BBC.co.uk

Talk about Newsnight

Big Fat Politics Blog

The BIG Immigration Debate

  • Newsnight
  • 6 Nov 07, 12:38 PM

immigration203x100.jpgIn a broadcasting first Newsnight and Radio 5 Live will jointly host a live discussion on immigration this Thursday.

Senior politicians from all the main parties have been calling for a serious and considered debate on immigration - this is what we shall be doing.

Newsnight's Gavin Esler will be speaking to an expert panel, and Radio 5 Live's Richard Bacon will be taking your views by phone, text and email. Both will be putting questions to the three main parties.

We want to start the discussion now and want to hear from you. What would you like to say to the three parties?

Do you think we have benefited economically from migration? What effect, if any, have you seen on public services in your area? Should there be limits, and have we as a society gained culturally from immigration?

Let us know what you think..

Comments  Post your comment

  • 1.
  • At 01:41 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • sheelagh wrote:

AT LAST !

BIG PROBLEM = FIND SOLUTION

such a difficult concept for the government that s what we pay them for !

  • 2.
  • At 01:44 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Judith Holmes wrote:

In view of the fact that for centuries people from Britain have gone where they wanted in the world to trade and to settle, often using force to get their own way, is it not hypocritical to stop other people from coming to Britain to better themselves? In the process we gain from their hard work and tax contributions.

  • 3.
  • At 01:44 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Lionel Tiger wrote:

We can help our foreign neighbours more by supporting them more in staying abroad in their own countries. Britain has taken more than its fair share in Europe, and the world, we can't take any more. It's time for other countries to do their bit.

  • 4.
  • At 01:44 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Geva Blackett wrote:

The hotels and shops in my remote Scottish community are filled with workers from the EU - because the locals will not demean themselves to clean rooms, serve food etc. So we have lost our local young people to the towns. Cultural loss if not an economic one.

The influx of 'immigrants' (and we all have EU passprts, not ndividual country ones so I use the term 'immigrant' somewhat loosley) has made it even more impossible to get a dentist here in the north east, the doctor's surgery is even more crowded

  • 5.
  • At 01:49 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Salisu wrote:


African immigrants can help mitigate the effects of aging populations in many parts of the world and provide cheap labour. The money they send back home can help reduce poverty in Africa and stimulate economic development.
Is the black skin of the African a reason why this mutually beneficial arrangement is not in practice?

  • 6.
  • At 01:50 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Brian Ashenden wrote:

20 years ago my company won the Queens award for training

Now it would appear we as a country cannot train our youth to do the jobs that need doing.

ensuring we have to allow people of the same age to come in from other countries with I suspect no better credentials, needing to use our services just to survive here.

If we had trained our youth we would not be in this dilemma

  • 7.
  • At 01:50 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Darren Maughan wrote:

Oh dear - Newsnight is now presenting a show with Richard Bacon.(sacked by Blue Peter for taking cocaine - it's true - here's the BBC news story reporting it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/specials/drugs/351602.stm

Is he the kind of person they want associated with Newsnight?
Incidently, Five Live will only put provocative emails and comments out on air. I have made numerous calls which are fair - and probably not provocative. Mention a slight racist comment - I reckon false stories about Roma will be broadcast (substitute Roma with, say, black or Asian) - and it'll get on air.

Bad news -

  • 8.
  • At 01:52 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Trevor Cox wrote:

If this country has to import immigrants to do certain jobs then it is a failing of our system. Immigration should be stopped now and UK people forced into training for these jobs. This is one way of getting some national pride back.

  • 9.
  • At 02:01 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • L Evans wrote:

Britain is a small island, we cannot continue to sustain in any way the huge numbers of immigrants/migrants coming into this country. It is outrageous that we don't know how many 'illegals' we have and I no longer trust the government's figures overall. It was only when the local councils realised that they could no longer afford to integrate these newcomers that the full implications arose. Controlled numbers of skilled workers undoubtedly benefit Britain, but we are not just getting skilled workers, we are getting economic migrants who need support in every aspect of their lives. These people are not a benefit to our Country. We are hearing more and more British indigenous people saying that they feel alien in their own country. British tolerance is going to snap.
Some solutions:
1. limit numbers coming into country.
2. An exam proving a reasonable level of the English language before they arrive. It's a nonsense we are paying huge sums to translators
3. Change the human rights law so that we are not in the impossible position of not being able to deport people who are not in the national interest
4. Run TV programmes about Cultures including British to help promote integration and tolerance
5. All newcomers must be informed that we are a Christian country and have a tolerance for multi faiths. Some authorities for example were thinking of not celebrating Christmas because they believe it offends other cultures. This is totally wrong. This would not be tolerated if a British person went to live in a non Christian country and asked for customs and religion to be changed.
6. Any foreigner going to prison for serious crimes here should immediately be deported on release regardless.

  • 10.
  • At 02:09 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Tim Bale wrote:

One question is why the debate in the UK is so damned insular - it's not like we are the only country affected by these issues. So why not ask your guests which countries, they think, have got it right, providing models for us to follow. And if there are shining examples from overseas, are there any dire warnings as well?

  • 11.
  • At 02:11 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Ranjana Gujadhur wrote:

Hello,
First of all...Really Important topic for discussion indeed!
Yes UK had benefitted tremendously economically from Migration! We work extremely hard, pay our taxes and are not entitled to benefits. That is considering, we hold a work permit but don't hold a british passport!
We pay such incredible high fees for our studies and accomodation here with only 20 hours permitted per week for students..all compared to ofcourse British and EU nationals! It is very fashionable to talk about DISCRIMATION these days...Well hasn't anyone realised till now that this is also a form of discrimination!!!!!!! What happened to Fairness!!!!!!!
Another thing, are only muslims/blacks/sikhs entitled to discrimination????? What about the rest of us, namely; HINDUS? We just have to take anything right?...Why coz we are not obvious!! Well the authorities have not REALISED this till now!...I am so SHOCKED!
On the other hand, it has adversely affected public transport in the light of the amount of persons crammed in tube and buses...not quite pleasant We all admit...and also the traffic on the roads sadly. But it is unavoidable. Looking @ it positively, TFL benefits but negatively are the pollution & time wasted.
& definitely NO, Britain has not gained culturally as a society! We immigrants do embrace British life gladly but tis not the other way around! If we don't, well....we are singled out in merry cold London!
These are the issues...but still I will end by sayin'..."GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!"

  • 12.
  • At 02:11 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Bob Emson wrote:

For god,s sake !!.Don't the politicians realise that it is all too late now.The ordinary english citizen has known for the last 30-40 years that the immigration flood into this country was going to destroy our society

I was brought up in a country that was proud to have freedom of speech AND THAT STILL APPLIES AS LONG AS WE DO NOT DISCUSS IMMIGRATION.fREED OM OF SPEECH CAN HOWEVER APPLY TO SOMEONE IN A MOSQUE PREACHING MURDER AND RUINATION OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE

result-a country that is bursting at the seams with an infrastructure built for the nation that is expected to cope with the thousands of foreigners.

Absolute madness has destroyed the standards/customs/culture of this country.

  • 13.
  • At 02:15 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Lucy Sofiano wrote:

In light of the forthcoming Corporate Manslaughter Act in April 2008 that will require directors and managers to take specific steps to measure and deal with the risks their employees face when they drive on business, caution must be adopted when checking the driving licences of EU workers.

This key change affecting employer's exposure to legal action over at-work driving incidents could present more logistical problems for employers with the onus on them to be even more diligent checking licences of drivers who may not be as familiar with driving on our roads and our road system as we are.

All drivers using foreign licences that commit a motoring offence in the UK have a separate DVLA record created for them - and the licence from their country of origin will not have the prosecution added to it.

Isn't it difficult enough for an employer to ensure that they are meeting their duty of care without the possible threat of criminal prosecution over an EU driver that seemingly presents a 'clean' driving licence?

  • 14.
  • At 02:17 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Shilpa Abrol wrote:

If we need migrants to grow our economy, which the governments say we do, why can they not provide the services in the community that would enable migrants and non-migrants to have the better quality of life that growth in the economy brings. the problem is not with the migration, but with its effects on citizens and their dependants.

why is it now so much harder for a british student to get onto postgraduate courses, often needed a higher degree than an international student?

  • 15.
  • At 02:20 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Freddy Akuffo wrote:

Well immigration is part of GLOBALIZATION. Regarding the migration to the north from the south, its only natural that if you teach me that all that is good is in the north, why will i not like to experience it first hand. It becomes a problem in the north based on 2 main issues
1. When the immigrant becomes successful ( economically or literally= jealousy e.g. Al Fayed )
2. Unsuccessful ( economically or literally= crime, destitute, social welfare benefits e.g. a Jamaican rude-boy)
In other words, immigrants are just not wanted in the north. What then is the essence of Globalization?

  • 16.
  • At 02:21 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Sean Girling wrote:

I personally have no problem with immigration, as long as they're working. In return, I'd like to kick out all those who don't wish to work, or provide for themselves. I'm not going to limit that last to just foreigners either. There are quite a few homegrown lowlives that I'd quite happily send on their way.

  • 17.
  • At 02:27 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • sammyann wrote:

I have always welcomed immigration it has made our country more vibrant and enjoy the cultural mix. But I am getting concerned just how much the native brit is having to give up the natural british way. It seems that everyone else can have an 'Association' to protect their interests, yet a native brit cannot do the same.

When I travel I expect to comply with the dress code and culture of that country, yet we seem obsessed with accepting and accommodating everything regardless. I welcome immigration but believe that people who come here should attempt and be seen to be attempting to adhere to our codes and culture and not force over the top issues pushing our traditional tollerance and hospitality to the wire.

I agree with a previous comment about Christmas and our traditions, Birmingham Bull Ring Centre did not have christmas because it was unacceptable to other cultures, totally ignoring that this is unacceptable to christian brits. Live and let live I love to celebrate other cultural traditions but expect other cultures to respect the host country traditions.

  • 18.
  • At 02:31 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Andrew Egessa wrote:

I do think everything we do ought to be done within limits to avoid impacting badly on individuals and society as a whole. Immigration contributes a huge role in the UK economy. Immigration to west has a history and you can't change this by capping it. I think properly managed and monitored Support is needed to improve the quality of life in the countries of origin in order to deal with this problem. Aid has been provided over the years, but not much has been achieved because it was not managed well. Note that the unbearably harsh situations in some of those counties force people to emigrate and this needs to be addressed to deal with immigration. No caps, border policing or point systems will address this immigration issue.

UNHEALTHY CHIPS

The animal in all of us only tolerates difference, when feeling scared of greater force or content with his lot – and sober. You can have as much cerebral discussion, planning and social adjustment as you like, when the chips are down it’s all animal passion.

Since a fair proportion of immigrants still come from ex-Empire countries, it's a bit rich refusing them a share in our good fortune when that good fortune was brought about by exploiting them.

I resent the suggestion that Britain is a Christian country. It is a post-Christian country. Thankfully the majority no longer need non-existent supreme beings to work out what's right and wrong for them.

  • 21.
  • At 02:32 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • L.Paxton wrote:

We have had more than our our share of immigrants - the infrastructure can't cope and someone should have the guts to say "enough is enough". There is very little left in this country that can be truly called "British". If highly skilled foreigners are required then so be it but allowing in more and more unskilled economic immigrants must stop. Crime and all the problems they bring only costs us more and not just in financial terms. It's not surprising that the Brits are finding it preferable to leave Britain and find elsewhere to live because of whats being allowed to take place here because of this uncontrolled immigration.

  • 22.
  • At 02:32 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Alistair Blunt wrote:

What is a true Englishman, or Briton? We are a country of immigrants and it is the relative security and hence stability that these islands enjoyed after the last invasion of Normans in 1066 that has enabled us to develop the culture we so much wish to preserve. But, we must accept that refugees and immigrants are the very fabric of our society. They are what has made us a dynamic society. People unfamiliar with our class society, do not recognise that the strength of our aristocratic system lies not in its purity but in its ability to be totally hypocritical and overlook the 'trade' label over a generation or two. Pop stars and footballers are the bloodline of the next generation of aristocrats. The class system has survived as the new aristocrats have absorbed the culture into which they have been adopted (out of necessity). So, likewise, British society will thrive and survive by absorbing each wave of immigrant. Those who object to the new waves of Jewish/Arabian/European/African/Chinese/Indian/Bangladeshi immigrants are destined for self destruction, like a plant starved of the nutrients to grow. Let us keep the doors open so we can breath, not close them to suffocate in the claustrophobia of isolationism.

  • 23.
  • At 02:32 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Brian Wall wrote:

Immigration is an essential means of breaking down cultural divisions globally and is to be encouraged. At the same time, social integration is a slow process and needs nurturing, without prejudice to the indigenous population, so there have to be well defined - and controlled - limits. I think there has been a lack of spine shown by the government to date, in that many immigrants would appear to secure housing too readily, at the expense of British families, some of whom have been waiting for years. This is an issue that must be addressed urgently, if we are to avoid a backlash that tarnishes what should be a long-term benefit for society.

  • 24.
  • At 02:35 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Gordon Hall wrote:

I would like to ask the politicians what they think the ideal number of immigrants should be - my guess is that they have no idea. The point is that immigration is by its nature fluid and changing, and depends on the needs of the country at a particular time. Noone could have predicted the success of Asians regenerating parts of the Midlands or north west in the 1980s, or the insatiable demand for Polish labourers in the 00s. Who would seriously want to turn these people away now? These are incredible success stories; economically and culturally.

It's true that our housing, infrastructure and public services are in decline, but if we want to improve them surely the labour of immigrants is part of the solution? Immigration, when not looked at irrationally (like politicians tend to do probably do even more than the general public) can help revive industries and generate new jobs, as all recent history has shown. That's why no government has set a figure on the numbers - because it would be economic and cultural suicide to do so.

  • 25.
  • At 02:37 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • KW wrote:

Once a week I visit a failed asylum seeker, detained in an immigration removal centre. He is from the Kurdish part of Iraq. He has been in detention for nearly a year with no prospect of removal or release.

What is happening in immigration removal centres is unacceptable and unknown to the majority of the public. I have listened to and seen the injuries of people who have been beaten up on the way to the plane to be deported, I have been told about officers punching detainees, people contemplating suicide and self harm; people with severe mental health issues, including post traumatic stress disorder resulting from torture in their home countries, people who cannot comprehend why they are there and what they could have ever done to deserve this.

Politicians are seemingly blissfully unaware of the mistreatment of those facing deportation; eager only to pander to the ill-informed views of those (including the media) who believe that immigrants, bogus asylum seekers, economic migrants, foreign nationals (whatever the choice derogatory word of the moment may be) are criminals who seem to destroy ‘Britishness’, take our jobs, our homes etc. The mantra of get them out whoever they are, whatever they have been through, whatever they may face if they are forcibly returned, is deeply misguided and immoral. Britain has a responsibility to deliver a sanctuary for those who face persecution in their home country. The asylum seekers who I spend time with are not here for a free ride or an easy life and wish that they could return home in safety.

I also hope that your 'expert' panel will include views from asylum seekers, for who could be more expert than they?

TALKING TO THE PARTIES

Didn't a lot of us "talk to the parties" before the stupid war? It doesn't work does it! As for any individual MP, according to the Parliament web site his duties are:

Your MP will generally do everything he or she can to help constituents, but will not feel able to
support every cause, nor will he or she be able to get the desired solution to every individual
problem. Members may not be willing to support one constituent if in doing so they will deprive
another. At times a constituent's demands may conflict with party policy and your MP will have
to decide where their first loyalty should lie. The Member may think that, in any case, a majority
of constituents would support the party policy - after all that is likely to be one of the reasons
why they elected him or her.

Did you like the term: "First loyalty."?

  • 27.
  • At 02:41 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Gwyn Parry wrote:

Untill the UK withdraws from the EU, discussions on immigration are irevolent.
Brussels will decide the Immigration policy of this country.We no longer have control of our own borders & the three main partys are aware of this, but of course won't mention this fact.
Still, look on the bright side, there's ONLY 400 Million citizens in the EU, all with the right to enter this small island !!

  • 28.
  • At 02:45 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Richard Moore wrote:

Living in Lambeth (South London) I am p[leased that at last this will be debated.
My own experience is that any debate is stopped by those on the extreme left or right who use the race card.
Political correctness has meant that the extreme points of view always win.

X Y or X voluntary group must not be listened to because it does not reflect the local community. What this has to do with those who are say interested in Horticulture beats me, surley it it the cost of say allotment rents which should be paparmount - not the mix of the committee.
Of course what this also stops debate about is the forming of enclaves of imigrant groups, surley not helpfull to eithier initgration or social cohesion.

Certainley in Lambeth this influences the issue of immigration service activity as the Police are always worried about public order.

Surely the law is there to be applied equally and fairly to all?

The stockwell shooting allowed the columbian representative to gain waver as so many of them are working here illegally.

Conflict between different agencies is not helpful.

What certainly is clear is that the lack of debate for so long has caused too much concern to the majority for far too long as politicians will do any thing to gain one vote even if it is not in the best intersts of the country

We are a small island which can still take a few more people but they have to be of benfit to the whole community and not be a drain.

Have the debate with no holds barred which I doubt will happen for fear of being labelled racisit when in fact this is nothing to do with race - it is to do with what can this country realistically cope with

  • 29.
  • At 02:46 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Rob wrote:

It's to do with culture, not race. I really do not like to see mosques in my home town. The feeling is a bit irrational.

And it isn't particularly 'multi'cultural either, which I find intimidating.

There are parts of the world which appear to be bursting with people, who have a much lower standard of living. On wonder they will come if given the opportunity.

However, do we all have a duty to accept large numbers of incomers, just because of burgeoning population growth?

Or does a failure by government to properly regulate greed have something to do with it--investors in the housing market needing the pressure of people (tennants) to prop up the ludicrous house prices.

  • 30.
  • At 02:50 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Ian Metcalfe wrote:

I've noticed that politicians seem to pigeon hole immigrants into just two categories - economic migrants which contribute financially to the economy and asylum seekers who are genuinely seeking refuge. There is a third category which I believe are a net drain on services and fails to get publicity - bringing dependants and relatives over to stay.

I have recently came out of a relationship with a woman whose family were from an Asian country. During the time I was with her the family brought over two additional families into this country using 'back door methods'.

The first was to bring one family over so they could have their child's birth here. The second was by sending children over to be put into schools and be privately fostered by relatives. The parents then apply for temporary visitors permits and stay permanently because their children are established.

In both cases the families could not speak good English and did not work. They do not appear on any official registers because they are living with relatives and the Councils in which they live are providing health and education services without any income from the families or government.

I am also very surprised to see how a primary school was happy to enrol the children full time with the parents not even in this country. This cannot be good for our overcrowded schools or the children living apart from their parents for long periods. It also means less places for existing mothers seeking to find their children full time places so they can go back to work.

  • 31.
  • At 02:51 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Graham Thomas wrote:

I teach Business and Management across a range of courses in our College (which is one of the best in Britain according to any Government yardstick one wishes to use)and I can say that we see increasing numbers of students from across the globe on these courses. I firmly believe that the "immigrants" that we have enrich the learning experiences of all students; not least because they are conscientious, hard working and polite in all that they do.Be they from Eastern Europe, the Middle or Far East, they acquit themselves with satisfaction if not distinction and set a telling example for some of their British contemporaries.

  • 32.
  • At 02:53 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Harry Randall wrote:



It has become apparent to me that on matters related to immigration MPs of all colours (report 5th November) are ignorant of EU Directive 2004/38/EC which should be compulsory reading for them. It is this Directive that determines the right of every citizen of the EU, together with their family members, to reside freely within the territory of Member States.

Family members retain the right of residence in the event of death, divorce, annulment of marriage or termination of registered partnership. Those convicted of crimes and serving a custodial sentence have the right to remain in the host state if they have lived there for ten years. Ministerial ignorance of the Directive was evident on this latter point when the Government request to deport Italian born murderer Learco Chindamo, was refused by a senior High Court Judge.

David Cameron in his recent speech on immigration states that we need “a total acceptance of the facts” and the need for a “policy to reduce the level of net immigration”. The Prime Minister in his recent speech declares “British jobs for British workers”.

It is this Directive that controls EU immigration permitting EU citizens “to move freely and reside freely within the territory of the Member States”. The lack of understanding of this readily available document by politicians of every hue is evident.

Harry M Randall
Dorchester
Dorset


  • 33.
  • At 02:58 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Malcolm Peters wrote:

I totally agree with L. Evans at comment no 9.
I would just like to add another suggestion, and that is that we should adopt the points system that pertains when one attempts to migrate to (say) Canada. They have a priority list of qualifications needed to attain sufficient points to gain admittance to live in the country. They also have a tighter customs system that keeps a record of everyone entering and leaving the country.

It may seem to be too late, but unless some control system is put in place soon, the British culture that we have fought for over so many centuries will be totally subsumed.

Britain might be a small island but it has a strong history of providing a home for migrant populations that goes back over many centuries. And that is one of it's primary virtues. The indigenous people of Britain have come from everywhere and if you have an Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Jewish or other non English name and live in England then you are a descendant of a migrant somewhere along the line. That makes most people foreigners.

It is not at all surprising that we don't know how many 'illegals' or other migrants there are in the country. But I don't really see what the problem is. Do we really want to introduce permission to travel, border controls at every possible entry point and place such tight restrictions on population movement in and around the country just so we know where everyone is?

The issue is not about how many people are here it's really to recognise that not only is migration entirely natural and desirable biologically, economically and culturally. Cultural and biological diversity are essential for human survival and we should promote it, not try to stop it.


The problem is not really that there are too many migrants, rather that we spend to much time developing new laws to make it harder for people to come here instead of finding ways to help improve basic living conditions for people living in poor countries. Migrants come looking for work, or in the case of refugees, for safety. they don't come to claim benefits. Most come with the intention of staying until they get enough money to return home and have a better life. That's pretty much it. We migrate for a better life and what's wrong with that? haven't you ever moved house?

  • 35.
  • At 03:01 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Jamie Taylor wrote:

Finally I can ask these questions without being called a 'racist'. For the record, I am a professional university educated white anglo saxon man in his mid 40's who'se always voted Labour.

1) Why does my culture (white/English) come second in any debate about immigration or immigrants and what constitutes 'British'?

2) It is clear that priority is given to immigrants in housing notwithstanding the CRE's report (that will be probably so politically correct that it will say nothing). When I lived in Bethnal Green, London E1 5 years' ago the local authority had built housing estates with 6+ bedroomed houses. Only Bengali families were qualified to live in them. The needs of the generational community that had been living there for many years were mostly passed over.

3) Isn't it about time that the generational communities that have been a part of this nation for several generations can question the changes that are being imposed upon us in our name by successive governments in the name of 'equality' without being snubbed by a straightjacket of Political Correctness?

4) I've just spent a few days as an inpatient in a London hospital. Many nurses would complain about several of their black and asian colleagues being lazy or not pulling their weight but could not object to them officially because their objections would be called 'racist'. Why is this?

5) If this is nation based in history then why are we always apologising for it to immigrant communities - this doesn't happen in other ex-colonial powers?

6) Why do taxes go to pay for multiple translations of documentation into other languages? Australia doesn't do this, nor do many of our European partners.

7) Isn't it true that New Labour have just followed an 'open door' policy out of both political conviction and political correctness and turned their faces away from the consequences?

8) Many small towns in and around this country are swamped with immigrants and other nationals from overseas. What about their generational communities? Why aren't they allowed to object? Eg Barking in East London/Essex was a average nice place to grow up in the 1970's. Now my Father is afraid to leave his home because the changes in the area make him afraid. When I visit him I don't recognise the area at all - this is wrong.

9) How can it be right to put into care homes looking after elderly people cheap staff who know nothing about the culture and background of these people and don't even speak their language a lot of the time.

10) How many 'New Labour' councils will be cancelling Christmas celebrations in our schools this year in case it 'upsets' their local minorities? Several have already cancelled 'Guy Fawks' night this year because the immigrants in their community didn't understand what it was about. What about the generational communities who grew up with these traditions? What about our/their rights? Oughtn't being a British Citizen to come with a responsibility to 'know' and accept these traditions?

