is from Asylum (and we're the 5th biggest accepter of Asylum in the UK).

The problem of the UK isn't Asylum, even if we'd accepted all 84193 people in 2002, it would still have been a net loss on the number of people who left the UK that year.

What we need to do, is restrict EU working migration and working visas into the UK, which are used by companies to drive down wages. Been saying that since the whole thing was introduced.

But Asylum hasn't ever really been a problem for the UK.



are there any facts or studies to find out what 323.000 who supposedly left the Uk,are originally from.
Are they all British or a lot of EU/or other nations peoples going back home.

 


always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View elgrande's Profile elgrande Flag bedford 04 Sep 15 6.55pm Send a Private Message to elgrande Add elgrande as a friend

Sorry can't do lnks ....but if you look on the Migration Watch website it does supply the information on the net migration.

 


always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
ffsalan Flag Croydon 04 Sep 15 7.37pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 04 Sep 2015 6.32pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 04 Sep 2015 1.28pm

Refugees are in in all the border countries with Syria, to the tune of 3m, about 5% of that so far making their way into the EU.



The ones trying to get to western Europe went the Turkey route....This needs to be recognised.

We are being played. The tragic circumstances of the lad found drowned on the beach are that his parents had been living in Turkey for 3 years. The father had a job, but wasn't happy, and wanted to get dental treatment in Europe. He paid 5000EUR to some "fellow Syrians" and got into a boat with no lifejackets, with his family that couldn't swim. No, I'm not making it up:

Video (now removed from Sky News): [Link]
Article: [Link]

And now we have the PM u-turning because he's been sold an emotive story of our failings as mean, privileged Europeans.

Herein lies the problem: there's push factors and pull factors in migration. Idiotic EU policy has ramped up the pull factor to an extent (coupled with word of how amazing Europe is sent back upstream) that it takes very little for these people to uproot and move for "the better life".

I'm not disregarding the "push factors", but we see only today packages containing fake Syrian passports being intercepted in Germany. Now, why would a load of fake Syrian passports be bound for Germany I wonder?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 21 of 22 < 17 18 19 20 21 22 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Anti immigration parties on the rise