Equality of opportunity cuts both way. It's very clear that the cultural abusers of the past, the social apoligists have in the past 10 years have done the British/English way of life very few favours. Why do they dismiss their country and it's traditions so easily and so often in favour of the cultures of others?


  • 36.
  • At 03:07 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • willem wrote:

Are the members of the panel interested in Europe or do they see it as a burden to get rid off ?
Do they understand London is not their capital but within the United states of Europe this is the beautiful city of Brussels ?
Can I feel myself a true citizen within the UK being Belgian or do you see me as an alien ?
Do you rather join USA than USE rather $ than Euro ?
Are you fearful of a soft invasion contrary to the hard attempt of a certain Adolf ?
Cheers
Willem
Nice to be European...

  • 37.
  • At 03:13 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Petr R wrote:

The comments suggesting that immigrants should attain a certain level of competency in English prior to them being accepted are wide of the mark since it is fairly clear that English will soon not be the first language of your country in any case.

  • 38.
  • At 03:15 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • docnic wrote:

We must accept that population density in this country is becoming too high. Therefore, there must be immigration controls but it must be a compromise between the present citizens and potential immigrants. Firstly we must have proper border controls, published priorities for nationality, occupation, english langauge, health and non-criminal record according to a points system using experiences from countries such as Australia

  • 39.
  • At 03:28 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Hilda Meers wrote:

Since we all come from planet earth,and many folk,including UK citizens, are currently moving from country to country I consider it foolish to stir up dissension about who came from where, when, or why. We each contribute in our different ways, most of us just wanting a peaceful, secure life.Focussing on exceptions eg the greedy,violent few-in which I includie George Bush and his gang of criminals - we don't want him or his influence here -ignores the well-motivated many.

  • 40.
  • At 03:34 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

It seems to me it's a little late for the UK to hold an immigration debate. It's like closing the barn door after the horse has left or in this case come in. It was time for an immigration debate BEFORE the UK ceded its sovereignty to the EU. Now that's ancient history and the immigrants have arrived. This is no mere abstraction anymore, its reality on every street in every city in Britain. So what will you do if you decide you've made a mistake, throw them out? It's not and never was a question of whether or not to have immigration, it was a question of who would control who would and could enter the UK, under what terms, and at what rate? It seems to me that was already answered, it is Brussels which will decide. And don't think those Red Lines will help you, article 10 paragraph 4 gives the EU the right to impose unilateral unspecified penalties on the UK if holds holds on to them for more than five years. Some trade pact the EU turned out to be, the UK drove 10% of its indigenous population out to be traded for that many foreigners and much more. Well at least the pipes don't leak anymore, even if the borders are a sieve.

  • 41.
  • At 03:43 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • nick ruddock wrote:

There are at least three kinds of immigrant, but commentators fail to differentiate for fear of criticism of 'prejudice'. But it is these very fears that also disable a democracy from analysing its problems. The Labour Government frequently, and consistently brands those who seek to disagree with them as tarnished with 'racism'. Thus, disabling any debate, as countering this criticism detours discussions into a separate arguement, wasting time.

What are these 'kinds', these categories of immigrant? In greatest demand are those highly qualified Medical Personnel, Engineers, Scientists that we are apparently lacking. Perhaps we should demand an independent appraisal that this is so, for private companies and NGO's seeking to import such qualifications from abroad.

Probably next, we have the economic migrant, who like you and I, probably consumes the most public services, if, when he/she brings the family over here.

Thirdly, we have the additional family members seeking to join relatives; the arranged marriage spouse; then the individuals who have a right of UK residence (and who may be repaying an arrangement to support new immigrant status organised through family brokerage years earlier.) For example, members of village, or guild, or working practise, and business partners. All such persons do want to come here.

Fourthly, there is the part refugee, part opportunist; the individual who can put up an appropriate story of maltreatment, which might well have been put by any other hundred-thousand of their country's citizens. For my part, I cannot understand why they don't qualify as refugees in their own region, and the nations surrounding their own. Are we going to take all of these?

Lastly, and there may be other categories, we have the illegal immigrant who may still be able to arrive here by many means, including just walking off at Dover, or wherever else. Well it was true once because I did it; but have not travelled this way for a while! One could walk through at Calais, and again at Dover/Folkestone. I did it more than once.

I hope I have demonstrated that immigrants are are not just one package, and one problem. Indeed, what I might have described as the most in 'demand', or worthy of entry the highly qualified; I could also remind readers, are probably more appropriately deployed, employed in their countries, even if we do need them. For forty years, individuals who train at Universities in this country, frequently stay-on, wasting their nation's investment through paying their fees. Should we be part of this?

Actually, I have no english friends; "not surprised I hear you say"; indeed my friends are Bangladeshi immigrants who arrived 17 to 20 years ago. But my loyalty to them doesn't make me blind to the issues as I perceive them and I hope I'm not treading on their toes.

We have problems with the education of our present population, both places, buildings, teachers; with transport, congestion, pollution, housing; meeting pension requirements; property values versus the actual value of bricks and mortar. In what way does importing more and more immigrants provide an answer to the needs of our population; which currently are not met?

  • 42.
  • At 03:44 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Declan Daly wrote:

When the first Anglo Saxons,Horsa and Hengist arrived in Britain they just killed and enslaved the local inhabitants and took all their land. Thier decendants then did this to the rest of Britain and eventually much of the world. Atleast the new immigrants to the UK are much nicer than that. Try to be positive and less racist and remember 5.5 million UK citizens live in other people's countries.

  • 43.
  • At 03:46 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • June Gibson wrote:

Benefits from immigration? Well that depends which side of the fence one is on: Employers, entrepreneurs, property investors and the like are pleased with an influx of a vast pool of unskilled labour. It is never the higher echelons of society who have to squash up, queue at NHS clinics, vie for low-priced accommodation etc.
What with a certain amount of subsidy given to all immigrants -certainly to asylum seekers - and the wads of cash that are sent "home" by those legally working here, I fail to see the financial gain. Sure, the money within the UK goes round faster but most of the goods are imported (including the immigrants' own foodstuffs and other household paraphernalia from the many and various countries of origin) and are often bought on credit. In some local shops the labels of cans cannot be read by English customers. Our balance of payments must have suffered because of all the extra imports and outflow of earnings.
In London the indigenous people have lost because immigrants, mostly from the EU, have taken most part-time or "odd hours" jobs traditionally done by senior citizens like me. Public housing: No-one except immigrants could gain the necessary points required for public housing allocations, so in that way they do push in. What's more, some London Boroughs "top up" the rents of short-term private accommodation for immigrants until public housing becomes available.
Apart from in the NHS, too much is spent on interpreters by local government. Council Tax must go up each time a new interpreter service is added and the situation shows no signs of abating. My London borough council's leaflets offer interpreter services in 10 languages on their leaflets - including at some hours for the parking control office!
There are too many immigrants at once from too many countries, each with cultures different from each other. One ends up resenting the lot of them, regardless of what they are or not contributing.
Again in London, one sees the true situation about who is living where whenever there is a news programme featuring a council estate in the background. One sees the true picture whenever one visits an obstetrics department in a London hospital, or passes a school gate at pupil turn-out time.
I now feel very second-class here in London.

  • 44.
  • At 03:50 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Tom Bastin wrote:

Have we gained culturally from immigration? The answer is a definate No!
What we are doing is giving up much of our own cultural beliefs to the immigrants who are coming into OUR COUNTRY. Gone are the morning prayers that had meaning to us, and also taught values to our children. Mosques are springing up all over the country, and the Church of England is taking a back seat.

Let the immigrants become acculturated to OUR WAY OF LIFE. Obviously, their system wasn't working in their own country - Why bring it here?!

Thank you for giving me the forum to express my opinion.

  • 45.
  • At 03:54 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Ian H wrote:

I would like to know why immigration is always justified in terms of affects on GNP, when this is essentially meaningless. Even if increases in the overall size of the economy did correlate with an increase in overall social well-being (which is dubious as pollution, war, crime etc all increase GNP), that is irrelevant. What matters is if each citizen's purchasing power is, on average increasing.
Also given the govt. have no idea even roughly how many foreginers are working here, how do they expect us to believe the figures they put out about immigrants putting in more than they cost the country.
While I'm at it...why is immigration only ever justified by this government in (highly dubious) economic terms? Why is the debate never about whether it is desirable to alter the country's national character. I know plenty of people who might actually say it is, though I believe they are in the minority.

  • 46.
  • At 04:02 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Angel Bacon wrote:

Too diverse ?

Did not Prospect magazine's chief pointy head, David Goodhart, get this ball rolling along an unusually intelligent track which identified the major fault line in New Labour with his seminal essay " Too diverse ? " published in February 04?

("Is Britain becoming too diverse to sustain mutual obligations behind a good society and the welfare state" see: www.prospect-magazine.co.uk )

Perhaps Newsnight might forego some of the usual hysterical jobsworths and invite the Grandmaster Goodhart on to raise the level of debate ?

  • 47.
  • At 04:03 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Mano wrote:

UK to survive has to immigrate persons from overseas. In times gone by, UK lived on the resources of its colonial countries which, they do not have now. If UK stopped immigrants; they would
become bankrupt and would be beggars in the world.

  • 48.
  • At 04:04 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Marc wrote:

From personal experience of living in an area which has seen a huge influx of EU 'migrant workers' I can say categorically it's a complete disaster.

I can't agree with the arguements saying we are benefitting economically because of the drain on public services I see first hand.

And how fair is council tax here when you and your spouse are paying the same for services as a house choc-full of 12 or more people? It's wrong, the government knows it's wrong but they're scared to do anything about it.

The main problem I have experienced is extreme anti-social behaviour. It isn't simply a small group either, this is a big and widespread problem.

What I have experienced with Eastern European immigration in the last couple of years far outweighs any problems I have seen before - the numbers coming here from the EU are crippling this country.

Hopefully this joint debate with Newsnight and Five Live will finally enable this country to have a sensible and forthright discussion about these matters without anyone who disagrees with all of this 'economic migration' being labelled right wing or a racist.

Let's get some common sense back!

  • 49.
  • At 04:14 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Mike Sanders (Sandbach) wrote:

I have no problem with people coming into this country legally provided that they :-

a) Work and look after themselves financially.

b) Integrate with our culture.

c) Do not refuse to obey our laws

d) Do not try to change our way of life

e) Do not attempt to impose their culture and religions upon us

  • 50.
  • At 04:21 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • nick ruddock wrote:

It seems doubtful economics to me, accepting thousands of individuals as working migrants, earning a 'crust' in sterling £; only to have them send a proportion of it home to their native land.

This allows those countries build reserves of 'foreign' currency, which they can deploy against us in the foreign exchange markets etc. This has the effect of actually making us even poorer!

This is the exact opposite of how Governments operated fiscally in past decades, when we were not allowed to take more than, for example, £50 or was it £100 out of the country; lest we damage the balance of payments with the rest of the world!!!!!

  • 51.
  • At 04:22 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • SHAB wrote:

LET THEM STAY!!!!!!!

MDM UK operates a free medical clinic serving primarily migrants and we have now analysed the data from our first year of activity. We saw no evidence of the so-called ‘health tourist’ who comes to the UK seeking expensive treatment. Instead our findings confirm what a number of other independent studies have shown, that migrants and British citizens have similar health profiles and that migrants are no more likely to have expensive complicated medical needs than anyone else. See our report at www.medecinsdumonde.org.uk We saw patients whose medical conditions could and should be treated at the GP level. But when access is blocked and their conditions worsen, they have no alternative to the A&E. Nowhere is this more troubling than in the case of pregnant women. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Many conditions can be detected and inexpensively treated by GP, but only if there is access to a GP.

  • 53.
  • At 04:44 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • samba wrote:

i think gordon brown and his men should take there their time
you know hpow the uk have been exploiting the underdeveloped world
so wait and allow these immigrants to take what they can peacefully
cause if not the uk will also be loosing in another way............be ware

Based on past performance I would be very surprised if the BBC sincerely engaged in an honest and balanced debate on the subject, I will however tune in to see for myself.

  • 55.
  • At 04:47 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Raghavendra Bhat wrote:

Was casually browsing and found disturbing fact concerning demographics of UK, the report quoted ,"In Britain, the proportion of over-60s has risen from 16 percent to 21 percent of the population, while the proportion of those under 16 has slipped from 24 percent to 20percent.

Within 20 years, demographic experts predict, one person in four will be over 60, and by 2050 the proportion will rise to 38 percent" .

This is nothin to do with the economy i guess , there will be job opportunities created but without immigration ther's just no possibility to fill in these vacancies .

Keep in mind i'm speakin here about the skilled workforce ie Engineers, doctors and other service sectors.

Definitely the destination to seek these skilled work force would be India also owing to the linguistic capability.

The solution would be to raise awareness amongst the British citizens about the true need of immigration , why it's necessary for a sustainable development. Only political debates are not gonna be enough. It will also definitely be a contribution to the already rich British culture.

Please give a thought with open mind

Raghavendra Bhat
Bangalore
India

  • 56.
  • At 04:49 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Hilary wrote:

What are the emmigration figures?

How have they changed?

What is the net effect?

What is the split between permanent and temporary immigrants?

  • 57.
  • At 04:53 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • John O'Donnell wrote:

Discussion on this subject seems to start from the premise that numbers are irrelevant. You cannot increase the amount of land or water in line with the increasing population (which is why we now have less annual rainfall per person than Syria). The important issue has long since ceased to be race, culture, or the economy. The issue is the environment, unfortunately few people
seem to understand this.

  • 58.
  • At 04:58 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Reynolds wrote:

It is good that this debate is being held now.

For years no one in main-stream UK Political life it would appear, had courage enough to discuss and tackle what many ordinary people have been talking about for years.

It is only sad that it took a media bias against east Europeans presently living and working in the UK and the promise of a wave of immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria seeking access to the UK, that has brought this about.

I for one am saddened to see the almost daily reports on what problems the Poles and the Czechs, the Lithuanians and the Latvians are causing in our midst, in respect of local authority services, schools, hospitals etc., and almost never a word about the immigrants from the Middle East Asia and other parts, due to the political correctness which we have all had pushed upon us in the last years.

Recently we have read in the media, that MI5 have over 2000 people pin-pointed as potential terrorists living in our community, I feel sure that no-one from Eastern Europe or has parents or grand-parents who originate there, is on that list.

Moreover I feel if there is to be a restriction on immigaration it should begin with those seeking to come into the UK from outside of Europe. These extra-europeans all having different customs and practices from those we share with our fellow europeans and must have these accomodated in our daily lives, and unfortunately for us and the decent Asians some of these have brought with them the spectre of Islamic Terror.

Let us have this debate, let us decide the way forward for us all into the 21st. Century in a way which is of the greatest benefit to us as a nation.


Reynolds
London

  • 59.
  • At 04:59 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Richard H. Cotterell wrote:

Newsnight has got the central object of the debate completely wrong. Economic gains or losses arising from immigration are not THE point.

Pseudo-intellectual discussions are absurd when the participants don't commence where they should.

I would strongly suggest that before the debate, all concerned, and those wishing to participate do their homework: read Samuel P. Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations."

  • 60.
  • At 05:00 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Ben Davidson wrote:

It is time for the government to finally point out to the blatantly scared British public that immigration is not only good for the country but is actually vital for our economic well being. Putting aside the millions of invariably working age foreign nationals working in the jobs we won't do, what about the immigrants of past years? Those that are now our leaders and business entrepeneurs. Where will they come from if we stop immigration?
Immigration follows market forces, if there are jobs the people come, if there aren't - they don't.
What Brown and Co need to do is work out exactly how many are here and what exactly the net gain is from their presence. We can then rub that in the xenophobes faces and show them the true plusses of having high immigration.

  • 61.
  • At 05:04 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • hm wrote:

MY SOLUTION:
1. FREE MOVEMENT OF LABOUR WITHIN THE EU
2. STRICT RESTRICTION OF NON EU IMMIGRATION TO PEOPLE ENTITLED TO POLITICAL ASYLUM ONLY AND TO HIGHLY SKILLED PEOPLE WHOM LABOUR IS NEEDED

  • 62.
  • At 05:05 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Richard H. Cotterell wrote:

Newsnight has got the central object of the debate completely wrong. Economic gains or losses arising from immigration are not THE point.

Pseudo-intellectual discussions are absurd when the participants don't commence where they should.

I would strongly suggest that before the debate, all concerned, and those wishing to participate do their homework: read Samuel P. Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations."

  • 63.
  • At 05:08 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Martin Tapsell wrote:

As usual the pros and cons of the immigration issue are mixed. Some are mending our plumbing or keeping our hotels functioning, while others, or their decendants, are involved in child trafficking or have reintroduced capital punishment - by shooting each other! But if the general standard of healthcare and housing cannot be sustained at a first world country level, the politicians have got to stop ducking the issue and take a view on what is a sustainable population - there is no point people coming here if the UK loses whatever attracted them here in the first place - what can we offer? But its sad to see those NEETS standing on the sidelines on Newsnight last night.

  • 64.
  • At 05:13 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Núria Lozano wrote:

Good afternoon:
I am a Spanish citizen from Barcelona and, in fact, this matter is also affecting our lifes here, not just in Britain. We should be aware of the phenomenon of immigration as an inevitable fact. Because of the economical inequality in the world between the East and the West, the climate change, the lack of resources ,among some reasons, people from other cultures see Britain or Spain as paradises where an opportunity will be given to them. Indeed, they do not have anything to lose.
If our public services- schools, hospitals- are overcrowded it responds to a bad government's immigration policy, immigrants can not be blamed for this.
From my point of view, there is no doubt that we need immigraton as much as they need us. Of course, some duties and rights shouldn't be forgotten. Then, Why don't we help each other but setting clear rules?
Thank you.

  • 65.
  • At 05:30 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Paul D wrote:

What appears to be missing from this debate is balance. A good number of us have chosen to take advantage of the mobility option in order to leave the UK. That does not mean that we are no longer British or that we do not care what is happening in the UK.

The debate is, however, becoming cheapened by the assumption that everyone wants to go to Britain. Immigration is not the issue because it presupposes a state of affairs which may be spurious. Migration is the issue and the freedom of the individual to live and work (within the EU at least) is central to the argument.

Before getting carried away about the burdens that migration is imposing on the social structure of the country, you may be well advised to consider the possibility that this two way traffic is productive in that the UK has the opportunity to acquire the skills that it needs while exporting skill requirements which are exhausted in the UK but much prized elsewhere.

The UK, Ireland and Sweden established the principle of the free and unconditional mobility of labour when enlargement took place. EU credibility was seriously undermined with the stupid and meaningless restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarian citizens in the latest tranche.

It is time for Europe to make up its mind. Either we enjoy the freedom we have gifted to ourselves to go where we please or we retreat into a siege mentality by which 'Johnny Foreigner' is the cause of all problems and the answer to none.

  • 66.
  • At 05:35 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Rod wrote:

Why immigration is necessary:

1. Nature abhors a vacuum. The Northern hemisphere is being depopulated, and the Caucasian races are an endangered species.

2. The political class merely serves itself and not its responsibilities to the Nation and the people. Where else can one find a cheap slave to tidy up after one's children? Why else address the grinding poverty and sickness, the thirst and starvation, and the murder and rape of so many Africans with fervor, passion, promises, platitudes, and inaction.

3. The Nation-State is dying. Once this Frankish concept is dead, there will be no borders.

4. Democracy is dying. Has anyone out there voted for any commissar of the EC? Did you vote for anyone to run the UN? Did you vote for the EU's new constitutional treaty?

5. Western civilisation is dying. With a homicidal mania that fits the more hate-filled interpretations of the Koran, the Left Bank's policy alliance of Socialists and Islamists is destroying the values that built a Eurocentric world and substituting a new post-Frankish nightmare of Napoleonic domination and control (and a forthcoming new round of State-sponsored murders, no doubt) for the Islamist-atheist elitists.

6. The Age of Reason is dying, killed off by the likes of unimaginative Burkians like Richard Dawkins and misanthropic Animal Farm Marxists in skirt and tie. It is following the fate of the Renaissance, killed off by the Reformation and counter-Reformation, and the Enlightenment, killed off by the French reign of terror.

7. With global warming and/or the collapse of the planet's magnetic field (take your pick), only the Northern hemisphere will be cool enough and roomy enough for all those globally warmed bodies from the South. Compare the land masses of Siberia and Scandinavia, Canada and Alaska, with Antarctica, Southern Africa and the Andes of Southern South America.

8. One can think up any reason for the suicide of Europe. Immigration is just one of them.

  • 67.
  • At 05:52 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • J Collier wrote:

While immigrants do make a contribution to the economy this comes at a cost especially in health, education and housing services. In my area many of the workers rebuilding a local primary school are from abroad, here it seems we do have a skills shortage that is being filled. But I do object to going to my local supermarket to find builders vans taking up three or four parking spaces each and leaving little room for anyone else. And surely, given the long-standing Polish community around here it's totally unecessary for the sudden appearance of Polish brand tinned foodstuffs on the shelves specifically for this small band of workers. This has never proved necessary before so why now? It's divisive and marks these people out as 'different' in a way that is not needed. In Britain we have a long tradition of absorbing many different peoples all adding a little something to our culture. The real problem is when certain sections of the population set themselves up as different, seeing things only through there own perpective and never allowing anything to change their way of doing things. This only breeds resentment which can so easily be avoided.

J Collier

  • 68.
  • At 06:02 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • David Prince wrote:

The trouble with this country is that the powers that be are more interested in getting unsuitable young people into further education rather than creating more opportunities within the workplace.
The young people in work would not be leaving university with debts and no chance of paying them off.
This would be self creating wealth in the working sector and reducing jobs available to people from overseas .

  • 69.
  • At 06:03 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Barbara Morley wrote:

Richard Bacon? Newsnight is planning to do a serious programme with RICHARD BACON? Have you ever listened to one of his programmes?

Well - shame it's not Jeremy. That would probably be the last we ever heard of him.

  • 70.
  • At 06:23 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Peter Gordon wrote:

None of us, not even the Government, can be sure as to the extent of any benefit from the influx of, in particular, Eastern European immigrants. After all, the government has no idea how many immigrants of any description, there are.

My concern apart the [unknown] effect that the large number of immigrants is having on housing and public services, including health and education. What money is being spent here by these immigrants and what amount is being sent back home?

What concerns me more is the culture effect and the so-called 'swamping' effect.

I live in a seaside resort. Without any exaggeration there are occasions when the only voices I hear in the local ASDA supermarket and on the beach, are those of eastern european. This is a very recent development which does nothing to alleviate the suspicion that we are being swamped.

Of course it is good that local shops benefit, and for those coming from landlocked countries the sea is going to be a novelty. The worry is that it is too much too soon!

Without some effort being made to deal with the problem, though it is probably too late, the situation will become worse.

If the French and the Germans could impose a temporary limit, then why not us.

  • 71.
  • At 06:37 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • wappaho wrote:

I think John O'Farrell's type of approach to immigration - 'look around and you will see that we are all immigrants' - is unhelpful wishful thinking not realistic anthropology.

culture must be discussed separately from 'the economy' and 'the economy' needs to be broken down by class, employment sector and region.
thank you for asking

I personally would not throw money into sectarian community-based centres etc. but I would ensure that money is put into expanding the number of outlets for creative expression of all cultures and accessible to everyone - big cities and rural hubs probably

  • 72.
  • At 06:43 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Peter Hughes wrote:

Myth-buster 1:
Britain is not a small island. Britain is huge: not only are there are vast, unpopulated tracts, there are many towns and cities in northern England that are under-populated with stagnant local economies awaiting revitalisation. Britain is far from the most densely populated economically-developed country. Greater Tokyo, Hong Kong, New York City, Monaco and the Netherlands, for example, are more densely populated than the supposedly over-populated south east of England, and they are social and economic powerhouses for that.
Myth-buster 2:
Indigenous culture is a determinant only for people who wish to make it so. Contemporary Britain has more in common with most of the economically-developed world than it does with Britain a century ago ("The past is another country. They do things differently there.") The culture of a country is whatever the people who happen to live in that place make it to be, not what it used to be. Christianity was once alien to the islands now called Britain. Happily, few of the world's major cultures are now strangers to each other here in Britain.
Myth-buster 3:
I have neither a legal nor a moral right to determine who lives in my street. I do have a right to choose in which street I live. Many Britons choose to exercise that right by migrating to France, Spain, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States and so on. I am happy that people from all around the globe choose to exercise their legal right to migrate to Britain. Rather than tightened, as the current political rhetoric would have, I should prefer that legal restrictions on migration were eased.

  • 73.
  • At 06:47 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • hillsideboy wrote:

Well, judging by the huge response we really do need a 'serious and considered' debate on Immigration.
Many of us have been trying to express our views for years: most of my comments over the past decade have not been posted by BBC and others so, for posterity, I recorded them in my memoirs 'Scott Free'.
Briefly my recorded views that respond to your Newsnight questions are as follows:-
(1)Now age 75 I spent most of my adult life working on 3rd World development projects; although aid-funded, I was always under very strict immigration control, so why are not immigrants allowed to enter and work in Britain only on specified contract periods?
(2)Must we always evaluate change on the basis of whether there is 'economic benefit'irrespective of whether it is ruining our English way of life (over-population; three million more houses;failing public services; more social problems)?
(3) Have we gained culturally from immigration? Previous legal term for immigrants was 'aliens' because that is what we have imported - alien ways of life that have alienated our English way of life e.g. Loud-hailer mosques; Forced Marriages, Honour Killings; Drug Barons; Female Genital Mutilation; Gangster Rap; Gun and Knife Crime; Cousin Marriages; to name but a few.

  • 74.
  • At 07:03 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Adrienne wrote:

There are some conjectures here which I'd like to see refuted, corroborated or explained in some other way:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2006/08/immigration_questions.html#c3907541

However, rather like the EU Reform Treaty in general, I don't see that much can now be done about this. How many British nationals are now living in Spain, France and the other 24 EU states? If we aren't reproducing above replacement level, what alternative can there be but to try to poach some people from countries outside of the EU which are reproducing above replacement level rate, although morally it seems wrong given that many such countries can't afford such a brain drain. Still, I guess that's international market forces at work?

The root 'problem' has got to be these critically low birth rates, and it's not just a European problem, its a problem for (White and East Asian) Americans too, and for other developed world countries such as Japan, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand etc. It's critically low, not just low in some East European countries, so poaching from there is bad for their infrastructures. It's been getting worse over the past half century especially, and it isn't just the pill.

As I see it, the problem is not going to be helped, sadly, through this focus on equalities and human rights legislation, noble though it surely is in its intentions. In fact, it's highly politically, and no doubt even economically, incorrect, to say today, but there was a biological (reproductive fitness) wisdom to some old man's old chauvinistic ways, something we should remember perhaps when criticising Islam (and Orthodox Judaism, although not many *do* criticise the latter - are they a protected species?) for sex discrimination. Perhaps, horror of horrors, natural selection even created inequalities between the sexes precisely to avoid the adverse consequences which true equality would produce?

Thanks for all your posts so far, which we're working our way through for Thursday's programme. We're keen to incorporate as many of your views as we can to have an open and frank debate about immigration. Don't hold back. Do keep sending in your thoughts.

Kavita

  • 76.
  • At 07:16 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Lance wrote:

I simply do not feel Britain is my home anymore. What is Britain? It is often hailed as 'Multicultural', but this is a statement of fact not a way of life/culture.

As for the tolerance of intolerance flowing from British mosques, Saudi money paying for them, run by Deobandi sect... it beggars belief.

The goverment talks tough and does nothing, they do not have a clue.

  • 77.
  • At 07:16 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Sardine wrote:

It's no good arguing over whether or not Britain is a SMALL island.

Instead just look at the figures for population per unit of area.

That shows Britain is one of the most densely-populated countries in the world.

If England is taken alone the density is much greater, because very few people live in Scotland.

Everyone knows that the British people on the whole feel the country is overcrowded and we do not want millions more immigrants coming in, no matter where they come from - this is not a racist argument.

We don't want our country to be more crowded than it is. We like quite a lot of green fields separating our towns and villages, we want to enjoy the sight of unspoilt countryside and have habitat for wildlife.

The new phenomenon of people moving about Europe is changing the ethnic make-up of countries. Britons are moving in droves to Spain and France, and farther afield even to Turkey, and our country is taking in numerous Eastern Europeans.

Unless we get out of the EU this is going to continue. We are in a situation where we are unable to limit immigration from the EU. Therefore, the only thing we can do is limit immigration from elsewhere, and this is precisely what we should do. Introduce a strict system like they have in places such as Australia.


  • 78.
  • At 07:27 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • margaret savage wrote:

we need immigrants to enhance our population, especially when they bring positive culture differences. However, I do believe that anyone coming into this country should not receive money from our benefit system, and should contribute to any NHS or dentistry services. They should only have these benefits after having contributed to our society by working and paying into our tax system for two years or more.

We have the same problem in the USA. It has also created tensions on the basis of ethnicity. A Bureaucracy has resulted in which 50 laws exist to interpret the original immigration laws. I have always challeneged America to accept people as they are and make US Citizens who do not work do the work of undocumented workers.

  • 80.
  • At 08:03 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Timothy Mullen wrote:

I find it incredible that people talk of "English" (not British I note) culture being destroyed. With every group of immigrants that come to our country something new is added. The recent group of Polish workers has introduced me to the delights of Polish food, and how many of the posters here eat a pizza (Italian) or a curry (Indian/Pakistani)?

I was interested to read the Mayor of a Polish town interviewed during their recent General Election saying that house prices in his town were rising as economic migrants were now buying properties with a view to returning home.

What would we prefer? These people to live in poverty for the rest of their lives?

To paraphrase Dr Martin Luther King, I have a dream: a dream of a day when the Department for International Development is no longer needed, because we have created a fair and just society for everyone.

Legal migration to this country has beneficial for many hundreds of years, and continues to be.

The Labour and Liberal Democrat parties should not be afraid to stand up and shout this from the rooftops, and the Conservatives should stop pandering to the policies of the abhorrent BNP.

  • 81.
  • At 08:11 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • judith wrote:

i am all for anyone coming here to make a better life for themselves and there families but they should want to at least learn the ways of this country other wise why come here and not break the laws of our country if they do they should be sent back to were they came from. they should not be able to jump in front of people who have been waiting for housing for years.and yes i do agree there must be limits we are only a small island put to many people here and there will be problems.

  • 82.
  • At 08:19 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Philrow wrote:

Tesco's calculate that there are actually nearer 80 million people now in Britain, which is a very small country, not the 60 million which the Government pretends, due to illegals etc.
We've run put of housing, road space, jobs for the British worker [just pay them more!], water, facilities etc.
BRITAIN IS FULL NOW, and we should stop ALL immigration apart from asylum seekers, pulling out of Europe if necessary to stop immigration, NOW.

INTERFACING IMMIGRANTS

It is one thing for menial workers to be drafted into vegetable picking and other such jobs, where they are simply relied on for cheap labour and have little contact with the established population but medical workers, call centre operatives, shop staff, transport employees etc all interface with the public. Limited language and lack of colloquial competence leads to incomplete engagement and poor outcomes – often deep frustration and angst. I say all this from experience. As the number of “interfacing immigrants” increases, so do the number of aggravating encounters. No one with emotional intelligence would allow this to escalate but politicians are noted for lacking in that area; they favour mechanisms with no human dimension. Any fool can see (except perhaps politicians) that we “seek our own” socially. Under stress, the desire (need?) is multiplied. The animal in us all is uneasy when dealing with “strangeness” in others be it cultural, visual, linguistic or what have you. (Yes – I know there are exceptions.) For any culture to survive it must respect the nature of the human individual. If current madness goes unchecked – if politicians are not trained in animal psychology – Enoch will be vindicated.

  • 84.
  • At 08:28 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Adrienne wrote:

Cynically, Europe's economy is largely (80%) Service Sector. One doesn't require very able people to push buttons, follow scripts etc as most of our intelligent behaviours have been rendered 'effective' through computerisation and other systems. Even worse, one doesn't have to pay Service Sector people much as they are easy to import from outside Europe.

Here are some relevant articles from the 54 article FCHR (2000), and remember, there are already all sorts of races and creeds in the EU, (and British does not mean White British):
http://www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=26
http://www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=28
http://www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=29

and 'one they did earlier' (after the 18 article ECHR (1950), and the Rome Statute of The International Criminal Court):
http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm

Given the complexities of all this networked legislation which can fused into the 54 article FCHR, is it any wonder that this government doesn't want a referendum and asserts it will be parliamentary business?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/10/tuesday_16_october_2007.html#c3462188

I suggest they want to stimulate 'debate' only as a pseudo-consultation exercise, whereby they get their message across that the treaty, like open borders is a fait accompli, and bound be EU law.

  • 85.
  • At 08:35 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • christopher noble wrote:

Do Londoners worry about immigrants coming into London from Scotland, Wales, Ireland and the West Country, let alone all the other regions of the UK?
I understand the tribal feelings people have about new arrivals from the EU and elsewhere but these people are human beings who bring their skills to the UK. We ought to worry more about their own nations being denuded of their talent. They earn, they pay their taxes. They balance the Brits going abroad to France, Spain and other regions of Europe and the World.

  • 86.
  • At 08:46 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Adrienne wrote:

Cynically, Europe's economy is largely (80%) Service Sector. One doesn't require very able people to push buttons, follow scripts etc as most of our intelligent behaviours have been rendered 'effective' through computerisation and other systems. Even worse, one doesn't have to pay Service Sector people much as they are easy to import from outside Europe.

Here are some relevant articles from the 54 article FCHR (2000), and remember, there are already all sorts of races and creeds in the EU, (and British does not mean White British):
http://www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=26
http://www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=28
http://www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=29

and 'one they did earlier' (after the 18 article ECHR (1950), and the Rome Statute of The International Criminal Court):
http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm

Given the complexities of all this networked legislation which can fused into the 54 article FCHR, is it any wonder that this government doesn't want a referendum and asserts it will be parliamentary business?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/10/tuesday_16_october_2007.html#c3462188

I suggest they want to stimulate 'debate' only as a pseudo-consultation exercise, whereby they get their message across that the treaty, like open borders is a fait accompli, and we are bound by EU law.

Still, there may be trouble ahead:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/10/thursday_18_october_2007.html#c3463152

  • 87.
  • At 10:03 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Sean Lomas wrote:

The Immigration issue is soemthing Britain has always seemed scared to debate. If a politician dares to say its a bad thing the anti-racist police shoot them down. Worries over immigration are not racist when Labour party politicians collude to destroy everything that once made Britain feel home, I hear Christmas has its neck on the block in case it offends thats racist. I thankfully left the UK, my home, under Tony Blair in disgust at the way he was destroying the country. Immigration has to stop and EU working Visas need to be cancelled and most of the male population of Eastern Europe returned to their countries of origin. I used to live in Chiswick and used to see coachloads of eastern european men arriving in London, no families to settle. The UK also neeeds to look at repatriation for those immigrants that have come from countries 'in turmoil' that are no longer in turmoil. In London I used to see newly arrived africans wearing the latest street clothing looking very menacing on street corners whilst British people slept on the streets, makes you want to weep. Return Briatin to the British people, or those willing to 100% subscribe to British thinking and ideals, and let us have a feeling of pride in our country as opposed to shame. Here is a radical concept why not have British flags flying, it offends noone its Britain a country and the flag its symbol.

  • 88.
  • At 10:10 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Silkstone wrote:

Posters would do well to ponder why people at the BBC should suddenly want to hold a 'debate' on immigration, knowing only too well as they do, that it is Brown's avowed intention to put his signature on the Nation's death warrant, or to use its official name, the Lisbon Treaty, come hell or high water a few weeks from now.

The most vital area of all sixty where Brown intends to cede sovereign power is IMMIGRATION. And unless the collective focus of the Electorate is kept firmly on raising the tempo to a crescendo in the DEMAND through a referendum for Brown to be stopped in his tracks, then bloggers and viewers might just as well play scrabble.

Not only that, but..

Until we hear that there has been established throughout the media and elsewhere, a totally accurate literal interpretation and unequivocal acceptance of, the precise [top dictionary] definition of the words race, racism, racialism, xenophobia etc., then comments in programmes and articles that have appeared on television and in national newspapers over the past ten years will continue to come across to viewers and readers who would agree with the foregoing, as being monotonous, meaningless, space filling indulgences, on the part of writers and presenters.

To this could be added, that ongoing calls for a national/international ‘debate’ on immigration/racism are totally without logic, because affecting the whole of humankind as it does, it would of necessity require the involvement of millions of Britons with different views and billions of people worldwide - no-one could be excluded; and even if trillions of comments could by some miracle be collated, it most certainly would not constitute a ‘debate’ by any stretch of the imagination.

The Universal Laws of Existence are beyond debate: balance, number, time and territory are primary factors within those Laws and they have determined the evolutionary processes that produced the world’s Races and brought every living thing thus far.

Efforts to coerce entire populations to abandon their socio-environmental preferences in order to accommodate the concept of multiculturalism, is contrary to those Laws as all history shows.

It is an indisputable fact that throughout the entire animal kingdom, the inherent instincts of the majority are for 'like' to gravitate towards and identify with 'like'. And if this were not so, there would be no such thing as what have come to be called ETHNIC COMMUNITIES.

The two words most hated by power-crazed Eurocrats and career politicians in Westminster as well as Brussels are 'PERSONAL PREFERENCE' but that is what all this immigration business is all about and it won't go away!

This 'debate' is just a typical piece of BBC fraud.

How can you possibly have a genuine political debate on immigration without a representative from the British National Party?

This is like Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark!

Everyone knows that the BNP is the ONLY party that has consistently warned about the problems associated with unlimited, uncontrolled mass immigration and which has the sensible, practical and fair solutions to resolve this.

Have a look at these links for some examples:

http://londonbnp.org.uk/

http://londonbnp.org.uk/truth_immigration.html

http://londonbnp.org.uk/manifesto.html

If the BBC were an honest and fair-minded organisation they would invite Nick Griffin or another official spokesman from the BNP to take part in this debate.

  • 90.
  • At 10:51 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Angela Deighton wrote:

When large-scale immigration first started in the 60s/70s I embraced the concept and welcomed the fact that my daughter's best friend was a Hindu girl, believing this was the way forward for the world. 30 years on however, to my horror, I find myself cynical and disillusioned, as I never expected my own culture to be under threat, with ridiculous suggestions like abolishing Christmas. I can honestly say that my hometown, Hounslow, has been ruined by immigration. It has gone from being an area (West Middlesex) that had the secong highest exam results in the country, to being near the bottom of the league tables. The town itself is scruffy, and has no heart. Older people look genuinely bewildered by their surroundings.You can hear any one of a hundred languages being spoken except English. As a woman who fought for equality in the 60s, I find it tragic to see young women wearing headscarves and veiled. I believe that immigration has put Britain back a hundred years, with all the old battles to be fought again. The exploitation of migrant workers by paying them low wages, and the denuding of other countries of their trained workers are a national disgrace. The large number of foreign workers employed in public services is detrimental to efficiency, as they cannot use the language properly. This is particularly noticeable in hospitals, where patient care is compromised. I have experience of this with my mother's care - it is distressing when old and frail to be spoken to in a language that is unintelligible. I assure you that what I'm writing here is a summary of many conversations I've had with local people, who simply feel betrayed. I wish to stress that this is not racism (I had boyfriends of different ethnic backgrounds as a young woman), but it is the sense of having been invaded, with the Government having no mandate for the creation of a multicultural society. I agree with those who say there should be a total pause in immigration, and that the population should be allowed to drop, in the interest of preserving Britain from being covered in concrete. I also believe that all our energies and funding should be focused on educating and training the 1.5m young people who are out of work in this country. We are a rich country and should be training our own doctors and nurses, and not stealing them from the Third World. Thank you.

RATIONAL VOICE

Angela Deighton (post 93) should make politicians blush - but they don't, do they! Another part of our culture that is lost: embarrassment/shame. Do you remember they used to shout "shame" and "resign" in our bear-pit Parliament. The words now mean nothing. I bet James Gordon Brown will not be consulting Angela in his diligent search for the people's voice. But Newsnight might invite her to speak perhaps?

  • 92.
  • At 11:47 PM on 06 Nov 2007,
  • Richard Sharpe wrote:

What has happened to the Mother of Parliaments?, once able to administer a quarter of the Globe. Now turned into a headless chicken, unable to make up its own mind on Immigration.
Immigration was once Good for this country, but not anymore, all it will do now is to add to the ever leaking purse of the country,this Leak will become a torrent because of such a large influx of Immigrants. How on earth can the country sustain this influx, now and in the future. Is not the situation of the NHS, Old Age Pensions and general underfunding of numerous services Enough!.

  • 93.
  • At 12:06 AM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Sean wrote:

With all the cheap labour coming into the country both legally and illegally, compounding the fact that this goverment and those before them have allowed our manufacturing businesses to go to the wall or move to 'third world' countries depriving todays school leavers of meaningful training and jobs.
Its is like G.B. said when becoming P.M. to have every British citizen in employment, meaningful employment to put the GREAT back in Great Britain!

And I've always supported and vote Labour, but I may have to look elsewhere to give my kids a future!

  • 94.
  • At 12:35 AM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Dinger wrote:

Globally we read everywhere, across Europe, UK, US, Canada and Australia that third world immigration is becoming a huge budget concern, of no economical benefit to host nations, the reason many are tightening their immigration policies. Dependency on State welfare by so many unskilled immigrants is overburdening infrastructure.

Further complicating the problem are contradictory human rights and anti-descrimination laws vocalised by activists, who lobby relentlessly and ruthlessly, thereby intimidating our erstwhile politicians from implementing hard and fast common sense policies to engage decisive remedies.

I don't believe there is a single living national anywhere in the world, who would not experience a deep sense of disownment by one's own nation when we see we are the only national on board a bus or a train; when teenage nationals must obtain better results than immigrants to enter the same faculty; when nationals are not first on waiting lists for services, but second behind immigrants; when immigrants replace nationals in the workplace; when years of hard work and paying taxes are rewarded with lack of infrastructure, with poor services, overcrowded cities and overstretched utilities due to the overburden of immigration demands. Is it any wonder discontent and resentment are boiling over into racial tension?

The dismissal of Nigel Hastilow epitomises the political malady that has immobilised Ministerial courage in the West for years. It must be flushed out with the insidious propagandist tosh that spawned it, before we can rid Western society of the illogical reasoning that it is morally obliged to ruin its national economies, its standards of living and ways of life, always compelled to permit unbridled immigration of the less fortunate, at any cost. Ultimately, rather than half the world being less fortunate, the whole world must become so.

Questions for the panel:

1. How many of these third world countries provide reciprocal immigration opportunities to Westerners?

In WWI & WWII nationals with origins from enemy countries were detained for security reasons and immigration was closed to their fellow countrymen. An absolute common sense aproach. We are at war with extremist militant Islamic Fundamentalists, who fly no flag under the code of combat, yet we are nevertheless, expected to open our doors to Islamic migrants during this conflict.

2. How can our Governments be sure they can control the security risk that this presents and that it is not being exploited by Islamic terrorist interest groups??

3. As they cannot be sure, then why are our Politicians so feeble and cowardly in voicing a perfectly sustainable objection to Islamic immigration during this conflict?? The situation is no different to a situation of declared war, apart from the fact the enemy has failed to declare war and fights under no declared national ensigns;

4. Why then should an enemy which flouts the Rules of Engagement be given additional, rather than fewer diplomatic and political advantages and considerations???

Q: Does any intelligent, well informed person believe that the BBC is capable of conducting a fair and unbiased debate about immigration?

A: No

Just as an aside, England is one of the most densely populated countries in the world - forget about Scotland where hardly anyone lives. It only serves to distort the true picture of how overcrowded we are. The only significant countries with higher densities are Bangladesh, South Korea and Holland.

England has a higher density than China, India and Japan, and it's population is growing much more quickly.

And how come the BBC never attaches any significance to the world's population explosion when looking at matters relating to climate change and global warming?

  • 96.
  • At 03:01 AM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • James Fenton wrote:

I wrote at around 4.30pm Tuesday afternoon to describe how and why the three main parties are simply unable to control overall immigration to Britain in a balanced and realistic way.

However my comments were not posted. Is this what the question in comment number 97 was referring to ?

I said earlier that whilst the three parties claim to want "realistic" controls and a fair system the truth is that they are all unable to give what they earnestly claim they will do. Their utterances are hot air and rhetoric designed to get kudos.

Why is this ? It is because EU controls mean that the British Government is no more than a puppet in relation to the 75-80 of our laws which are dictated to it by the unelected bureaucrats of Brussels. Westminster has no choice or discretion and simply has to implement the measures sent to it. No amount of debate affects that situation.

And we pay around £10 billion each year inclusive of regulatory costs for that extremely doubtful privelege !!!

Only ONE political party IS able to introduce appropriate controls on a fair and balanced basis to regulate British immigration from around the World. That is the UK Independence Party (UKIP). Only this Party has as one of its main policies the withdrawal of Britain from the EU to be followed by the negotiation of trading and other international agreements/treaties on trading and other topics on a voluntary basis.

UKIP would therefore be able to introduce its policies about immigration so that we had a balanced system which was both fair and which worked properly and effectively in respect of ALL immigration to this country. Very sadly there is no other party which can genuinely offer this despite the false claims which they repeatedly make.

  • 97.
  • At 03:12 AM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Pepper wrote:

A fear of political-activist-minority-interest-groups' strident vocal outpourings, heavily cloaked in an over-zealously championed virtue of anti-racial descrimination and backed by strenuous pro human rights lobbying, drive the inept and blinkered political policies which have paved the way to the current immigration crises around the world.

Nigel Hastilow will one day be remembered by a different generation for his foresight and wisdom, alas when it is all too late.

Utopias can never be built, only aspired to. This is the cold reality which afflicts the dream of multi-culturalism. As desirable as zero tolerance of racial tension is, the reality check which proponents continually ignore is the nature of the beast itself. The homo sapien's intrinsically instilled survival/defence mechanism is a strong territorial instinct which automatically rejects and resists that which we do not identify with, are not familiar with or find visibly different from or foreign to ourselves. Peoples with markedly different features, skin colour, cultures, customs, religions and backgrounds are not going to be as naturally or readily accepted, compared with those which are easily identified with. The migrant likewise cannot easily and readily assimilate with peoples radically different in all these things from themselves, either. The expectation is idylically flawed, without there first occurring an evolution over generations of inter-breeding and inter-mixing of cultures and customs, the factual reality of which our very own history stands in testimony to, time and time again.

The ultimate result of this blending of cultures and customs, of blood and of values requires a certain degree of loss of one's own culture to another culture, from which a changed culture/custom or race may even evolve. The paradox however, is that for a culture to survive it must preserve its differences rather than mix or evolutionise them. Conversely, for racial tension to dispel, cultures must blend together rather than tenaciously cling to their differences. There lies the impossible and paradoxical contradiction of a tension-free, multi-cultural social order. Although a wonderful and Utopic idealogue, it is highly impractical and totally impossible to achieve, by virtue of the very nature of the beast itself - an intrinsic nature not to be denied, which is so large it is arrogant to think we are bigger than it.

I believe those who have the courage to speak out in favour of controlled immigration hold the future of their nation very dear to heart, are prepared to risk political suicide and should be lauded and feted, rather than villified and crucified. I fear however, that the insidious and invisible global propagandist forces at work will prevail, cleverly networking the pawns in their game, namely political activists and minority interest groups, all indoctrinated to believe they represent the higher moral ground. The awful truth being that they merely provide the vehicle which enables this hidden agenda to succeed, with merciless character assassinations of opponents launched at every opportunity, to serve other vested interests.

Perhaps every Minister for Immigration in the Western world should be required to study every conflict in the anals of history, which influenced a turning point, a migration, a purge, an exodus, a revolution or evolution, not to overlook internal conflicts and skirmishes between peoples of the same race, adhering to different cultural and/or religious practices. The inability of multi-cultural communities to co-exist without ultimate conflict or tension is patently clear, unless definitive borders are drawn and respected. Granted, that educated, civilised individuals are adequately accepting and tolerant, however the masses who are beyond these refinements will never reach the same level of tolerance or acceptance and it is they who agitate and who will always agitate.

Now we have non-Western immigrants accepted into Western cultures, but who have no education in the understanding of tolerance and acceptance of other cultures, yet expect our tolerance and acceptance to be extended to them. They pressure a host country to abandon tenets of its own culture to permit non-Western practices to prevail, such as cease Christian calendar celebrations in schools; insist on foreign cultural attire in schools, rather than complying with school uniformity of dress and imposing blaring unintelligible Mosque babble across the peace and tranquility of our suburbs. Christian practices and celebrations in Christian societies have been stupidly discontinued subsequent to this ethnic pressure. Would non-Western societies drop their religious celebrations for a Westerner??!!

I have seen it documented that the major English-speaking nations, USA, UK, Canada, Australia and N.Z. are no longer Christian countries. The height of this ignorance knocked me off my perch. Each of these countries' Parliaments opens with a Christian prayer, usually The Pater Noster, otherwise known as 'The Our Father', the prayer which Christ himself gave to Christianity. All of these nations observe and celebrate events and holidays on the Christian calendar, such as the crucifixion of Christ at Easter and the birth of Christ at Christmas, including Sunday, when all Christian churches are open for Services and Holy Mass to celebrate the Last Supper of Christ. Many of our customs and linguistics, reflected in Public Office and Vice Regal roles, are embodied in the Christian ethic, including the taking and swearing of Oaths on the Holy Christian Bible, etc.

  • 98.
  • At 05:46 AM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Alexandra wrote:

I am an immigrant, I work harder than most, pay my taxes, have yet to use any of the failing public services and take great offense at the tone of this debate. A lot of your contributors may not realise how racist, inhospitable, rude and unfair they sound. My only consolation is that when all the little Hitlers get the upper hand, I will have another - still imperfect - home to which to go. It is worth remembering though, the vast number of British pensioners who burden the public services of Southern Europe, and the thousands of Brits who choose to leave Britain every year in search of more temperate climes. Would you like your family, your children, your friends, to be talked of in this way?
How are immigrants supposed to try to integrate when we face such hostility? Why should we try to integrate when we may well be sent on our way if the Daily Express, Daily Mail and the red tops make enough noise to have their way. I'd love to integrate and make this island my permanent home, but I feel I am not allowed to do so. In fact, you may find that many of us would pass even Lord Tebbit's test and love this country more so then if it were inscribed in our genes.

  • 99.
  • At 06:34 AM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • mohammed Abu wrote:

Africa have not benefit from immigration. Africa were treat as second class people in america

  • 100.
  • At 06:39 AM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Sean Miller wrote:

Controlled imigration is fine.Not the chaos we have now.Why are we opening our borders to countries outside the EU?

  • 101.
  • At 08:52 AM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Derek Elliott wrote:

I think that Immigration is only a necessity when a Government cannot Plan,Implement,Monitor,and Achieve accurate objectives.
Our Goverment, in case it doesn't realise, is the 'BOARD' of a Company called 'U.K.' and its indigenous people are the STAFF available. When will the penny,(and hopefully not the Euro) drop that THEY are running a "Company" and not a Charity which only requires Accurate strategic plans; People who can achieve and are accountable for their actions; and good Budgetry control.
If effectively and efficiently run - We would not need the additional and uncontrollable expense of Immigration.

  • 102.
  • At 09:17 AM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Kevin wrote:

I have taken a great interest and have studied migration. in using this term I mean the legal side not the illegal. I believe in the theory that globalisation has influenced the influx of migrants from poorer countries. Prosperous countries offer a better way of life to migrants, and as previously stated the migrant labour force fills gaps in both the service and agricultural industries, to cut to the point they do the jobs natives do not wish to do.

  • 103.
  • At 09:26 AM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • T Grove wrote:

When will our political powers accept that the essence of immigration to the UK must be based on an acceptance that immigrants must make their own way, not expect the country to make any special allowances for them, nor provide more by way of help in any sense than is available to British Nationals.If they are true immigrants their purpose in life is to stay here and that must require an allegiance to the UK and suppot in all ways of the nation. My personal measure of this is - If there is a war between my country of origin and the UK am I willing to fight for the UK? If the answer is 'yes' only then should I accept the option to stay.

  • 104.
  • At 10:29 AM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Di Panna wrote:

Will we be seeing the usually hand picked contributions, as we do on Question Time?

  • 105.
  • At 11:11 AM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • raymond joseph douglas wrote:

This is really difficult.No one wants to thought of as rascist,but frankly enough is enough!I do not want a multicultural,muslim friendly agenda forced on us.I do not want this EU "we are all Europeans arn't we"thrust upon us to justify the numbers of eastern Europeans coming to us.I do not want our countryside concreted over to provide homes for migrants.Is anyone out there listening,or do we just get more of the same platitudes from the PC brigade?

  • 106.
  • At 11:28 AM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Barney McGrew wrote:

It is long overdue but ( and it's a very big "but.") whether or not the public's view or the BBC view will prevail is another issue.

One has only to listen to one of their phone ins where the callers are carefully selected and those who follow a "none PC " line are cut short or shouted down to see what is likely to happen.

Implications of "Oh well, these aren't really the public's views. The BNP have instructed all their members to ring in." are more than likely.

Anyone against mass immigration will immediately be classed a racist.

The BBC doesn't speak for the nation but for Labour.

  • 107.
  • At 11:30 AM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Denis wrote:

An informed debate on immigration and its effects, with experts discussing the data is long overdue. Politicians repeatedly say ‘this is an important topic, there must be a debate’, but there never is an appropriate detailed long presentation of the facts that discusses all the ramifications.

The debate on immigration needs to be on ALL aspects of immigration, not be reduced to a debate just on the alleged financial benefits to the country. In industry, when assessing the BENEFITS of something, it is common practice to also consider the COSTS. Then a judgement is made on whether benefits outweigh the costs. Who will tell us the costs of immigration? Please consider impact on national expenditure on education, health, and crime. What is the COST in terms of impact on the culture of the country?

Are we living in a country without statesmen?

Do we merely have politicians who are short-term political survivors, who have no concept of building a nation? Is multiculturalism a success anywhere? Britain has spent 400 years failing to build a multicultural success in Northern Ireland. What can we learn from the culture clash that gives us places like Kashmir, Palestine, Kosovo, Rwanda, Biafra? The United States is seen by many as a land with endemic racial hostility. We are foolish to desire to rush to create a multi-ethnic multi-cultural society, if we have no idea how to make it a safe harmonious society. Would it be better to pursue such an experiment slowly, with small numbers of immigrants?

Misinformation and the failure to address the substance of peoples concerns gives rise to rumour and suspicion which can only encourage the rise of the extreme right, to which I and many others are strongly opposed.

According to MigrationWatch, ‘New Commonwealth immigration began in the 1950s. In the 1960s acceptances for settlement were at the rate of about 75,000 a year. Racial tension led to successively tighter restrictions on immigration. By 1971 it was believed that primary immigration had been brought to an end. There has since been little public discussion of the subject. However, in practice, there was only a modest reduction in Commonwealth immigration. The average number of New Commonwealth acceptances for settlement in the 1970s was 72,000 per year, in the 1980s and early 1990s it was about 54,000 per year. Since 1996 that figure has more than doubled to 125,500 in 2000. The total since 1963 is nearly 2.5 million (some of whom, of course, will no longer be living in Britain). The ethnic minority population (largely New Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants) now accounts for 4 million (7%) of the population of England and Wales.’

People are rushing from poorer parts of the world to Britain, because they believe it will benefit them financially. They come to Britain to get a job, then decide to stay, get citizenship, have children, bring their dependant relatives to Britain. Their intention is to ‘feather their own nest’, have a better life than their own homeland would offer them, and they are happy to take advantage of Britain. We are told that many of them do the low paid jobs. If such people are doing the low paid jobs that British people wont do, then presumably they pay little tax. How can it be that their contributions (tax, N.I.) cover the cost of education and health for all their dependants they add to the population? If the NHS relies on these people to fill the low paid jobs, and their descendants aspire to become ‘professionals’ such as lawyer and doctors instead, then there will always be a gap in terms of staffing the NHS. So immigration is clearly not the answer. What is the long-term answer?

Statistics for Britain in 2001 show the ethnic make-up of Britain to be 91% White, 2.2% Black, 4.4% Asian.
The office of national statistics shows that between 2001 and 2003 the largest growth by an ethnic community was an increase of 11.1% by the Chinese ethnic group. There was an average national growth rate of 3.8% for non-White people. For White British people there was a decrease in population of 0.1%. The face and culture of Britain is changing. Is there a cost?

As for culture and religion, have there been crimes that can be associated with Islamic extremists in Britain? People don’t just bring their ability to do a job, they hold cultural values also. When allowing immigration, should politicians not also consider the culture that the prospective new residents hold dear. Is there evidence that the ethnic minorities are involved in unsavoury acts such as honour killings, forced marriages, grooming white girls for prostitution, drug dealing, and Islamic terrorism?
Who will speak of the problems associated with immigration? Who will discuss whether speed of change can make people uncomfortable with the ‘new society’ they find themselves drifting into, and have little say in shaping?

The face of Britain is changing, but nobody ever mentions it. We have benefited from many experts such as Sir Magdi Yacoub, the heart surgeon. Many people in Britain have colleagues and friends who are not white, and who they hold in very high esteem and are pleased to count among their friends. This does not however mean they want to be the only white person left in their evolving neighbourhood. It is the scale of change and the pace of change that worries people.

Forced marriages, honour killings, imposed Sharia law, drug related crime, are not the traditions we praise as the British way. A liberal democracy, with religious freedom, treating all fairly and equally under the law is the historic British way.

How do citizens preserve Britain as Britain without being accused of racism?

I recall Barbara Roche, the Immigration Minister for the Labour government in 2000, telling us that Labour was trying to control immigration, and we should be reassured. It was only when she left office that she stated on a radio program that in her view Britain needs large numbers of Black people as immigrants, and she was fully in support of it. This is one example of why people over time learn to distrust the word of the politicians.

  • 108.
  • At 11:39 AM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Duncan J Richardson wrote:

Central and local government have no accurate knowledge of the numbers arriving (or leaving and so any general pronouncement about the benefits or costs to UK of immigration is not the whole truth but only a local or partisan oview. The same can be said about our membership of the EU.
We need a thorough examination of both subjects (and no doubt many others) by independant and impartial
bodies that can influence government.
Referendas anyone?
Regards

  • 109.
  • At 11:42 AM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • jan bayley wrote:

Thanks Newsnight for raising this for debate.

While the impact of increased population will have major implications on the demand for housing, roads, health, education, services, etc, it is not featuring widely in politically debate.

It does not matter what creed, religion or background people are coming from to live in the UK - it is more the actual number of people and what their requirements will be which will result in major changes in the UK.

Is it possible for the UK to accommodate such an increase in population, 10million by 2050; with the attendant increasing land take, energy consumption, demand for services and additional food production, without adverse environmental impact.

These will drive much more significant changes to the way we live yet most of the politicans appear completely unaware of these consequences. The current proposals in the Queen's Speech, relating to tax, education, health provision, etc seem somewhat non sequita without factoring in the requirements for major population expansion.

  • 110.
  • At 11:45 AM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Fr Ray Lyons wrote:

I love multicultral, multifaith, multiethnic Britain. I find multilingual Britain unacceptable. Ever since the Tower of Babel we should know that we need a common language to make a country function.
Every new migrant should have to pass a test in written & spoken English or loose the right to remain.

We have a responsiblity to welcome newcommers. They have a responsibility to learn the basics of the host community/culture. Every immigrant should have to partake in a programme to help them understand the host culture and how an ancient demoractic country functions. They need to know what rights and responsilities are required to make such a state work to everyone's benefit.

Rev Ray Lyons

  • 111.
  • At 12:23 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Prem Eeyere wrote:

I think people can get carried away with the 'benefits' of mass immigration - such as tax revenues etc.

Not only are the benefits hotly contested, they have to set against the fact that Labour have no handle on the amount of immigrants who have arrived in the last 10 years. Thus we are only now beginning to see the net drain on countrywide resources.

I'm also not sure it is wise to simply view Great Britain as a giant corporation where our only concern is the Treasury. We should be a country first... and a company second.

I fear we're failing on the former of those ambitions.

  • 112.
  • At 12:46 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • how how wrote:

It will be interesting to see whom the BBC has invited as their studio guests. Will the BBC’s pro-multicultural pro-islamic bias be’ informing’ the licence fee-paying public unchallenged?

It's not so much about immigration as it is about standard of living. There are plenty of immigrants who are professionals and contribute to the communities, as opposed to nationals and citizens who continue to abuse the NHS. Deal with the homeless and lack of vocational training, and you won't mind a few immigrants who pay big bucks just to come on a student visa, provide skilled labor or even do the jobs that lazy britons won't do.

  • 114.
  • At 01:29 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Danielle Grufferty wrote:

Every human being has the right to ambition. Immigrants aren't criminals. Those legal ones; of which constitute the vast majority, pay their taxes and should be allowed to spend their money howsoever they wish. I found it distressing to scroll down the page to find so few welcoming immigration. There is NO evidence to suggest it harms our economy, and yet Derek Twigg MP spoke to me just the other day of how a labour government had 'clamped-down' on asylum, by refusing more applicants than the Tories did! (And despite engaging in a war that has led to millions of refugees). Why is every party so terrified to embrace immigration? It was ok for the Europeans to do it in the past and remains ok for the British to migrate to Spain, yet it's not ok for Eastern Europeans and people from the Third world? Few complain about the number of European- origin South Africans in this country, employed in high-salaried, competitive jobs. The opinions of most of my fellow students; we don't care, if they want a job here, let them, they're not inferior to us. Oh... and boycott the Daily Mail.

  • 115.
  • At 01:32 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Adrienne wrote:

The International Passenger Survey (IPS) and the Labour Force Survey (LFS) are a) voluntary and b) count on respondents telling the truth.

The IPS covers sea, air and rail ports, is suspended at night and covers 0.2% (1 in 500) of the 66 odd million UK residents' visits abroad and 30 odd million visits to the UK each year. It has a refusal rate of between 17-20% (the LFS is best left out of this if one is no great fan of surveys).

Leaving aside the fact that we know that the government has problems with accurate estimates of absolute numbers, looking at Table 2.5 page 10 '38/87' of the first link below which is the most recent ONS International Migration report which only goes up to 2005 alas, but shows inflows and outflows by citizenship/country of birth, note that far more EU A8 (East European) citizens stay than leave, BUT that this is also the case for New Commonwealth and Other Foreign Countries. The latter is the one to watch as they have higher birth rates and are even less likely to ever return (forget about Old Commonwealth as they balance out).

On the basis of a voluntary, 0.2% survey with a 17-20% refusal rate (which is bound to undercount the magnitude and the true reasons for migration as it just asks, without proof, what people intend to do), one can see that East Europeans stay, as do the S Asians and Africans (who, apart form the Indians/Chinese) tend to fall into the bottom of the skills league table according our own DfES data as well as international research on educability). A points system may work on the extra-EU migrants, but it will be illegal for EU migrants surely, and it may even be illegal discrimination for extra EU migrants in terms of UN conventions?

If one compares the proportion of the 2005 inflow respondents giving 'formal study' (page 11 '39/87' table 2.6) it's 24% (136,000/565,000) whilst another 43% (244,000) gave 'definite job/looking for work'. But for those leaving the UK (and about 52% of that 380,000 are UK nationals) only 4% (16,000/380,000) gave 'formal study', and 46% (176,000/380,000) 'definite job/looking for work'.

So, it's just as well that the UK is sending over 40% (and Brown wants it to be 50%) of its population into further/higher education is it not? Otherwise people might complain that the explanations given for coming to the UK look a mite suspect.

Apart from keeping youth off the streets a bit longer during most high risk criminogenic years (sadly, it's the wrong half), this Lysenkoist 'education, education, education' mantra of New Labour is a rather convenient veil for all sorts of sins is it not?

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_transport/traveltrends2005.pdf
Page xx (10 of 87) gives the rank orderings by country:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/MN_no32.pdf
ID Cards:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/04/brown_scrap_idcards_claim/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/04/brown_scrap_idcards_claim/comments/

On a lighter (?) note on an earlier mentioned concern about the consequences of positive discrimination, a BBC interview thismorning featured the case of a Sikh school girl appealing against her exclusion for refusing to take off her bangle (one of the Sikh five Ks). Allegedly, some Sikhs have also appealed against the proscription of carrying knives through airport security on the grounds that preventing them from carrying their their ceremonial daggers is in breach of the 1976 Race Relations Act....

With the ratification of the EU Reform Treaty and its more comprehensive FCHR, the 'mind' boggles.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/7081573.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/sikhism/customs/fiveks.shtml

  • 116.
  • At 01:52 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Adrienne wrote:

The International Passenger Survey (IPS) and the Labour Force Survey (LFS) are a) voluntary and b) count on respondents telling the truth.

The IPS covers sea, air and rail ports, is suspended at night and covers 0.2% (1 in 500) of the 66 odd million UK residents' visits abroad and 30 odd million visits to the UK each year. It has a refusal rate of between 17-20% (the LFS is best left out of this if one is no great fan of surveys).

Leaving aside the fact that we know that the government has problems with accurate estimates of absolute numbers, looking at Table 2.5 page 10 '38/87' of the first link below which is the most recent ONS International Migration report which only goes up to 2005 alas, but shows inflows and outflows by citizenship/country of birth, note that far more EU A8 (East European) citizens stay than leave, BUT that this is also the case for New Commonwealth and Other Foreign Countries. The latter is the one to watch as they have higher birth rates and are even less likely to ever return (forget about Old Commonwealth as they balance out).

On the basis of a voluntary, 0.2% survey with a 17-20% refusal rate (which is bound to undercount the magnitude and the true reasons for migration as it just asks, without proof, what people intend to do), one can see that East Europeans stay/cumulate over time, as do the S Asians and Africans (who, apart form the Indians/Chinese) tend to fall into the bottom of the skills league table according our own DfES data as well as international research on educability). A points system may work on the extra-EU migrants, but it will be illegal for EU migrants surely, and it may even be illegal discrimination for extra EU migrants in terms of UN conventions?

If one compares the proportion of the 2005 inflow respondents giving 'formal study' (page 11 '39/87' table 2.6) it's 24% (136,000/565,000) whilst another 43% (244,000) gave 'definite job/looking for work'. But for those leaving the UK (and about 52% of that 380,000 are UK nationals) only 4% (16,000/380,000) gave 'formal study', and 46% (176,000/380,000) 'definite job/looking for work'.

So, it's just as well that the UK is sending over 40% (and Brown wants it to be 50%) of its population into further/higher education is it not? Otherwise people might complain that the explanations given for coming to the UK look a mite suspect.

Apart from keeping youth off the streets a bit longer during most high risk criminogenic years (sadly, it's the wrong half), this Lysenkoist 'education, education, education' mantra of New Labour is a rather convenient veil for all sorts of sins is it not?

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_transport/traveltrends2005.pdf
Page xx (10 of 87) gives the rank orderings by country:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/MN_no32.pdf
ID Cards:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/04/brown_scrap_idcards_claim/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/04/brown_scrap_idcards_claim/comments/

On a lighter (?) note on an earlier mentioned concern about the consequences of positive discrimination, a BBC interview this morning featured the case of a Sikh school girl appealing against her exclusion for refusing to take off her bangle (one of the Sikh five Ks). Allegedly, some Sikhs have also appealed against the proscription of carrying knives through airport security on the grounds that preventing them from carrying their ceremonial daggers is in breach of the 1976 Race Relations Act....

With the ratification of the EU Reform Treaty and its more comprehensive FCHR, the 'mind' boggles.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/7081573.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/sikhism/customs/fiveks.shtml

  • 117.
  • At 02:17 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • moses wrote:

I have lived in London all my life and i can say that we have more people than our fledging infrastructure can hold.

Our hospitals, schools and housing just cannot handle the sudden massive influx of people that we have here.

  • 118.
  • At 04:04 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Silkstone wrote:

Re#101 above.

Sweeping generalisations don't ring true!

'I work harder than most'? From where do you obtain the statistics which show what effort goes into the work of 'most' and what is 'most' in terms of numbers? Also, do you mean most immigrants, most indegenes or both?

Has your decision not to use 'failimg public services' arisen because you dislike or mistrust them, or because so far it has not been necessary for you to do so?

The tone of the 'debate' automatically embraces your own contribution.

You provide yet a further illustration of the ABUSE of the term 'racist'. As an individual you do not constitute a 'Race' and because posters therefore don't know to which race you belong, by what logic do you assume that they hold an 'irrational belief' or are 'advocating' even, that your 'Race' is inferior to another.

To whom are you referring as 'Little Hitlers'?...And Why?

The other 'imperfect home to go to' that you mention obviously hasn't lost its appeal entirely, so you're fortunate inasmuch as the choice of where to live is still yours.


  • 119.
  • At 05:07 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Euan wrote:

We need to ask what we want immigration for. When is it good, when is it bad? A large number of Brits - and, no, I don't just mean 10th generation whites- are sick of seeing the country treated as a hotel rather than a home.

We don't just want an immigration policy simply shaped by the statistics of later day Mr Gradgrinds telling us we are a few million better off here or there. We want a country at ease with itself, with a sense of purpose, community and solidarity. Just as that means a society in which people aren't judged on the colour of the skin, it also means a people who share a story.

Immigration needs to be framed in such a way that it actively encourages meaningful exchanges and interaction rather than establishing a new segregated working class. That means less immigration from groups who have low rates of marriage and socialising with the wider population, less immigration from those with low skills and those who don't speak English.

Immigration should not unduly impact poorer sections of society. At the moment the middle classes are benefitting from cheap labour whilst the working classes are suffering from wage deflation and service competition.

Numbers also need to be cut to facilitate integration. High rates of immigration encourage the formation of parallel communities. This is alienating to all concerned, and undermines efforts to increase social solidarity.

A prime lesson from the whole terror chapter is that we need to be able to present a clear idea of who we are. Immigration in no way makes that an impossible task but it needs to be migration into our society as well as our state. No more airport lounge Britain.

  • 120.
  • At 05:12 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Exiled Northener in London wrote:

I like to think that I am a very open minded person who recognises that (1) historically, the whole of the UK is based on immigration from across Europe and further afield and (2) having lived in London for over 2 years, there's always going to be a very transient 'foreign' population in any major capital city. I also sccept that there's a hard-nosed economic case that can be made for many aspects of recent immigration levels. I have good friends locally from places such as Poland, Hungary and Lithuania. However, what worries me greatly (based on first hand experience) is the true cost/benefit ratio of current levels of immigration. Ok, accept the 'hard-nosed economic' benefits' (as I describe them) - jobs UK nationals don't want, carried out by immigrants who work hard and at rates which enable businesses to run profitably etc, etc. However, has anyone got a real handle on the less tangible impact of current levels of immigration in terms of the indigenous population? Not always rational and pandering to underlying racist tendencies - I accept. But I hear so many grumbles from local UK nationals based on GP waiting rooms being full of Eastern Europeans, disregard for UK driving laws, unacceptable levels of domestic violence, drunken behaviour, distortion of the rented housing market because of homes in multiple occupation, a cash economy to avoid taxation and, more recently, abuse of the UK benefits system. For me, the last straw was an Eastern European friend announcing to me without apology her 'grand plan' to get pregnant within 18 months in order to secure a Council house/flat and benefits. It was mentioned so matter of fact, without any shame and as if that was her God-given right. I automatically thought of my kids and their impending struggle to get anywhere near the property market, even in its widest sense. What value - financial or qualitative - can you attach to this massive downside to this aspect of immigration? What damage is being done to UK national pride and identity? What damage to UK social cohesion? In what other forms will these sorts of problems manifest themselves - and when? Can someone far more intelligent than I carry out some form of analysis please so that we can have a FULL and PROPER debate on the whole immigration issue? Simple really but very stark.

  • 121.
  • At 05:13 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Nigel wrote:

As an employer in the hospitality industry I am one of the many who appreciate the influx of labour from Europe.

An argument I have yet to hear relates to the situation before the recent influx. A few years ago, how many times did you hear "I just can't get the staff". In other words there was a hell of a gap to fill before we got to the situation today where immigration is impacting job opportunities for locals. We pay the same to immigrants as UK people and train English language skills where necessary. The impact on Social Services is minimal as the majority are young, single, fit people who want to work and do not see their long-term future in the UK. So keep them coming and you'll continue to see the quality of your service levels go up and up!

  • 122.
  • At 05:51 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Dave in Herts wrote:

Population growth is the problem in my opinion, not necessarily the nationalities from which it is drawn.

We need to understand that Britain has a carrying capacity, an ideal limit to its population density - which is already met in my opinion in most regions.

As we exceed this ideal population size (which probably happened decades back in my opinion), there are real costs for everyone in terms of the quality of life, threats to the environment, pollution, urban-sprawl, overloaded infrastructure, availability of water, vehicle emissions, inaedquate supply of housing etc etc.

So, if we all lose from this why does it happen? So business can use cheap labour and make bigger profits (and business and the wealthy are drivers for what happens here irrespective of who else benefits), and the economy grows (good for politicians). Also we can consume more as a nation, and pay cheaper prices in some cases - although our greed usually ends up with importing goods from overseas instead, so are these materialistic arguments for immigration worthwhile?.

At present mass immigration is reversing most of the positive social changes we have striven for (and at huge cost) since the second world war. We are now importing poverty, homelessness, illness, crime, disorder and illiteracy on a huge scale - just when we thought we had started to tackle these issues in post-Thatcher Britain. We have enough of these social problems to overcome from our own people without immigration!!

Skilled migrants = good, Others = Bad. Irrespective of social or ethnic origin. I wouldnt expect to be able to emigrate to a better country (New Zealand, Canada, etc etc) if i was unskilled and i would expect my country to follow the lead of nations which maintain a superior quality of life for their citizens.

  • 123.
  • At 05:53 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Simon wrote:

Have we benefitted from imigration? Probably, in the short term by allowing people of current working age to enter, but to continue this supposed benefit by the same method will mean having to allow an exponential increase in imigrants year on year - To what end?

  • 124.
  • At 06:05 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Ian Stabb wrote:

I forget so please remind me!

When did we actually vote on this country becoming a multi-cultural heaven?

When did we say at the polling stations that we were prepared to relegate our Nation to sharing our own & only country with all-comers & boy do they pile in!!!

Who else worldwide is joining in with this lunacy?

Get the idle 'economically inactives' of their lazy backsides & presto! Jobs filled & no more 3 million houses needed!

  • 125.
  • At 06:17 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • andrew conway wrote:

It is said immigration is necessary for growth. But if the population is increasing by 1% per annum (500,000+ from E Europe alone), then a more useful figure is growth-per-capita. If growth itself is 2.5%, then growth-per-capita - the rise the average British person actually sees - is a mere 1.5%
This is no better than the mid 1990s, when immigration was controlled and moderate. The economic gain has been negligible.
When one adds in the social costs, the catastrophic increase in crime, the terror threat, overcrowding, the breakdown of our inner cities, schools unable to cope, then the net effect is disastrous.
As with the euro, something so fundamenal must require the direct consent of the British people. That politicians have allowed massive immigration without it is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Above all what breaks the heart is that my country becomes less and less recognisable as England.

  • 126.
  • At 06:21 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Eric wrote:

Employers simply want cheap immigrant labour to increase their profits. Decide how many immigrants we will take next year. Issue licences for that number and let these employers bid for the licences in an open market. This would cover the numerous other costs of immigrants to the host community. The wealth of a country is measured by its GDP/capita. Immigration drives down wages for the already low paid and reduces GDP/capita. Economic growth is a false god. We need a country with fewer people with a better quality of life for all. Economic statistics don't measure quality of life. Immigration reduces the overall quality of life for the host population by creating more over-crowding in our already densely populated island. Only parts of Holland and Java are more densely populated than the UK.

  • 127.
  • At 06:49 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Tim.T wrote:

A specialised crime unit in London which deals with credit card fraud and theft, says 85% of those committing this crime in London are Romanians. That was a report by the BBC's Rageh Omah for another channel. We have 11,000 foreign nationals in our jails who shouldn't be there, and if they'd all be kicked out we wouldn't have a prison crisis; every area of this country is crying out for more funding because they can't cope with the rate and number of immigrants they are having to put up with; police commissioners of almost every region are worried about the rise of crime committed by foreigners in their district. I could go on. All those in favour of mass immigration just love to ignore any of the downsides to it, and yes, there are downsides. It's a fact. If this unsustainable level of immigration is soley for the purpose of giving us strawberries all year round, we can do without it, thank you.

  • 128.
  • At 06:52 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Rodney Atkinson wrote:

Many years ago I pointed out to the then Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd that "free movement of people" with the EU was born of a political aim, not an economic one.

The whole purpose (whether in the Eu or the world in general)of the free movement of CAPITAL and even industrial expertise is so that mass migration becomes unnecessary. The Movement of capital allows people to remain in their cultural and lingustitic homes where migrant capital creates jobs.

Hurd confessed that he had "never heard that concept before"!!! although it is an elementary idea in political economy.

Both EU and non EU countries have treated migrants as economic cannon fodder - with disastrous results both for overcrowded Britain and for the countries from which economic migrants are fleeing.

Bulgarian, Polish and Czech graduates are working as unskilled Labour in London while the UK Welfare system makes it unprofiable for British Labout to do those jobs.

  • 129.
  • At 07:00 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • ben wrote:

During the run up to the previous election, David Cameron and the tories made a huge hoo-haa about immigration policies. They at the time did not distinguish between assylum and immigration which obviously must have meant black immigrants. Cunningly Mr. Blair left them alone and they ended up drowning in their own wave. The greatest fear was that 'these immigrants are after benefits and a comfortable life'. Come the expansion of the EU we are hearing a different song now. Assylum is good but there is too much immigration. I certainly agree that the resources of the island can only cope with so much at any one time. But i think that's is more the government's problem. For example, after re-negotiating the doctors' contracts, doctors can now work less hours for more pay. Coupled by closing hospitals down following tirade after tirade of 'public consultations', had not as many immigrants come, there would still have been a pressure on services. Whilst polititians are jostling about with figures and data collection methodology, i'd like them to remember this in their policy making. Current EU rules are leaning more and more against the black african migrant. No one waves subsidies at african farmers in times of crisis. Social economy is reaching feverish pitch. If i may expound on the term social economy in this context, it is whereby people have found work in western countries, moved there, integrated and have sent money back to their loved ones. This money is free of the bottomless greedy pockets of the politicians. Surely, is there a better way to help in the fight against poverty than cutting out the greedy 'middle men?'.

  • 130.
  • At 07:05 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • jules wrote:

i read many comment but we all just speak about people coming in with an EU passport ,we forget that we have many people class as "aliens " in this country ,when we will be able to know how many those are in we could for once know what to do
but for now we have or give just figure that we have
there are more out there

  • 131.
  • At 07:07 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Goloba wrote:

Panalists,
Immigration! is again back in the media and this time with a alot of negativity. When will this name calling of people as "immigrants" ever stop? It really upsets me when the British call other people people who have either been born here or grown up from here as immigrants. Social and cultural cohesion should instead be encouraged.

Secondly, the notion that the social services are bursting to capacity is a total lie and unfounded. These people (immigrants)are hardworking and rarely use the social services as they are usually fit, young and contribute a lot to the British economy without taking out much from the system.

If looking for a solution, then put a complete ban on all people coming here either to study, visit and working here.

  • 132.
  • At 07:11 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • anne wareham wrote:

I get fed up with being told I'm bad for driving a car and causing cogestion when the government has cheerfully increased that congestion by increasing the population so dramatically.
I get fed up being told we need to build new houses on greenfield sites and no doubt AONBs 'for first time buyers' when the government is inflicting so many new 'first time buyers' upon us.
I get fed up of inadequate and overcrowded public transport and a government who have 'intergrated' nothing.
AW

England is the 4th most densely populated country in the whole world!
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.toomany.uk.html

We need more folk like an overflowing cesspit needs more ordure!

"Don't speak to me of shortage. My world is vast
And has more than enough -- for no more than enough.
There is a shortage of nothing, save will and wisdom;
But there is a longage of people.
..
"Hubris -- that was the Greeks' word for what ails you.
Pride fueled the pyres of tragedy
Which died (some say) with Shakespeare.
O, incredible delusion! That potency should have no limits!
`We believe no evil 'til the evil`s done' --
Witness the deserts' march across the earth,
Spawned and nourished by men who whine, 'Abnormal weather.'
Nearly as absurd as crying, 'Abnormal universe!' . . .
But I suppose you'll be saying that, next."
-- Garrett Hardin
http://home2.btconnect.com/tipiglen/capacity.html


xx
ed

I am intrigued by the fact that Italy seems able to alter its laws to allow undesireables to be deported....yet our Goverment appear unable to act.Why is this ?

  • 135.
  • At 08:07 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Delphine Gray-Fisk wrote:

When, and by whom, were the British public asked if they wanted mass immigration?

With around 64 million people (no one knows the real figure) already fighting for hospital places, schools, houses and transport we need more immigration like a hole in the head. Furthermore we already have more than enough people, if properly trained, to fill all job vacancies.

Finally, as is shown daily on our TVs, there is an unfortunate amount of drugs, gun and knife crime perpetrated by immigrants. This may be part of their culture but it is certainly not ours.

Our British culture is genuinely under attack.

  • 136.
  • At 08:26 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Eileen wrote:

Why people are concentrating on non-eu immigration when the biggest influx is from EU. When people enter from outside EU, they are controlled and monitered. But no such control within EU. Millions are still pouring in from the eastern europe! Has the gov got any idea how to tackle this uncontroll immigration??

  • 137.
  • At 08:36 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Bahati Ibrahim wrote:

You can imagine what Africa looks like! Whats happened is the effect of migration.Take a little scene to the Pearl of Africa-Uganda,so solemn indeed.Atleast most of the average percentage are now educated and where do they end up,swallowed by migration.Some after studies there is little hope and see the future as fatal and futile thus migration is the only notion thought about but ponder over t5he jobs they do,cozy jobs like a teacher being a sweeper,life is a struggle where few have passion.Its so incredibble when once i had on BBC Radio that most migrants especially in Africa are 3 times qualified than the real citizens in Britain,what a shudder!Its high time we came and developed our own other no matter what because no water has already penetrated through the cracks thus increasing underdevelopment and unfair treatment of the migrants like France,the discrimination/segregation of Spain,prejudice that exists still in America,Think Thrice before the next incident!!!!

  • 138.
  • At 08:57 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Geoff Chorlton wrote:

There's only one reason why past governments for decades have encouraged mass immigration-cheap labour!......an anti-inflationary policy so Britain can compete abroad.
I laughed the other day when a black spokesman on immigration for some government quango expressed his concern over the white east-european influx into Britain.He said "It( his concern) is not about racism or skin colour" I wanted to inform him it NEVER has been with the average Brit. It's simply a deep fear of us losing our national identity! Plus, quality of life is directly proportional to personal space and infrastructure. We can't cope with the numbers.

  • 139.
  • At 09:28 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Elizabeth Ann Biddulph wrote:

Please why will there be no guest speakers on the programme from the fourth largest party in the country UKIP which is the only political party which was founded with the sole purpose of taking Britain out of the EU and restoring democracy and sovereignty to the British people? None of the three main parties want to take Britain out of the EU, so it is going to be a one-sided, undemocratic debate. Surely this is yet again, censorship by exclusion.

IMMIGRATION INCOMPETENCE

To address the problems that arise from the mixing of groups with very different defining characteristics (something that Mother Nature neither intended, nor planned for, during the long time that those groups were isolated round the globe) requires a degree of competence found in few – if any. The way our party political governance is structured seems, manifestly, to entice and embrace the incompetent – especially incompetent where deeply human matters are concerned – and here we are.

  • 141.
  • At 10:12 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Denzil wrote:

Britain has an ageing population and immigration is needed to pay the pensions.

Immigrants don't stay young forever, they get old too and will need pensions themselves. Who's going to pay for the pensions of the immigrants? Todays immigrant is tomorrow's pensioner. Presumably, the government will say more immigration will be required to pay for the pensions of todays immigrants in years to come. It's like a pyramid scheme that requires a constantly expanding number of people at the bottom. Problem is that there isn't a constantly expanding amount of space to put them in and Britain is a small and densely populated island. It is also bad for the environment. We should stop relying on immigration as a short term fix for a long term problem.

Population Density per sq/km:

Palestinian territories 667
South Korea 480
Netherlands 392
*England * 383
India 336
Japan 339
Israel 302
Germany 232
Italy 193
Wales 142
People's Republic of China 137
Poland 123
France 110
Turkey 93
Spain 89
Scotland 65
Republic of Ireland 59
United States 31
New Zealand 15
Canada 3.2
Australia 2.6
Mongolia 1.7

People keep mentioning economics when talking about immigration, but the whole point of economics is to improve quality of life. If you pursue economics so vigorously to the detriment of your quality of life, then what's the point?

  • 142.
  • At 10:36 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Michael wrote:

If you have a cup of tea you might decide to put a spoonful of sugar in. You might put 2, 3 or 4 in. It would still be a cup of tea. It might taste better. But what if you put 20 or 50 or 100 spoons of sugar in? Most of tea would be pushed out and you would be left with a cup of sugar and a big mess on the floor.
It is not a question of do you like sugar or is sugar a good thing it is a question of too much sugar !

  • 143.
  • At 10:44 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Ant wrote:

Until we leave the EU we have no choice about immigration, its costs or its consequences, and this is all a complete waste of time.

  • 144.
  • At 11:15 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • simon wrote:

So the BBC runs a debate on immigration. That'll be objective then (lol).

  • 145.
  • At 11:20 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Paul wrote:

Hardworking people have money, why should all the britians that collect money from job centre have the same quality of life as i do- working 40+ hours a week?????? If they are too lazy to go out and find a job, or too proud to do certain jobs, then give it to ANYBODY from ANYWHERE to do it, if they are willing to work to improve their way of life. So cut back on the job centre handouts and the lazy ones will get off their backsides and get a job.

  • 146.
  • At 11:21 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • oliver lord wrote:

I have struggled all my life with my own conscience. Its important to me that I dont harbour feelings that I cant talk about or base my vote on. I grew up amongst mixed attitudes, at home I was shocked by my family's white, northern opinions on race, and out in the world I was shocked to be called a racist by people who had a pre-configured determination to label someone that way. but I have no such fear in saying, immigration here is haemhorraging, the change in society's compostition is too quick, its not being monitored, and the effects dont have to be hyped by a newspaper to be noticed by any UK citizen of any origin.

  • 147.
  • At 11:22 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • stephen jones wrote:

This is such a big and important issue for the people in Britain.

It is not helped by the politicians who do not tell it as it is. They are disingenous at best and lie at worst.

Until they are open and honest and stop hiding behind PC we will NEVER sort the problem and rise to the challenges that immigration represents.

  • 148.
  • At 11:27 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • jason lee wrote:

I recently retired as a Police Sergeant, I wrote direct to the Deputy Chief Constable of Surrey Police following the 9/11 attacks. I complained that I and my fellow custody sergeants had been warning since 1996 that failure to fingerprint and confirm identity of those entering the Uk with no documents meant there was a serious and credible risk of infiltration by militants and criminal gangs.For years nothings was done and then as predicted, 9/11 and 7/7 terrorist attacks occurred.The Home Office was directly to blame, and yet they all retired and went onto further their careers.Everyone knew they were unfit for purpose, so how do they sleep at night? I hope they sleep soundly, I do not.

  • 149.
  • At 11:29 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Paul John Rotherham wrote:

Why do we have to take all these immigrants when we have 5 million unemployed?Why have we now got a shortage of housing,so we will have to start building on green belt land just to house foriegn workers doing jobs that our own people can do?Answer-Because a handful of rich business men are making vast profits by exploiting foriegn workers.We have longer waiting lists on the national health and more money from the tax-payer has to be put in,more crowded roads another increase in council tax.So the average member of the public has a decrease in service,an increase in tax and now our beautiful countryside is going to be next to suffer.We also have an increase in crime as nobody is checked.Some of the people from these countries could have murdered dozens of people and we would never know.Also our british culture is dissappearing and becoming fragmented with people(particularly muslims)who don't intergrate with us native british.It is too late now to do anything about this except what alot of us who feel like aliens in are own country are doing...Abandon ship!

  • 150.
  • At 11:31 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Jason Day wrote:

what irritates me as a self employed communications enginner, having to endure a wage drop(due to a massive Eastern Europeans, flooding the employment market)and a fuel price hikes, that I can't pass onto customers.
But especially the BBC in particular and not so much other media going on about John Charles Demenezies.
He was an illegal immigrant, once legal until his work visa had expired!
How many more illegals are working here evading tax and costing the honest tax paying burdened public.
I struggle to find work, because I was born in the U.K. and I'm to expensive to employ, when you can get two poles for the price of an English worker.
Companies don't want to employ us British nationals as were to expensive, it's a form of racism from employers in our own country and it's high time this form of racsim is ended.
British tradesmen are not being allowed to play on a level playing field and if it continues I'm taking my experience and skills to another country.

  • 151.
  • At 11:36 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • jan patterson wrote:

I am very very concerned about this countries attitude to immigration. In being so politically correct we are in danger of losing all sense of being british. Sensible measures should have been put in place a long time ago. I also agree with the comment made by Enoch Powell 40yrs ago, and applaud the MP for having the courage to stand up to endorse Powells comments. The british are losing or have lost all faith in what the goverment is telling its people there are so many distortions and lies that evan non politically minded people are starting to wake up to what is going on, I have lived and worked in many different cultures overseas and they would not tolerate what we have to in this country. The goverment has to stop this rot before it stops them.

  • 152.
  • At 11:40 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • s.singh wrote:

My question to the panel would be, is it not true that the reason for the influx of immigrates is because there are jobs that the local people just do not want to do, that there are other jobs where the locals priced themselves out of the market. Even the leader of the Independence Party employed Polish workers to do up his house and said they were great workers who worked 10 hours a day, seven days aweek. So it is just market forces in play of supply of cheap and willing labour and demand for their skills at the right price.

  • 153.
  • At 11:43 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Mr P wrote:

Well I sometimes wonder when the government say they don't know the number of illegal immigrant in this country, when it is obvious to inland revenue that all illegal immigrant work and pay tax. Come to think of it, the department of work and pension know that they do receive taxes from NI number they never issued in the first place and keep the money. Secondly, if the government do not want immigrant to come and work in Britain why give them working visa and at thesame time moan about it? It is time we stop chasing shadows.

  • 154.
  • At 11:45 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • c haden wrote:

this country was and still is made up of immigrants coming in and adding too our"culture". but when then population on mass is saying enough the politicians need to listen, this is not because of the colour of a persons skin or culture it is simply that "the house is full" and anyone with an ounce of common sense should see that if the situation does not change, then we will be inviting at best a resentment of "all" immigrants, nobody in that situation will win, all we will get is a divided population and those who have settled in this country and maybe in the fourth, fifth,or sixth generation who have indeed become british may feel the brunt of this, and that would include many who think they are british but when they look back as is possible with the use of i.t find they are indeed of german, french, polish, dutch, jewish, irish,danish etc extraction. the only reasonble thing to do is say "enough" restrict the immigration through quota and qualifications on a as when needed basis, this i believe cannot be deemed as "racist" or other, this is simple common sense.

  • 155.
  • At 11:45 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • ron wrote:

I am an imigrant to the UK. I studied at University and upon graduating found a job. I now own property and have done well. I have advantage of speaking English but I'm also disabled. I rent to imigrants in some of my property. They are the hardest working people in this country, often working two jobs. My point is we need to separate hard working people from those who want to have benefits handed to them, regardless of where they are from. Come to the UK to work hard better your lot in life. We should look at the British people who wont work too.

  • 156.
  • At 11:47 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • w.d.williams wrote:

dear sir having observed sometimes from a distancf having lived in africa for 15years i find that on my return in 1997 a country that has lost its way no proper leadership or direction everything allowed to drift along we knew even as ordinary people that the will of the majority would not prevail because the people at the top did not want our society to be the same they decided that mass ccultural integrattion was the answer so the anti -establishment anti english and liberal left wing heros went to work and have set about turning this wonderful cuontry into a glorious mess from which we may never recover we need to do what italy france germany australia and all sensible governments do get rid of all foriegn nationals who wish to harm us no appeal process just ship them out any british born citiz ens involved i terrorism or major crime deported to a country of their choice all cultures that do not want to live by our laws and rules have got an alternative leave

  • 157.
  • At 11:54 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Matt ODonnell wrote:

Britain is the fourth most densely populated country on the planet.

7 out of 10 Britons feel the UK is overcrowded.

And what are we doing about this? Why, rapidly expanding our population of course!

What more needs to be said about immigration?

This government is beyond contempt in its incompetence, shortsightedness, and stubborn refusal to listen to the people it is supposed to be representing.

  • 158.
  • At 11:56 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • David Austin wrote:

I am British with an American wife, before my wife can become a british citizen, she must take a test, and get the appropriate test result before she is able to take up residency in the UK. To do this we have to pay a fee for the examination, and pay an additional fee to get the relavent entry on her Visa, if she passes the examination and we pay the fee's she must reside here another 2 years before she can get a british passport,spending no more than 2 months outside the country. On invesigating how we go about this process, we learned that someone who does not speak or write English can go to a free class in a language they understand and get instruction on the examination and get a certificate for the class at the end of the class, and then does not have to sit the examination. My wife is well Educated and graduated from Collage in America she writes it and has gone as far as relearning herself some of the different spelling between American and british spelling. Some of the test questions in the britishness Examination I could not answer. I just wish some of these so called policy makers could see how the practical side of there efforts will work and just simplify the whole process rather than drafting out a road to confusion and jobs for the boys. I did'nt believe how much they are now charging a taxpayer for the last forty odd years, to have his wife able to live with him in his own home.

  • 159.
  • At 11:56 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • john wrote:

firstly ,why do you find it neccessary to censor comments in what we refer to as a democracy?. why should any foreigner, man woman or child,black white brown or yellow ,be given priority housing over the indigenous population,because in the area where i live, this is exactly what is happening causing deep resentment amongst local people. the same applies to certain types of employment,which is being virtually dominated by foreigners at the expense again of local people. politicians ,unfortunately,are in total denial of these facts,as are influential people in the media and public life in general,who constantly tell us,that foreign workers are doing the jobs which nobody else will do. nothing could be further from the truth,and until our political masters and the politically correct mob are forced into dealing with the reality of immigration unchecked,the situation will continue to put pressure on every aspect of our day to day lives.

  • 160.
  • At 11:58 PM on 07 Nov 2007,
  • Peter Lucas wrote:

This country is overcrowded and nothing short of stopping all immigration for several years with a strict tarriff system after that will constitute a significant measure to solve the problem.

  • 161.
  • At 12:01 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • mark wrote:

Immigration should be allowed but it should be under control. Only refugees truely in fear of their lives and economic migrants who can demonstrate that they have skill levels above the national average; which is the only true way of increasing the country's GDP.
Stopping E European cheap labour will raise minimum wage for menial jobs and also help reduce Buy to Let demand taking up new build; and pushing up house prices.
Denzil [post 144]has some interesting population densities. Notice the anomaly of the Arabic Palestinians who have been penned up in a chicken coup for 60 years now, whilst the controlling Semites enjoy half the population density in what was essentially the same country...

  • 162.
  • At 12:06 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • mr brendan watson wrote:

I am like so many people in this country ie both racist and accepting. What upsets me is that people come to this country and live here and do not make it their home all they want is to replicate where they came from but with welfare, good medical treatment, fairness etc and with an ultimate aim to make us like them.
I worked and lived abroad for eight years in Nigeria and I did my work well and did all I could to fit into the society. There were many things I did not like but I got to know many Nigerians and from those frienships I got to appreciate there points of view and why things were as they were. It was a good for me to learn that there was another way of looking at life.
This week on the radio a young black man, born here but with Nigerian parents said that he was fed up when asked about his nationality and with the conversation always ending up with but where do you really come from? This situation will always be when people want to be know as British Asian etc. Only when they accept that they first and secondly British will this practice end.
I have many Indian friends and the majoity are successful and hard working but some have a limited knowledge of England and our culture and the main interest is Zee tv for news and general viewing. One lady did not know that there was BBC tv and she had never in all her years here ever listened to radio 4. Along with this is the yearly need to have the pilgrimage back to India - I know this applies to other nationals.
I do not buy the argument that immigrants are required to pay our pensions, as the influx/bulge of immigrats will grow old themselves one day and require another intake to pay their pensions. Let our retirees work if they want - many will with diminished pensions.
A points system and quota system is required to control immigration. this has been run for years in Australia and it has served them well. We have to get our own unemplyed into work to fill all those vacancies.
Many years ago I wanted to emmigrate to Australia but I was ferused because of lack of secondary education although I had a degree in architecture. If I had of gone I would have been an immigrant and I wonder how i would have felt as an unwanted pom!!!

  • 163.
  • At 12:11 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Anthony Southend on Sea Essex wrote:

SOME THOUGHTS ON THE, HITHERTO, SENSITIVE SUBJECT OF IMMIGRATION.


At last – discussion on Immigration has been decoupled from the ‘Race’ issue witness the chairman of the CRE, Trevor Phillips congratulating David Cameron, the Conservative Leader, for his grown up and sensitive handling of the issue in his recent speeches on Conservative policy.

This follows some months after Mr Phillips warned that embracing multi-culturalism could lead to the UK ‘sleep walking’ towards segregation of differing cultural communities. One could argue that this leaves a large section of the ‘Political Correctness’ lobby without a viable product.

It is also interesting that in the popular press even Enoch Powell seems to have re-emerged as a not- so condemned profit of yesteryear. Powell was an intellect with few equals in his time but his use of inflammatory language was a big mistake when a more subtle approach would have served him and his cause more effectively. And, of course, Ted Heath had no alternative but to sack him.

I believe the following points are relevant to the current debate on immigration, which, due to the unprecedented scale of this phenomenon over the last 10 years, has produced one of the most serious social challenges for the UK since the economic recessions of the late 1920’s and early 30’s.

1. Without the approval of the British people, the government has permitted mass immigration by stealth, either deliberately or through incompetence, without considering the effect on the nation’s infrastructure, culture and social stability. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the cumulative burden on transport, schools, health services and housing will outweigh the benefit to the economy of any increase in GDP resulting from an increased labour force. This assumes an increase in the population of the UK (authoritively) estimated at 10 million to 70 million by 2031.

2. Britain’s membership of the EU prohibits it from restricting the free movement of citizens of other EU states from one country to another for the purposes of travel, residence or to seek employment. Britain did not avail itself of the concession to impose transitional arrangements for migrants from the 10 Eastern European states who joined the EU in 2004. Only Britain Ireland and Sweden placed no restriction on migration from the new member states whereas all the other existing member states, including Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Holland, imposed permitted limits. The British government estimated that the number of migrants from the new member states would be around 13,000 when in fact 600,000 arrived from Poland alone. This is the scale of government incompetence in relation to numbers. The government has announced that it will now impose transitional arrangements for migrants from the 2 new EU states – Romania and Bulgaria. Does the adage – stable door and horse bolted, echo here?

3. Britain is only able to control the influx of migrants from (a) EU states in transition, (b) non EU migrants, including migrants from old and new commonwealth member countries, (c) other countries and (d) asylum seekers. The number of Illegal immigrants is an unknown factor but the figures released by the government recently for foreign workers in the UK has been changed 3 times ranging from 800,000 to 1,500,000 which leads to the conclusion that government has no idea what the true level of immigration is, which implies that planning current and future resources to deal with this issue is impossible.

4. The estimates of the net benefits to the economy of immigration cover a wide spread – from £6 billion to the price of a mars bar for each immigrant. To me this means that nobody really knows and that any calculation is extremely subjective. To use just one series of examples – is an estimate based on current levels or projected levels of immigration? Is an estimate based on the numbers of immigrant workers or does it include their families who may follow? Has the differing birth rates of each cultural segment of the immigrant community been factored in to the resource requirement? Has the fact that many immigrants do not speak English been factored in? - All of these with important implications for the projected funding of social services.

5. A side issue, not often seriously considered, is the detrimental effect on the economies of the lesser developed nations when Western States, including Britain, cream off for inward migration, skilled workers and those from the professions – lawyers, doctors, scientists etc. This practice, if unchecked, will ensure that those lesser developed nations will be condemned to permanent third world status. It is the moral responsibility of the wealthier nations to assist the development of the poorer nations. In so doing, we help to ensure that two way trade develops, human deprivation and hardship is eased and our aid program is reduced or redirected as third world economies become self sufficient.

It is apparent that government policy options are very limited for dealing with immigration levels which, by common consent, have been and are still, too high. These include (a) a points system (b) a cap on non EU immigration (c) a quota system used in consultation with local government and industry (d) a border police force to eliminate or reduce illegal immigration, or more controversially (e) derogation from EU rules on EU nationals seeking work by imposing a moratorium or limits.

In addition, to run concurrently with some of the measures above, government must drastically reform the almost universal benefits culture which has been allowed to take root in Britain by successive governments. The figures are appalling with over 7 million of the working population inactive and drawing state benefit of one kind or another. For example it is almost inconceivable that there is 2.8 million people in this prosperous country entitled to claim incapacity benefit. In some areas of Britain the benefit culture is endemic and long term. Many of these claimants should be competing for the jobs happily filled by hard working migrants from Eastern Europe. In the US, a system introduced by Bill Clinton in some states, limited the lifetime claim for certain state benefits by an individual to 5 years, has reduced benefits costs by in excess of 50%


ALK 06/11/2007

  • 164.
  • At 12:19 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • philip maher wrote:

Immigration in this country is not
controlled nobody truly know the numbers.I have worked with oversea
people and some can not speak english
but some people can speak english.
run the T.V. programmes about
1. THE NUMBERS AND IN WORK OR ON
BENEFITS
2. THE BENEFITS FOR THE PEOPLE
HERE AND WHO COME HERE
3. HOUSING BUILD MORE
At the end of the debate we say yes or no. Stop or limit immigration
or go for it.
(BUT HOUSING AND JOBS)

  • 165.
  • At 12:21 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Mark Williams wrote:

Immigration has made me a foreigner.

I live in inner London less than a mile away from where I was born forty years ago. The ethnic make-up has changed completely in the last 20 years, and my family and I, as white people, are now members of an ethnic minority. Frankly, I am not happy with this fact. If that is "racist" then so be it, but it is important that I express my view because this is what this debate is about.

My two sons are approaching school age. When I look at the local schools I see that there are nearly no white children at all (maybe 5%). I am not comfortable with the prospect that they will be the odd ones out. Children are cruel and my sons will undoubtedly been taunted for being white and different.

Had I emigrated to Japan for a better life I would have accepted such inconveniences. But I have not emigrated, I have stayed put, so why should I accept this?


I could move to another "whiter" area like so many others have done already. But why should I? - I was born here.

  • 166.
  • At 12:21 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Amanda Hall wrote:

I have been very concerned for a long time about the unprecendented policy of mass immigration without limits or controls.

I have researched this subject very thoroughly and I know for a fact that the government has insisted that immigration is good for the economy based on very little research. The academic consensus is that the overall impact of excessive immigration is mainly negative. The 6 billion benefit to our economy by immigration DOES NOT take into account the extra costs to the NHS, education, translations costs, welfare costs, etc, etc, caused by mass immigration.

Not to mention housing. In a debate by Law Lords it is mentioned that if immigration continues at the current rate 6 NEW CITIES will be needed within 20 years. NOT possible. We hav'nt got the SPACE. Also how will the current economy support new cities, how will they be economically viable?

WHAT HAPPENS when the inevitable crash comes? When there are job shortages?

The UK is a small island and was already densely populated. When Blair came into power we had existing NHS problems, education problems, housing shortages. NOW those problems will be exarcebated by mass immigration. Already we are seeing the cracks forming. The strain on the UK's infrastructure will suddenly give way to catastrophe.

Where I live you can see the results of mass immigration CLEARLY. 8/10 people, in our suddenly very overcrowded streets our immigrants. I and many I know feel alienated from our own culture. I worry every day about immigration. MOST OF ALL I can't understand why the government is doing this? I am only an ordinary, everyday person and yet I can see the terrible consequences clearly. Why can't they?

At the moment anyone who trys to bring the merits of this subject up are beaten down by political correctness. This is not right. There are very convincing and sound reasons why mass immigration on the current scale is wrong.

The situation is urgent. For now until the UK has had time to assess the implications of this policy properly ALL IMMIGRATION should be stopped. The number of immigrants are not even known. I am positive the numbers are far, far higher than any officical guesstimates given now. My streeets are swelling everyday. The jobs I see fulfilled in the local community are taken by immigrants. You would be hard pushed to find a British born citizen amongst the. Eg. The widening of the Walworth Road.

I am glad of the opportunity to say something about this very important subject.

Amanda

I am against this massive immigration from around the world and the LAZINESS among a good percentage of them. From what I have noticed these are mainly from some countries of the Horn of Africa, who are living on welfare, especially sickness benefit. This means a lot of time on hand and therefore a nuisance to the society and not allowing others to go and work and pay tax so they can live free of charge in this country(!!!) If they had any consciousness to pay back for the UK generosity, they would at least go and be a domestic part-time volunteer in the NHS!!! Sickness benefit dished out very easily and some of these immigrants are young and healthy looking! My views are all there in/on the blog, and I am an immigrant. Read.
Read this blog. http://rainbow7uk.blogspot.com

  • 168.
  • At 12:26 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Damien Vaugh wrote:

The permit for anyone from the 15 new EU countries has lead to a predictable and welcome influx of eager peoples to improve their economic oportunity here in London. It seems to me that a lot of the recent growth in the economy was as a result in part of the hard working population. It is in evidence everywhere in London from restaurants, shops and in construction sites . I cannot think how the economy would have grown otherwise. It has also shown by contrast that there is a long term unemployed segment indiginous population who have not been taking up these jobs that the new wave of immigrants have. I think that labour has been trying to get young unemployed people into work but without a huge degree of success. How will politicians deal with this?. I was interested to listen to the debate on newsnight about the Winsconsin initiative which encourages people back into work after 5 years of welfare, and was interested to note that Labour are considering taking up a simular initiative in the UK. I would like to hear more about the pros and cons of such a scheme and if the politicians from different parties have any grounds of agreement on that proposal. Certainly along with the working migrant population there has been anecdotal evidence of welfare immigration but you can hardly blame immigrants who are in need travelling to another country as wealthy as this for assisatnce and housing not available in their home countries. In our neighbourhood we have more immigrants being housed from the new accession countries and it is a welcome sight seeing them moving into the newly built properties. They are showing signs of putting down roots and not merely passing through. I was certain that the numbers being posted by the government were infact underestimating the actual numbers arriving in the past few years. This must make it very difficult for providers of essiential services including health care, transport ,housing and education to plan and accommodate these extra numbers. I can see that the future of the UK is much more secure now that it has an influx of new immigrants. The aging population needs the extra migratory workforce to provide services that will be generated by an aging population. The key problem for the government is to actually find the correct number of residents in the country and plan for those number of people. I am amazed about the claims on this and other forum that the country is overpopulated. Everywhere I look I see empty flats and houses. What need to be address by government is to make these properties affordable. I know the exchequer has made billions from satmp duties from the recent housing boom however the building of affordable housing has not keep up with demand. I think all parties need to focus in requiring the developers to build on their land banks and brownfield sites. I would be worried that we would start building on the green belt but unfortunately I think thats what may happen. I was pleased to note that a government task force on housing has encouraged public sector landowners including the MOD and other government departments to release land for building in London.It is important to have good infrastructures around the housing that is being built in the thames gateway, including transport, education , health and retail . Housing should increase in density to match the needs of the population to be near the place of work to ease the burden on the transport system. The 2012 olympics and paralympics with require further inward immigration along with the other building of crossrail and housing. I think it should be made easier for the new accession countries to enter the workforce through training and and settlement programmes. Culturally I have not been able to assess the input of the former eastern block accession migrants. Its too early to see if their food ,entertainment and other cultural arts will be promanent enough to stand out against the rich cultural tapestry to be found in somewhere like London, but its too early to say. I find it worrying that young black men indigenous to the uk are being left behind. The more new immigrants that arrive the harder it is for them to compete. I suppose that its something that they as a distinct culture need to address. Young male Pakistan immigrants also wander around unemployed while their Indian counterparts are racing ahead in employment. Its a challange for the politicians and policy makers to address this otherwise there will be distinct social unreast and frustration amoungst these yound men, turning to social problems for them as an individual and socio-economic group.

  • 169.
  • At 12:53 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Barry wrote:

What is the point in this 'debate'? It won't be a real one as all three main parties believe in mass immmigration and believe it only has an upside and no downsides to it. A 'debate' conducted on PC terms is not a real debate at all.

  • 170.
  • At 12:56 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Andrew Jones wrote:

Where to start, there's so many elements to this debate. I've gone from Guardian reading 'liberal lefty' to committed Nationalist in just a few short years. I did this despite the relentless media campaign telling me how wonderful and 'vibrant' 'diversity' is. My eyes and ears, eventually, told me otherwise. It breaks my heart to know I'm going to be a minority in my own home city in just a few short years. Watching my, English, culture built up over hundreds of years being so casually destroyed in the name of multiculturism. I wouldn't wish this on any other country. Apart from the social and cultural aspects we're told this is all being done for the economy. Despite the numerous reports that quite clearly show that, per capita, the benefits, if at all, are paltry. The idea that this has been done for economic reasons is risible. Immigration would have been handled very differently if the primary reason for it was economic. I could talk about the ridiculous notion that only the English (I refuse to use terms involving skin colour; the whole skin colour thing is a complete red herring) can be racist or that somehow the BNP are considered extreme whilst overseeing massive levels of uncontrolled immigration without any debate or mandate and the active suppression of even the slightest dissent is 'mainstream'. The clincher for me though is that we're going to see a huge rise in the population of this tiny island and the subsequent degradation of the whole environment and for what?

I could go on, there's so much more, but I'll finish with this. Stop all immigration now.

  • 171.
  • At 01:08 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Nicole Jarrett wrote:

When immigration becomes so great, to the extent where it affects the existing population and stretches resources to such an extent, tighter controls need to be excerised. The city of London bears much of the burden of immigration and it is already an overcrowded city. As a Londoner i have felt increasingly isolated in a community of foreign language speakers who do not sufficiently intergrate into the wider community, to the extent that i have decided to move out of the area.

The sudden influx of eastern european workers was unprecedented but the effects were immediately obvious. I think a cohesive society it not feasible when fewer and fewer londoners have a good grasp of the English language.

Any economic benefits immigrants bring is quickly swallowed up by the millions of pounds we spend on things like translation, services and so on.

  • 172.
  • At 01:14 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Nicole Jarrett wrote:

A long overdue debate in my opinion!

We are letting criminal gangs enter the country unchecked. Prostitution rings, people trafficking, drug cartels; why are these gangs sliping through the net. If controls we adequate this would be less of a problem.

What we a seeing is a fundamental change to the British way of life that we are reluctant to welcome. We are struggling to retain our 'Britishness', in a changing cultural climate.

  • 173.
  • At 01:31 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • ray oates wrote:

Immigration per se is not the problem. The history of it is a part of our history. I haven't a clue of my family history that goes further back than 100 years but I know I am English. The constant mantra in Parliament of celebrating cultural diverisity is specious and I see no true evidence of it whether it be Ramadan or the others in my city. The problem, it seems to me, is accomodating the sheer numbers in a relatively short period of time and the movement seems to be one way ie to Western Europe. Rightly or wrongly there is a sense of unfairness in our ability in urban areas to access those services for which we have been paying tax most of our working lives.

  • 174.
  • At 01:37 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Jude Minstermason wrote:

Human history and cultural evolution is a history of travel and trade: people move, and this is how cultures exchange things, practices and ideas. Isolated communities don't change and grow. That said, there's a perfectly understandable reason why human groups are made anxious by too much, and too swift, change. It's because 'home' - however you identify it -- is the place where you know what's going on because you can 'read' all the signs by which a culture (or cultural grouping) understands and 'knows' itself. Too much strangeness, too much breaking of well-known cultural codes, is deeply unsettling because human identity isn't something locked away inside people's heads; it resides, collectively, in the cultural (and to some extent natural) environment, and in the legibility of that environment. Being in an unfamiliar environment can be exhilarating, but also exhausting, precisely because it's hard to 'read', and hence to know when you're getting the signs right or wrong. This is pretty basic stuff, and it would be good to see some awareness of it in discussions about immigration. A certain amount of newness and difference is exciting and stimulates innovation; too much alarms people because they become frightened that they literally can't (or soon might not be able to) make sense of things anymore. It's probably also worth saying that those people who feel least in control of their environments (i.e. of the signs which they 'read' coming in to them, and of the effectiveness of the signs they 'send out') are likely to be those most vulnerable to anxiety induced by the experience of a lot of cultural newness and difference. So the question of the effects of large-scale immigration is always also a question of cultural (and of course economic) power and influence. Those who have it, and who feel absolutely secure in maintaining it, are unlikely to be made as anxious by rapid cultural change as those who do not. If we really want to get to grips with anxieties about 'difference', 'racism' is probably not (or is no longer) a very helpful term because it tends to close down discussion rather than illuminate it. Human beings are what they are: i.e. animals who live richly in signs, and in languages (of words and bodies) which are communities of signs. That's how they 'know' themselves and how they experience their sense of identity. It's not a coincidence that conquering and colonialist cultures always impose their languages upon the conquered; language -- which is to say cultural codes and conventions -- is what makes both individual and collective identities. History is replete with knowledge of this simple (but often ignored) fact, and we really shouldn't be surprised if people express anxiety when they feel that their ways of being 'at home' in the world (which is to say their ways of making sense of their world) are (or might be) in danger of becoming incoherent. The whole immigration debate would be much better served (and illuminated) by discussions intelligently informed by some understanding of humans as creatures who live in, and make creative sense of themselves in, the meetings of a world of legible (familiar) and illegible (unfamiliar) signs. The latter make us innovate, but the former provide the security and stability which is the basis upon which new adventuring depends.

  • 175.
  • At 01:51 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Luke Glass wrote:

Has anybody noticed the irony that, nearly 40 years after Enoch Powell rather loosely (and certainly unwisely) drew on a gloomy prediction by Sybil that the Tiber would roll as a purple flood, it is the Italian Government who have just decided to repatriate immigrants who seem constitutionally incapable of abiding by Italian law?

On Migration. Historically, when in a given location life's essentials run scarce (land, open spaces, crops, water, personal freedom), people emigrate in order to survive and/or improve their lot and their children's chances of doing so. The 20th century saw the largest migrations and displacements of people, both in frequency and numbers, ever to happen. Are 20th century migrations due to causes other than those mentioned? If so, what are they? In any case, what is the common denominator underlying all migratory movements? It is this common denominator we need to uncover and get clear on. Then we need to address it unremittingly. IF we ourselves are to survive into the 22nd.

The common denominator underlying 20th century migrations is as common today as it was for ancient cultures: TOO MANY PEOPLE! Population excess, locally, causes people to move out in search of better pastures. And, locally as well as globally, population excess is behind every single problem we face: climatic, environmental, economic, political, social and psychological. Our numbers MUST be reduced; our growth MUST BE limited and managed IF civilization is to survive another century. Look to Easter Island, the Anasazi and Chaco Canyon peoples, the Maya, the Norse, the Viking--where they were, we are now: at the point where excess becomes decline. For each of them cultural collapse followed swiftly and they disappeared. Look to Tonga, the New Guinea Highlands, the Tokugawa of Japan among others--their cultures thrived. Tonga's does so still, after 3000 years. The difference? Population controls and limits. We must learn from them, or...

The common denominator underlying 20th century migrations is as common today as it was for ancient cultures: TOO MANY PEOPLE! Population excess, locally, causes people to move out in search of better pastures. And, locally as well as globally, population excess is behind every single problem we face: climatic, environmental, economic, political, social and psychological. Our numbers MUST be reduced; our growth MUST BE limited and managed IF civilization is to survive another century. Look to Easter Island, the Anasazi and Chaco Canyon peoples, the Maya, the Norse, the Viking--where they were, we are now: at the point where excess becomes decline. For each of them cultural collapse followed swiftly and they disappeared. Look to Tonga, the New Guinea Highlands, the Tokugawa of Japan among others--their cultures thrived. Tonga's does so still, after 3000 years. The difference? Population controls and limits. We must learn from them, or...

  • 179.
  • At 03:04 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Victoria Haeri wrote:

Surely immigration should be controlled, mainly because let's face it, England is full up! I say England, because perhaps Scotland, where most of the politicians who make decisions on our behalf come from, is less densely populated.

Unfortunately, in discussions about immigration, these same politicians don't seem to look at the whole problem in the round. We are told what a great contribution the immigrants make and indeed it is clear that many individuals are incredibly hardworking and motivated. But because they are so motivated, they are willing to work for lower wages, which keeps wages lower overall. So those on benefit see no reason to work. The numbers of those on benefit have not declined since Labour took office. And because many immigrants come with some training, firms see no reason to train apprentices. Apparently there are hundreds of applicants for every apprentice place. So the well off company owners get richer and the poor Britons stay poor.

We are told we need to build 3+ million houses. For whom? Surely not all are needed for young Britons? We are told we need to build more roads because they are far too congested. Schools are full, and if teachers have to cope with many non-English speaking children, how can they hope to keep standards up?

I have quite a few young friends who are immigrants from EAstern Europe and North Africa and they themselves are quite surprised at the way the UK bends over backwards to accommodate non-British customs, and enquire why Britons are not applying for their jobs. There's absolutely no doubt that Britain has benefited immeasurably from immigration in past decades, and indeed we must all carry genes of immigrants'from somewhere or other, but this current wave is just too many, too quickly, and unless some controls are put in place and changes made in the way life is organized within the UK, the atmosphere will unfortunately deteriorate further.

  • 180.
  • At 04:00 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • richard wrote:

The UK is probably the only modern industrial country with no effective immigration policy. No other country in the world has such lax, liberal and laughable,u nenforcable immigration procedures. Yes it does have to be addressed, as any modern society needs to manage itself financially, socially, economically. During the early 90s, I was one of those prepared to do anything to get myself ahead, yet I struggled to compete for casual low paid work with latin americans, south africans, australians, new zealanders, africans, asians .. and that was before the EU expansion and even at a time when even Spanish nationals could not work in the UK legally, although they did in their thousands. Also, let's remember that students visiting the UK can automatically work a certain number of hours a week, but effectively work fulltime. there's nobody that controls it and employers don't bother checking work permits etc. Also, after 3 years of residency anyone can apply for citizenship. At the end of the day the UK is a magnet for everyone, from all over the world - no other country can claim to be in the same situation and so welcoming, but for a Brit wanting to work abroad, it's another matter, unless you're a high flyer or doing some holiday job. Other countries such as USA, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan, Nigeria even, you name it, have effective systems in place ( official stamps etc) to monitor immigration and determine who has the right to work and who not. You need the right papers and all employers know what they need to see before employing someone. I actually attempted working in mexico in 1992 and was unable to get the correct work permit. I got kicked out of the USA also, eventually i ended up in switzerland where i did eventually find work, but only because i was married to a swiss, but even then getting the correct permission was difficult and had to be renewed annually. It's all very well having open borders and a constant flow of people into the UK now perhaps, but what happens when the economy dies and the job market shrinks. Who gets to stay and who gets to go. Where can a Brit go that's as welcoming as the UK and has an economy strong enough to provide jobs? eh?

But yes the UK is a great cosmopolitan country rich in a myriad of cultures, but enough is enough, although we know that it's unlikely to change as even discussing immigration seems to be too scary for most politicians. At least they can rest assured that their world at westminster will not be deluged with foreign politicians looking for a seat in parliament.

  • 181.
  • At 04:00 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • David Hawk wrote:

I have just re-read the speech which Enoch Powell made in April 1968 infamously and falsely known as the "Rivers of Blood" speech. I challenge any politician or 'expert' (and I use that term very loosely) to put his hand on his heart and declare that Enoch Powell was not right. Powell saw the nightmare we are living through today almost 40 years ago and the speech marks him as probably the most remarkably prescient and courageous politician of all time.

  • 182.
  • At 04:04 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Richard Ogden wrote:

I have a job that involves meeting many disadvantaged areas in the northeast, interviewing householders.

One phrase which comes up repeatedly by commentators on the issue of immigration is that "they are doing jobs we don't want to do".

Whilst I accept this is undoutedly true in certain sectors of the economy it is a phrase thats used predominatly by protagonists of a relatively open door immigration policy.

This is I feel somewhat unfortunate in that perhaps it actually misrepresents an important issue in this area - that of us havign substantial proportion of outr potential workforce thats are quite happy not to work and for whom this tern of phrase is an addition reason for them to continue to sit on their backsides and take advantage of the social security system whilst simultaneously refusing to take up the freely available help to get them into work.

Unti lwe recognise that we have a growing section of out society that feel justified and entitled to wait for the right job on the never never and that our social security system allows them to do it, indded actively promotes the prioblem will continue as out society becomes more affluent and the definition of what is poverty rises with it.

It is often these types of individual, in my experience, that a re some of the most vocal detractors of out curent immigration policies.

The immigrant continues to be a reason for these people to deny their personal responsibilities in getting into work - certainly not the only one - but an important one nontheless.

We are far too soft on that section of out society that refuses to work and in the great immigration debate it might be far more consturctive for us to stop referring to "jobs we dont want to do| to jobs thats we are "too lazy" to do.


At the middle to higher professional level work environment, young doctors are often sited. In these areas we need to break down the controlled numbers we train rather than "forgeting" that many professional bodies self limit supply into their industries by training too few people keeping salries for those in the profession artificially high - thus providing a shortage of home grown supply and an inward pressure for trained professionals from overseas.

Increasing doctor numbers may be problematic and require longer term solutions but it is less obvious why we should face shortages of opticians, dentists and pharmacists.

On a seperate issue. We promote degree education and have greatly increased the numbers of people sitting for degrees. all very well on the surface but our message is unhelpful for it promotes self indulgent education and training rather than encouraging training in the areas where jobs exist. Just as we cant all be professional footballers in is unrealistic to promote many degree courses which do not lead to professional careers for the majority that invest in them. It is the right educatuion thats matter not self-indulgent education for educations sake.

Our careers advice system for the young is woefully inadequate so it should not be suprising to us that increasing numbers of our potential workforce find themselves without the skills and exoperince in demand and pre programmed to look down on certain jobs far too early in their working lives.

  • 183.
  • At 04:05 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Jon Manning wrote:

I have worked with refugees for many years and see nothing wrong with some level of immigration, but it seems we want to turn it on & off like a tap, in what appears unmanaged to say the least. It seems ironic that my local council spends hundreds of thousands on a sure start programme to educate and refrain indigenous 16 year old girls from having children - yet we stand back and allow people from other countries to come here and do exactly that. When I challenged this decision locally - I was told that culturally our immigrants always have children at a young age! We are now also told that we need to build 2 million more homes as there is a housing crisis, yet at the same time told we need mass imigration due to our falling population, yet if this were true - there must by definition be enough homes for all.
It seems to me that there must be more to the immigration programme than meets the eye.

  • 184.
  • At 06:52 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • wappaho wrote:

I think we need alot more witness statements such as Jon Manning from people who can tell us exactly how resource decisions are being made (policy implementation) and less of the intangible concepts and buzz words from policy makers

  • 185.
  • At 07:38 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Tim wrote:

Why do people on this thread go into great detail as to why migration is taking place and the benefits it brings, what the heck does it matter? No matter what the reason, the outcome for Britain and it's people will be the same - extinction!

If mass unfettered immigration continues into this country at the same rate for the next five Years, the inevitable result will be the death of Britain (by the end of this century) - it's as simple as that.

The question is stark, do the indigenous people of Britain think that all the lyrical waxing of benefits that immigrants bring to this country is worth it?

The unavoidable truth is, Britain and it's people will be engineered off this planet - is that a sufficiently good trade off for all those economic benefits.

It is a simple enough question to ask.

  • 186.
  • At 07:46 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • wappaho wrote:

deluded liberal lefties (that includes me) put into place the policies of multiculturalism - ie. the idea that we should be fair to ethnic minorities

but that isn't the full story.

the situation today has largely been created by a determined and often collaborative effort to squeeze every last favour out of those high ideals of multiculturalism - i.e. the rights culture

we were caught out on the one thing that has made english a global language - its flexibility of use and meaning.

unfortunately us lefties did not reckon with the non-nuanced interpretation of an intendedly nuanced concept.

  • 187.
  • At 08:05 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Adrienne wrote:

When does immigration, and its manipulation become a form of demographic warfare? And need it be intentional?

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/seth_freedman/2007/05/demographic_warfare.html

Four years ago Tam Dalyell even got himself into trouble through suggesting that Mr Blair was under the influence of a cabal.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=510722003
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2999219.stm

But the notion of 'cabals' suggests something sinister and conspiratorial and often there is no such thing in practice, the very suggestion causing offence as it did above. But groups don't always compete consciously. Certainly this is true elsewhere in nature.

When stakes are high, as they were over Iraq, and as they are today over Iran and now domestically over immigration it is natural that people want rational explanations for policy decisions, explanations through which they can hold their elected representatives democratically accountable.

Recently, Richard Dawkins caused a bit of a stir in The Times through something that was reported in The Guardian where he was said to have praised a politically active segement of the USA Jewish community for its successful lobbying of US foreign policy in favour of Israel via AIPAC. In the wake of what was quite commonly made, and well substantiated, remark, Dawkins was accused by some (cf. The Times comments after the article by Danny Finkelstein) of anti-Semitism. But lobbying in the UK, as here is not illegal, nor is it conspiratorial. It is part of the democratic process whereby special interest groups pressure politicians to act in support of their collective interests. This is the theme of this comment. Immigration brings special interest groups,a ndc special interest groups can undermine democracy.

There are two ways to express one's influence economically, culturally and politically. One is to simply vote in elections and hope that your MP will represent your wishes when s/he votes in parliament, the other is to drive out the competition through team-work i.e. shrewd politics or collective lobbying, aka 'collective bargaining'.

The latter seems to have happened in New York, where, over the last century, the city progressively became more multi-cultural some groups advocating immigration, others not. NYC now has a Jewish population of close to 2m million (in the first decade or sop of the C20th it was, according to Martin Gilbert, just under 5 million). NYC has a Black American population of over 2m million (the largest Black city in the USA), and even larger Hispanic population of about 2.5m. Given a population of about 8m, the next two minorities are East Asian and White-non-Hispanic/Non-Jewish. This is not what everyone assumes when thinking about NYC. NYC has not collapsed socio-economically as a consequence, although the power structure in the city must now be disproportionately Jewish than other given their higher mean IQ, the relative numbers in the population, and the high correlation between IQ and socio-economic status. Having said that it didn't collapse, NYC did have a serious crime problem in the Regan years, when de-regulation was at its height.

London's Jewish population has never been as high as New York's, although London was once a first port of call en route at the end of the C19th and beginning of C20th, and there was a very large East End Jewish community. As the UK 16+1 ethnic classification system does not cover Jewish people (even though Jews and Sikhs are covered by the Race Relations Act 1976), they are a past immigrant group, and they are often cited as an example of how immigration benefits a country. I'd like to ask whether the high salience of Jews (most secular, or non-Orthodox etc) in British political life, business and the media, relative to their published population base rate of under 300,000 (0.5%) might have an explanation other than meritocracy, i.e whether this success can at least in part be explained as function of their closer community ties as well as their natural ability, as statistically, figures like the following (and some have asserted that Jews comprise as much as 10% of the House of Lords) are surely a remarkable, laudable, testament to their achievement even at 46/700, as that's 6.5% (or 13x over the expected rate as a function of their population base rate). My basic question is, if the Jews can do this, why not the other immigrant groups of the past, and today?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/785629.html

The other side of this may of course, be that some of the original
indigenous groups moved out of London to the suburbs and even the UK altogether a consequence of high immigration and fragmentation of their community as immigrant groups, being small, tend to initially group
together and create enclaves with their own culture.

If we look today at some of the big employers, at least some of the big
names (TESCO, M&S, Sainsbury's etc) were originally Jewish companies although many are now public companies), as are many of the big names in the financial sector. Did the same happen in NYC as a consequence of high Jewish immigration? I ask, as it seems that as with other small minority groups in the UK, the Jewish community seems to be concentrated in London, Manchester and a few other cities, and it's easier (and quite natural) for small enclaves to support each other. No doubt high innate cognitive ability is an important factor, but we do not see the same high profile numbers of Chinese who are similar in population size, and come top in our state school exams, nor are the British Indians as salient, and they come second in the league tables (and figure in the UK
population at 7x the rate of the Jews).

At root, this is a statistically driven, social justice question. When statistical observations are dramatically at odds with what one would expect by chance, assuming no ethnic/racial differences between groups (ceteris paribus), rational analysis/science demands an explanation. Furthermore, given that it has often been Jewish social scientists who have made the case for racial equality and campaigned for anti-racism and other anti-discrimination/human rights issues, I thought it would be interesting to hear peoples' views on this, as if socio-economic prominence is meritocratic and largely a function of innate ability, it surely raises important questions about other minority British groups who though excelling academically are not as salient as the Jews despite their higher numbers in the population, and if it is primarily a matter of innate ability, presumably we must attribute the low salience of other groups in our society who do not excel (despite their much larger numbers) to their lower innate ability?

Why do some groups do well, and other not? Surely this matters
when one has open borders, otherwise, unregulated immigration plus anti-discrimination legislation surely becomes are a form of national idnetity Russian Roulette?

  • 188.
  • At 08:21 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Reimer wrote:

Stop immigration now. All this 'now let's debate' schtick is a play for time/distraction on the part of the interests that launched this unacknowledged transformative project 50-60 years ago, a project to transform Britain that the Chief Rabbi can refer to on the BBC's 'Start The Week' as necessary and seemingly not have to explain why.

Stop. Immigration. Now.

  • 189.
  • At 08:23 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Sam wrote:

I occasionally travel into parts of England that thousands of workingmen proudly left to fight, and, mostly die in wars that were said by professional politicians ' to end all wars '. They have become Islamic ghettos.
These areas are culturally unrecognizable as England. So can all these bloggers who continually mention the number of Brits who have emigrated to Spain or France or Ox or NZ. Show me where the corresponding changes to those other country’s cultural or physical outlook that has taken place?
Also, the numbers of dependants who are draining the social infrastructure in this country are NOT at all a financial benefit until they leave school and actually find employment, but that in turn is no guarantee that they will choose to stay here.

  • 190.
  • At 09:17 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • C.Fox-Geen wrote:

Immigration has fulfilled a need ...although the way it has been managed by the Governemant has been appalling.
BUT 10 million MORE will be UNSUSTAINABLE - we have NO ROOM , NO SCHOOL PLACES, NO TRANSPORT, no NHS AVAILABLITY and NO room on the roads..
It would be a total disaster - will someone kindly TELL THE TRUTH!

  • 191.
  • At 09:19 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Alan Stanbridge wrote:

Foreign Nationals prisoner numbers are around 10,500 out of 80,000 that's 13% of the people in prison.
The current UK population is approximately 60,500,000
Government claims the population of Foreign Nationals is 1,100,000

The only conclusion you can come too is unless we are letting into the UK loads of criminals, the number of forign nationals is around 7,865,000 (13% of 60,500,000) or on the other hand if 13% of crime is committed by foreign nationals which represents just 1.8%of the total population (1,100,000 of 60,500,000) we must be letting in a huge number of criminals from other countries (that's why they come to the UK for protection under the human rights act, it saves facing charges in their own country.)

We are full up. An accdptable, long-term population would be 40 million , 50m.max.
The policies offered are what we needed 40 years ago when Enoch spoke for us.
Politicians still talk of conditions for MORE arrivals.
Not one party is saying STOP ALL IMMIGRATION NOW.
Nobody Labour Conservative Lib-Dem is saying TURN THE TIDE.
As of now, the BNP is our only hope for a future in "our" country.

  • 193.
  • At 10:01 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Dee wrote:

In reply to post 193 by Mona Mcnee - the polices of Enoch Powell spoke for a minorty - not a majority.

Your post sounds near hysterical with your use of comments such as 'we are full up' and 'turn the tide' so no wonder it came as no surprise to end up reading that the whole post is a recruitment ad for the BNP.

The population of the UK according to the 2001 Census is 52 million. Ethnic minorities make up only 8% of the total population leaving 92% being White British. So lets not get carried away with the UK being overrun.

Sure, there are very real pressures being put upon the services such as the NHS because of the recent influx however it's important to see both sides of the coin and weigh up the advantages vs. disadvantages.

Out of interest, if the BNP ever did get into power and stopped all immigration where would its focus turn to next?

  • 194.
  • At 10:02 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Gavin wrote:

This is commenting against Judith's remarks...

It is true that 'we have gone anywhere & everywhere', but Judith I think the main point is.. If you go to another country to settle you have to have sufficient means to support yourself for at least 12 to 24 months.

People are coming here because they know the government will house them, feed them, free this & free that. MIGRATION can be good. Where warranted & needed for skilled people. But the immigrants that just come here for a free meal ticket have to be stopped. The government has a responsibility to every person paying taxes to stop this. As a married person with no children I get no tax breaks, nothing. Why should people have to pay into a failing system just so we can eventually become primarily a non english (speaking) country?

We live on such a small island & we are bursting at the seams. The government talk about 3 million more house in the next 10 to 15 yrs. There will be nothing left of our countrysides, even more cars on the road (did I mention the fact that immigrants are getting free cars with no driving licenses? I have witnessed this 1st hand).

The more unskilled people that come here, the more you & I will pay for it.

  • 195.
  • At 10:04 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • David Grimes wrote:

Non-one can seriously think that in the space ten years Britain's economy has gone from a position whereby there weren't enough jobs for 3 million unemployed, to one where we're now reliant on economic migrants. The reason the Labour government has let this happen is simple: migrant workers are cheap, therefore they dampen down wage levels which in turn holds down inflation. Ask yourself, how your pay has increased in the last five years. A little? Nothing at all? Join the club.If a Conservative government set about exploiting low paid workers in this manner, their would be uproar.

  • 196.
  • At 10:05 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • David wrote:

No one actually asked the British public if they wanted a multi racial society.It was not in any party's manifesto. It is outrageous and in my view the politicians responsible should be behind bars. But,none of them are accountable.I listened to the waffle spouted this morning on your station by the woman in charge of the Board of Immigration re the £30 million squandered on the Asylum Centre that was never built.She didn't begin to explained what happened and where the money went.
These people are water tight. How do they get away with it? We need to get rid of this shower that is running the country and insist on a government that does what the people want.

  • 197.
  • At 10:16 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • anthony scholefield -Futurus wrote:

From Futurus On the economics the answer is simple and is well put by the National Research Council of the USA-
'If the immigrants have exactly the same skill distribution as domestic workers and if they have brought sufficient capital with them to maintain the US capital/labour ratio,then natives will neither benefit nor lose from immigration'.
In other words do our immigrants have the same capital as natives-plainly not and therefore -it has to be appropriated from natives-that is higher taxes for new schools roads etc
Most immigrants also fall well below natives in skill so that is another loss to natives.
Present immigration to the Uk in economic terms is plainly massively impoverishing for natives.

  • 198.
  • At 10:19 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Brin Jenkins wrote:

Labor, Conservative and Liberal closely follow each other in their policies. That's the reason from Major onwards there has been no choice.

Immigration has steadily gained ground since WW2, Powell raised the warning, and was shouted down by the Liberal elements in all parties. This started the changes to our law culminating in todays so called multiculturalism.

We, the vast majority of us reject it. This disharmony has been brought on by Liberal bigots slowly gaining power.

We have never been asked or consulted.

We condemn the treason carried out against us in our country.

  • 199.
  • At 10:21 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Gavin wrote:

One country that seems to have got it right is Australia. They put heavy limits on the numbers of people coming to their country.

Now if I am not mistaken, Australia was under ''British Rule'', so we have ''ties'' with them. If they can get it right over there, why can't we take a leaf or two out of their book?

The only option is vote BNP, they seem to be the only party that will take this on.

  • 200.
  • At 10:33 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Gregory Lauder-Frost wrote:

Why am I surprised that all and sundry are suddenly sitting up and saying immigration is not only a big problem but promises to subsume the indigenous population?

The Monday Club was putting forward every possible argument for halting immigration between 1961 and 1992. Every statistic and argument was wheeled out, not by raving nutters but by well-educated people, MPs, QCs, and others. In fact much of the reasoning now argued by Sir Andrew Green of Immigrationwatch had already been predicted by the Monday Club.

Now crunchtime approaches and everyone is handwringing.

This is a simple matter but unless approached very radically everything else will fail.

In their 1971 Election Manifesto the non-Conservative Party pledged they would halt all large-scale immigration into Britain and actively encourage voluntary repatriation. That was just another of their lies to the electorate. (Some things never change).

But this needs to be done NOW.

In addition we need emergency legislation denying all-comers all forms of social security benefits and if the ludicrous Human Rights Act stands in the way of that, repeal it.

We need to employ thousands more police investigators to track down illegal immigrants who should be instantly deported. No trial, No legal aid, no nothing. Out.

And once our immigration tribunals or courts say no to so-called asylum applications that should be it. NO appeals on legal aid, just straight out.

Radical action. The alternative is the end of the recogniseable British nation as a European entity.

  • 201.
  • At 10:35 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • David wrote:

Immigration at levels consistent with a stable population is fine. But the projection that the UK's population will grow by over 15% is deeply concerning.

We have built large amounts of housing on inappropriate land already. We cannot build 3 million new homes in the south east without serious adverse consequences on the environment.

Increasing urban densities e.g. 800,000 new homes in London will only add to the problem of violent street crime which our politicians and police ignore.

Our transport infrastructure is already at breaking point with the average British commute 55 minutes.

Labour market policy should target getting Britain's huge reserve of hidden unemployed back into the labour force. It is ridiculous to allow 1 million 16-19 year olds to fester on benefit while a similar number of East Europeans have found productive employment.

Escalating immigration is a way of papering over the growing cracks in our welfare state, in particular the unfunded liabilities of the major public sector pension schemes which threaten to wreck Britain's public finances in coming decades.

We should welcome the opportunity to have this debate at last because it touches on so many areas where this country has to examine important issues realistically.

  • 202.
  • At 10:37 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Adrienne wrote:

This has been said before by others, but look at the salaries and wages of say Poles at home compared to wages and salaries here. One has to look at relative purchasing power. Economic migrants are bound to work longer hours if the purchasing power of the pounds which they earn here is much greater than what they would earn at home. Taking Poland, compare food prices.

UK
http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/cost.html

POLAND:
http://www.newpoland.com/travel_things_to_know.htm#Current%20Prices

Conversion
http://coinmill.com/GBP_PLN.html#PLN=2.50

Example:
1 kilo sugar in Poland = 19p
1 Kilo sugar in UK = 48p

Given these differences, which group do you think will be most motivated to work? Then think about Africa and S Asia.

Workers live cheaply here and send money home. Surely this is kid's stuff? Saying they are good for the economy and are better workers is just the self-serving nonsense one hears from employers and others who must benefit at the expense of the indigenous citizens who simply can't compete. The value of they money earned, though the same in absolute amounts, is different in terms of relative purchasing power between the two countries. Although as prices rise in Poland, the number of economic migrants will no doubt fall, especially if the EU A8 are forced, trough market forces, to match prices and services with their other EU states. They may go home in time.
http://www.polskieradio.pl/zagranica/gb/dokument.aspx?iid=58480

But it's doubtful if Africans and S Asians will go home, as they are not in the EU and are not subject to the same equilibriating forces. I suggest the A8 states are a red herring which may blind us to dire consequences of large scale continued immigration from outside the EU. Look at the figures for the influx from New Commonwealth countries in the tables referenced in #119, and see earlier comments from Frattini recommending a further 20m from outside the EU to compensate for the low birth rates. The problem is the low indigenous birth rate. That is the key. That has been the 'target'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/11/the_big_immigration_debate.html#c3991959

  • 203.
  • At 10:40 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Geoffrey Rowland wrote:

When will politicians realise that we are all living on a very small island and this island is full! Isn't it about time we shut the door to all immigration? At what point do we say that there is no more room? Is it when our road transport system becomes so clogged up that nobody can move anywhere?

  • 204.
  • At 10:47 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Dave Mullen wrote:

The mass immigration is causing so much resentment amongst the white population that I fear for the future. Variety is the spice of life but too much spice ruins the meal. The culture of most of these non EU immigrants is also very different to the indiginous population that integration will never happen. Islam in particular will never fit in with other faiths and the conflict will just get worse. also the large number of Eastern Eurpeans has caused many problems too. where will all these people live..where is the room on thr roads or in the schools or NHS faclities. Immigration by people of such differing cultures must end and be reversed otherwise there will be conflict I feel.

  • 205.
  • At 10:51 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • lucas buck wrote:

It's got so out of control this little island can't cope the govenment should be getting more to leave now & stop others from coming here it dosen't matter what people may think that the english are racist for wanting this there is a large percentage that are but are too gutless to stand up for their country disgraceful stop it now before riots start happening bringing more hate between peoples

  • 206.
  • At 10:58 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • John Kelly wrote:

I hope that Gavin Esler and Richard Bacon will not turn this into an anti EU discussion by suggesting that most incomers are from the EU. Most immigrants come from OUTSIDE EU.

I hope too that they will not talk generally about 'immigrants' and about what 'immigrants' contribute to our well being. DIFFERENTIATE PLEASE. Some incomers contribute, yes, and some (most?) do not and only benefit themselves at our expense.
Above all be honest and avoid BBC correctness (commonly called political correctness).

  • 207.
  • At 10:58 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Clive Wakley wrote:

The only reason the politicians are now showing concern over immigration levels is because the British National Party is attracting ever increasing levels of support across the country on this very issue. If there was no BNP then this issue would be ignored - as it has been for decades.

It is therefore absurd that this "debate" (largely between parties that are basically pro-immigration) does not include BNP representation. It's very much like having a debate on the growth in crime without involving the police.

So let's have a REAL debate and involve those on BOTH sides of the political divide. What is the BBC afraid of - a real debate?

  • 208.
  • At 11:04 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • mike byford wrote:

Immigration is not the problem it is merely a symptom if a failed economic concept - globalisation and the model of infinite economic growth that the whole world slavishly follows blindly to its destruction.
The easiest and only way to get infinite economic growth is to have infinite population growth. But resources are finite = problem!
The UK Govt. has no population policy and argues immigration is a good thing economically and we need extra workers to pay for our rising pensions bill.
In 20 years time who will pay the pensions bill of the even bigger population?
More immigrants?
Most immigration has been a good thing in terms of culture and social interaction but this is not the point.
The point is this country is over populated now. Hence lack of homes, traffic congestion, water shortage, pollution, noise,extinction of species, aggression and decline of moral values/social cohesion, social services overstretched,NHS struggling to cope etc.
The continued explosion in population will only make this worse.
Therefore immigration should be controlled to a level where net population flow is outwards not inwards.Then a population and sustainability policy should be developed and agreed by ALL political parties.
Stop playing on the countries fears about Johnny foreigner and tackle the real issues of over development, depletion of resources, lack of landfill.
Immigration is only a problem because it increases over population

  • 209.
  • At 11:19 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Nicole Jarrett wrote:

A primary reason why our prisons are full is because we allow so many foreign criminal gangs and violent criminals enter. Judging by the high number of deportations of criminals per year, should we not carry out checks on immigrants before they enter the country, rather than waiting for them to commit crimes before we can deport them. Not only is it a costly problem for police, courts and prisons but it is also contributing to the deterioration of our society.

  • 210.
  • At 11:27 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • L Evans wrote:

Could the programmers please invite 101 Alexandra; 110 Denis; 123 Exiled Northerner to participate in the debate plus a leading figure at Migration Watch. I believe Migration Watch figures 100% more than I would trust any politician.
Finally, as a Christian country (not post Christian as someone remarked - we have a monarchy with a Queen as defender of the faith of our Christian churches). Can we have a campaign to reinstate Christmas to all the local authorities that have banned it so as not to offend ethnic minorities? They are offending the majority of Christians by this exclusion.

  • 211.
  • At 11:51 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Barry Clayton wrote:

Currently, we have 5 million on benefit. Many of these who are perfectly capable of work prefer to do nothing while the rest of us work to keep them idle
It is not surprising, therefore, that employers prefer to employ hard-working immigrants. Unfortunately, by so doing they are enabling the idle and work-shy to continue to engage in a life that contributes nothing to our society.

  • 212.
  • At 11:53 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • ibrahim wrote:

whether britain likes it or not, u need immigration, its a simple fact , go check the ageing poplulation n you all will understand. though i support the fact that immigration for now in uk should be based on skills. people who would add to the economy and also balance the ageing population.
and also pls clear the discussion on international students, i think they should be given more preference compared to unskilled europeans who add nothing to the economy but increase in the demand for social services.
looking at the international students in various ways,1- they help maintain the educational prestige of UK universities/education. 2- they contribute millions, if not billions to the industry in terms of fee,3- abundance of skills required in different areas of academics/science.n many more

  • 213.
  • At 11:53 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • wappaho wrote:

One Celtic culture, living on the coast (rpt)
And with one Celtic culture we’re surely going to toast
The horn-ed migrants we’re gonna love the most

One British culture (Saxon is an error) (rpt)
And with that British culture we’re going to split in four
With the Celts in the fringes and the Norsemen on the door

One thousand years has rapidly gone by (rpt)
And the French and the English have made each other cry
But the Dutch and the Germans have grabbed the monarchy

Three strong women sitting on the throne (rpt)
And with their tenacity the British Isles has grown
But the Empire’s over and the family’s coming home

Two world wars create an EU dream (rpt)
And we’ll make a living, like the cat that’s got the cream,
With our friends who survived a holocaustic scheme

One British culture with neatly tailored ties (rpt)
And Kefilte fishy with some saucy Frenchie fries
Will be our staple to stoke the Sheffield fires

Windward Ho-o! Like Vikings on big ships (rpt)
And our new London transport has slinkier hips
And we’re all going to party now we’ve got the tips

One British culture getting down to rap (rpt)
And with one British culture we’re gonna close the gap
Tween the young and the old and the black and white chap

One mad dictator (with a head in his fridge!) (rpt)
And with one swift policy the Asian business’ shift
And they came over here with their own brand of thrift

One British culture with shops on every corn’ (rpt)
And we’ll never run out of milk in the morn
And the lights of the festival will the streets adorn

One hundred dark mills, satanic in the north (rpt)
And down from the mountains the workforce sallied forth
But the jobs they soon dried up and the weather’s getting worse

One English culture creaking in the Shires (rpt)
And with girls in question we ask what man admires
But we cannot agree on some suitable attires

Here come Kenny, George and Mr Blair (rpt)
And these three bruisers are going to a fair
And they’re wearing flowers in their sycophantic hair

Hey Mr Blair-man why don’t you up me wind? (rpt)
And we’re all being nice now, coz we mustn’t be unkind
But some with a brain are going out their mind

Half a million Slavs eating sauerkraut (rpt)
And they can’t half work hard; they’ve surely found us out
But the pay rise we wanted is now much more in doubt

Some refugees, well maybe several tens (rpt)
And they’ve seen things they shouldn’t and they’re used to violence
So we think they should learn to be Britizens

Lots of cultures vying for a piece (rpt)
And with lots of cultures we’re feeling ill at ease
And we can’t remember which is the way to peace

Alternative food ending
Lots of cultures vying for a piece (rpt)
And with lots of cultures we’re feeling ill at ease
And we can’t remember what were mushy peas

OK, UK, they say your food is yuck (rpt)
And with one EU continent telling us we suck
It’s with intrepidation that I summon up the pluck

To say:

One poor diet to feed the cultural stew (rpt)
And we’re all eating more than we really aught to do
But the food is so yummy we cannot help but chew

One fat nation full of British blubber (rpt)
And we’re all still arguing round the dinner table
For in this country you dispute if you’re able

Hurrah for the fox!

  • 214.
  • At 11:56 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • IMarcher wrote:

Please explain why we are told that colonialism is wicked, yet objection to the colonisation of England is dismissed in the most vile terms. Is the explanation stupidity, hypocrisy, or bigotry?

  • 215.
  • At 11:58 AM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • MARK TAHA wrote:

There's been far too much immigration.The pro-immigrant lobby have stolen our freedoms of speech,choice and asociation through their race relatins industry,political correctnes,and multiculturalism.We should scrap the lot,restrict immigration to those able to read,write and speak fluent English,insist on ten years' residence before they can claim welfare,and deport all scroungers and criminals among them.

  • 216.
  • At 12:04 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • jay wrote:

Migration is all very well while an economy is expanding, but what happens if there is a slow down or reversal in GDP growth. Long term economic growth for resource and energy hungry economies is not good, making it difficult to absorb migrant labour. Migrant labour produces wage deflation, that increase those caught in the benefit trap. I really wonder who is actually subsidizing cheap foreign labour and who is really benefiting.

Migrants are on a win/win situation. Some can come here do very well and enjoy a good standard of living in the UK. Others can come here work at excessive levels and return home more financially independent then if they had stayed at home. Or they can stay here gain UK citizenship, and thus have access to UK benefits even if they return back to their homes and home countries; this is extremely valuable when it comes to pensions and health care. In both situations they have the option of enjoying a future better quality of life back in their homelands than if they stayed in the UK. Not a bad for 15 years illegal working in the UK, 10 years of legal working in the UK, or 7 years after given birth in the UK. A UK citizen does not have that luxury of duel nationality, and being able to enjoy a higher standard of living in their home country as those migrants on the same level of UK state benefit. It makes one think that in the future UK citizens will be selling family homes to pay inheritance tax to pay benefits for migrants living in their family homes abroad.

  • 217.
  • At 12:07 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • D. Arnold wrote:

Unlimited immigration has brought about many changes. We are told that it has enriched our culture.Well it certainly has changed it.Our language now includes: Yardies,Triads, Fatwah,Jihad, suicide bomber to name a few. Our traditions have changed,instead of Christmas we have Winter Festival and are told that it must be downscaled so as not to offend the immigrants.But the real reason that it is allowed on such a scale is to provide employers with cheap labour.

  • 218.
  • At 12:11 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Ron Bristow wrote:

Would someone please nail the lie regarding the economic benefits of mass immigration. Although the overall economy has increased the benefit per capita for the whole of the uk population is at best neutral but probably much lower. This per capita measure is only true way of determining the economic benefit to the uk. What are the true figures? Does anyone know?
Low paid immigrant workers are of great benefit to employers and more affulent members of society but have a devastating effect on the incomes of already hard pressed indigenous low paid workers.
We are often told that immigrant workers will take on jobs that our own people won't do. What should be said is that our own people won't do these jobs at the very low pay and poor working conditions on offer. Why should British people be forced into this predicament? This all very reminicent of the 1930's when workers would wait outside factories to take the job of someone sacked for not working hard enough.
We should also ask about the effects on the donor countries. Their young people and skilled workers are coming to Britain and causing untold damage to their economies.
It is about time Britain invested in its own people and stopped its parasitic explotation of immigrants and our own low paid people.

  • 219.
  • At 12:30 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • MARTIN BELLAMY wrote:

What possessed politicians to beleieve that by allowing in thousands of people with a totally different culture and beliefs would enhance the indiginous population's life? One only has to go to Bradford, Southall,Moss side etc. to see that these people do not want to integrate. Of course there have been thousands of hardworking successful immigrants, but New Labour abolished our borders and we now have anything up to 1/2 million illegals let alone those whose beliefs are that their religion and culture has to be accepted by the host nation or they will use violence against us.We have dodgy morals and little religion and, thanks to our MPs, a civil war is all we can look forward to. No-one will talk about immigration because New labour will shout Racist. It seems to be OK to bomb the S**T out of Muslims but don't mention immigrants. Who said politicians werent stupid? This Country has lost it's identity.

  • 220.
  • At 12:34 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Sue wrote:

Surely more immigrants will need more schools and more health care which in turn will need more immigrants who will need more schools and more health care which in turn will need more immigrants etc etc
Then they will grow old needing .....
When animals are or feel overcrowded they injure each other, self harm or commit suicide
I do worry

Some questions to those members of the panel who are native British by descent:-

1) Is corporate profit a good enough reason for native British children to lose their birthright to these islands?

2) Do you agree that, for a people reproducing below replacement level, endless population ingress + coercive anti-racism = a potential genocide.

3) Is it fair or moral of the left and of self-interested racial minorities to scream “racist” at those who seek the survival of the three native peoples?

4) Do you believe that they have a moral right to survive?

5) Do you understand that territory is the guarantor of genetic continuity? Do you believe, for instance, that the English have a moral right to assert their ownership of England?

6) If, in fact, the demographic trajectory is already one of continuing local displacement, national dispossession and genetic deracination of the natives, do you think it is fairer for the native majority today to repatriate immigrants or to acquiesce in an inevitable if long and slow marginalisation?

7) Will the hyper-moral return tolerance mean anything if we do not survive?

8) If you are English or Scots or Welsh, do you love your people? Is there anything outside of your immediate family which you love more?

  • 222.
  • At 01:30 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • A-M Byrne wrote:

Let me offer you some quotes from a childrens' book I'm reading that was written in 1977. The quote is taken from a conversation between the father of a boy who was harrassing an Indian boy, and the father of the boys who defended him.
"I see a lot of them at work...not much I don't know about Indians and Pakkies after all these years....I'll be honest with you, I don't think they should be here, them or the West Indians. Got no right, have they? Taking jobs that should go to Englishmen, with the country in the state it is...And all of them having babies free on the National Health Service, at the British Taxpayers expense." Now putting aside the fact that here in 1977 - 30 years ago - we were talking about Indians, Pakistanis and West Indians, doesn't it all sound very familiar?
Yet somehow the country didn't fall apart then from all that mass of immigration, and now we have something similar happening, only this time it is Poles and other Eastern Europeans, why are we getting ourselves all worked up all over again? If we really did learn lessons from our own recent past we'd know there was nothing to worry about.
If anyone is interested, the book is Susan Cooper's "Silver on the Tree".

  • 223.
  • At 01:31 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Derek Turner wrote:

The nature and scale of this question mean that immigration has become the most important issue facing Britain, and all other Western countries. Do we want our countries to stay Western and liberal, or not? Do we want southeastern England to look like a set from Soylent Green?
The answer is blindingly simple - we need to restrict legal immigration, deport illegal immigrants, and end the so-called 'multicultural' policies that have perpetuated ethnic division. It is entirely legitimate for Westerners to seek to preserve the civilization that has been bequeathed to them. It is possible that Britain has an outstanding moral duty in some parts of the world where imperialism left an unfortunate legacy, but this duty can be discharged more practically than by giving into spasms of ethnic guilt.

  • 224.
  • At 01:36 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • j deakin wrote:

IMMIGRATION is great for this country,the immigrants coming in work so much harder than the locals, and for much less pay than us greedy British Citizens.Just because our grandfathers worked down a mine or slaved away in some other godforsaken industry,doesn't give us the right to stop anyone else coming in and enjoying the benefits.I'm really looking forward to working until I am 66 to draw my pension, when I left school at 16 I understood I would have to work for 49 years until retirement,but whats an extra year,might as well make it a round 50. It will help pay for the benefits of the poor Somalian woman on the channel 4 documentary presented by John Snow,who was finding it really difficult to live on £30000.00 of benefits a year.I Know her six kids will grow up and love this country and respect its laws. We can now build on all that wasted green belt land to house all the highly skilled people coming into the country,I'm sure thats what would happen if I moved abroad!

  • 225.
  • At 01:37 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Mrs. S. Keats wrote:

One wonders how this can be a 'reasoned' debate when only the 3 main Parties can answer questions. in the end, they all sing from the same hymn-sheet and fob us off with sound-bites (repeat them often enough and they'll become true?).
I don't want to hear:"Immigrants
do the jobs that lazy Britons won't do"
Rather, they should ask themselves who encouraged the benefit culture to flourish, and why? And stop lumping all out of work British under this label, other reasons include off-shoring many of our erstwhile industries and firms, redundancy so that firms can employ cheaper migrant workers, and even, in a couple of recent instances:"because you're English" and: "because you don't speak Polish"!

A second mantra states:"We are a country of immmigrants, always have been"; well, if you look into earlier migrations, you will find that they were a mere trickle, and all from Europe and Scandinavia over many centuries, not a few short decades. Even so, there was objection to each, but because they were not set over the indigenous population they assimilated into our culture quite quickly -they had to. They also brought some of their own culture which, because again it was not set above our own, was gradually absorbed.

A third sound-bite I expect to hear will be: "Unless we address these issues, a far-right Party like the 'odious' BNP will exploit it"
I would like to know why it is 'addressing the problem' when it is the Lab/Con/Lib Party, but oddly becomes 'exploiting' when it is anyone else? I would also like to why Mr. Brown can use 'British jobs for British workers now? And why Mr. Cameron appears to want to address the immigration issue but then sacks a Party member for bringing up a quote by a former Conservative? Is he being sincere in his concerns?

I would like to think that this debate will get us somewhere but I've got an awful feeling that it has been put in place to convince viewers and listeners that the 3 main Parties at last have the situation in hand, and we can thankfully sink back into our trusting apathy, and safely vote for them. They are rattled, but not I think about immigration; their Nemesis is more likely much closer to home.

  • 226.
  • At 01:37 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Ron Mole wrote:

Immigration has long been a common pont of discussion at grass roots level. Sadly whenever a politician has raised the subject he is immediately categorated as a demon racist. Enoch Powell, Peter Griffiths and even Winston Churchill Jnr have been treated dreadfully for their efforts to bring the subject into general discussion.

I would ask just what has happened to the Trade Unions. Having won their fight for a minimum hourly rate, are they not concerned that such as Chinese Winkle Pickers are not only working for less but in effect lowering wages offered to Britiish workers. Are they happy about a two tier wages structure even if it encompasses a threat to British jobs ?

I have just seen the BBC News. So much of our News screen is directly attributed to the results of uncontrolled immigration. The Demenzes affair would not have happened if he had been sent home at the end of his work permit, but why was he in this country in the first place ? Reported crime regularly arises from immigrant misbehaviour.

Whilst we wend home the occasional illegal, usually with money in his pocket, he will encourage others to try their luck in the UK. We should begin to send them home penniless. That might well discourage others !

  • 227.
  • At 01:53 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Dave Mullen wrote:

Why are only the 3 main parties appearing - why not the BNP and Respect so we can hear all sides on this and see for ourselves who is credible?

  • 228.
  • At 02:00 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Simon wrote:

Firstly, I think many of the problems relating to immigration stem from a complete lack of accurate and meaningful information. It's impossible to have any kind of rational debate if there's no data to base a point-of-view upon. I'd assume that most rational British people don't want to see an extreme policy on immigration - either a complete ban on immigration or completely free immigration - so the question boils down to "how many?". And without sensible information, it's impossible to even consider if levels of immigration are too high, or too low.

Secondly, I think there's a somewhat justified perception that British citizens are being treated unfairly. And this goes beyond the usual knee-jerk reaction about migrants queue-jumping housing lists. For example, British citizens migrating to Australia, New Zealand or Canada are subject to a rigorous points-system, designed to make sure that migrants both bring skills and limit the potential economic drawn. This doesn't seem to happen here.

Thirdly, the general level of policy insanity does nothing to breed tolerance and integration. For example, using tax-payers money to pay for endless translators just reinforces the view that migrants are a drain on resources, and don't want to integrate.

And finally, it seems as if the climate of political correctness means that wanting to live in a country that's united through a common language and a wider set of values is somehow racist!

  • 229.
  • At 02:02 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • zak wrote:

bla bla bala bala bla bla bla bla bla bla bala bla bla bla bla bla bla la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la al does not the BBC have anything else than immigration and how long this immigration debate will go on. i kmow your first you having this .

  • 230.
  • At 02:07 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • dale marwood wrote:


In 20 years time will England still be described as a green and pleasant land?

How many people can you get in a mini before it becomes uncomfortable, or put another way, how many people can we cram onto this tiny island?

Why won't polititions put a number on what immigration should be?

  • 231.
  • At 02:18 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Chris wrote:

The English are trusting, believe in fair play, help the under dog and are very welcoming. The world knows this and exploits it. Jean Charles de Menezes, an illegal immigrant, illegally working in the UK, accidentally shot, gaining full protection of UK law and the family full UK compensation. This can only happen in the UK, nowhere else. The Olympics, great we won it, unfortunately nothing more than an opportunity to promote some tin-pot town-hall pseudo-socialist political correct vision of the vocally active self-selecting self-serving sub-set of the sheltered and privileged middle class who’s only interest is inflating their own ego’s and position by being the champions of those not in their position. Nothing more than conscience shifting, and it is these people that carry the conscience of our now morally corrupted nation.
Immigration is a political tool, an economic cosh, and the rivers of blood are only being damned by our increasingly stretched police and security services, who are being asked to defend a country that is no longer theirs and no longer recognize.

  • 232.
  • At 02:25 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Jason wrote:

Do you think an English immigrant would stand a fair chance in foreign lands as a foreigner stands here?

I know; we all know the answer of that. To spell it out, the answer is N O .

So what the hell are we doing?

  • 233.
  • At 02:44 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Lindsay Story wrote:

We are a little island full to capacity. Immigration must be more controlled. Where I live in Southampton, I am often the "white minority" when I walk down the street. We are expected to fall over backwards to accommodate foreigners' customs, beliefs etc. If we go to a foreign land we quite rightly respect that country's customs. They come here and expect us to change ours. What is so infuriating is that WE DO otherwise we are taken to Court.

Denzil (144)

You forgot Bangladesh:
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/worldpopdensity.JPG

And a note of caution to fellow commentors:

It is very important to remember that this debate is (I presume) about whether or not it is desirable for the UK population to grow beyond its present population density, which could not be fed without dependence upon a fossil-fuelled transportation system bringing us food and flowers by intercontinental jet.

It has, and should not have, any relation to ethnicity or faith.

Can we feed ourselves at the present level? NO! We had difficulty during WWII, and with HALF the numbers. Does that make us sleep comfortably at night? NO.

Sincerely
Ed (an immigrant of 35 years standing)

Chism's Law of Completion:
The amount of time required to complete a government project is precisely equal to the length of time already spent on it.

  • 235.
  • At 02:58 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • JCL wrote:

It seems strange that we have the power to deport all Commonwealth Servicemen who have served in the British Armed Forces and yet we do not have the power or ability to deport convicted rapists....murderers or plane hijackers. Any bets that the family of de Menezes will soon be demanding to stay in this country?

  • 236.
  • At 02:58 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Michael Bourn wrote:

Immigrants are fine. What aren't needed are increased gun crime, honour killings, gangs, and gangmasters and the like.

  • 237.
  • At 02:59 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Andree Rodriguez wrote:

We live on a small island; we just do not have the area of land which many other coutries have. This Country is now so over-crowded that it is thoroughly unpleasant. Politicians simply do not realise how unpleasant life is for the ordinary citizen - they do not live in the real world as do the rest of us; they are protected from all the unpleasantness. Immigration must be stopped immediately and all asylum seekers and illegal immigrants deported. There is no country with whom we share a border from which it is necesary for anyone to flee for protection. AS many as possible of those foreigners who have settled here should be encouraged to return from whence they came. Those who stay must accept that this is a Christian Country and abide by our laws and our culture. We would never expect any other country to adapt itself to us. Those gathering at Calais and on the French coast must be told they are not wanted here and all the financial benefits for which they come here and which they see as inducements must be stopped. They only come for what they can get. It would be far better if the politicians of all the better-off countries took determined steps to improve the lot of the indigenous peoples of those foreign countries from which these would-be immingrants originate; then they would have no need to come here. It would be far more cost-effective in the long run and would improve the quality of life for all the peoples of those countries, not just the ones who can afford to spend thousands of pounds to gain entry to this country illegally. We must also leave the EU and take back control of our borders.

  • 238.
  • At 03:00 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • felixio meringue wrote:

The migration of people to the UK more than to any other EU country suggests the following:
1. the UK was the most active colonial player. Migrants often go to countries with who they had a past colonial relationship.
2. the UK thus siphoned the riches of other countries during the colonial relationship leaving the former colonies in a state of economic depletion
3. the UK continues to sponsor dissent in Africa in the name of democracy, thus increasing rather than reducing internal tension and persecution and so increasing the flow of people to it
4. increased immigration in this case is the price the UK has to pay for the mess created by the colonial experiment and the blatant world destabilising agenda in order to maintain economic and political supremacy
5. the solution to migration lies not in quick fix strategies such as placing caps on border entries but on long term efforts to restore and rebuild the wealth bases of the countries from which migrants come.

  • 239.
  • At 03:02 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • HUGH WILSON wrote:

I live in the south of England where the goverment are insisting a huge number of houses to be built.WHY.One can only think it is to mainly house the increasing immigration population coming here. The trouble is our inferstructure in the south CANNOT handle the increase in so much housing.
I live in West Sussex, our road system is diabolical (the govt have no plans to look at the overloaded A27 until 2016), we have constant shortage of water, the govt want to downgrade our hospitals and our schools are full, I think the govt have messed up, BIG TIME.

  • 240.
  • At 03:03 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Stephen Glover wrote:

We neither desire nor need immigration. This country was never asked if we wanted to change its entire population, instead it was foisted on the population by the metropolitain elite wihout any regard for the British people.

We can't have a proper debate on immigration as the liberal establishment has imposed on us draconian "Race relations" Acts, which really limit free speech for those who want to resist against this tyranny.

Britain for the British!

  • 241.
  • At 03:10 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • robert wrote:

All opinion polls show that the electorate are in majority agreement on the immigration policies of the BNP, far bigger than any of the main parties,so no debate can be called genuine without the majority views of the electorate.

  • 242.
  • At 03:11 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Marshall Bridge wrote:

Your pro immigration speakers will tell us yet again that immigration has contributed to economic growth and of course this is true, but it's only part of the picture.
Any population increase obviously causes a comensurate increase in goods and services in order to satisfy the greater demand, but this does not equate to an increase in our prosperity as individuals. In other words the National cake may get bigger, but it has to be shared out between more people. Employers have gained by the system but Brits at the lower end of the jobs market have suffered.

  • 243.
  • At 03:30 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Toma wrote:

I am Polish. There thousands of my countrymen who went to work in Britain and neighbouring Ireland within last two years. They mostly get jobs in fields and businesses where British citizens already didn't want to work: bus drivers, nursery homes, bars and restaurants, agriculture, construction sites, etc. All these, well qualified and genrally well educated people left their country to improve their economic situation. They work in UK, they pay taxes there, and spent earned money. Is it wrong they came to UK? 60 years ago their fathers fled to Britain too. They joined Britons hand in hand to fight the common enemy. Did they do something wrong? Is it wrong that people look for better future?
Poles and others come to work in Britain. Britons come to visit Poland, but I am sure my countrymen do not behave in Britain the way British citizens behave themselves in pubs, restaurants and hotels while spending time and money in POland. Perhaps it is good for our people to come to Britain and teach some Britons how should they represent the country they presumably are proud of.

  • 244.
  • At 03:40 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Paul D wrote:

153. At 11:31 PM on 07 Nov 2007, Jason Day wrote:

'But especially the BBC in particular and not so much other media going on about John Charles Demenezies.

He was an illegal immigrant, once legal until his work visa had expired!
How many more illegals are working here evading tax and costing the honest tax paying burdened public.'

I assume Mr. Day refers to Jean Charles de Menezes. Just what the hell blowing away an innocent man has to do with immigration is beyond me, but if the discussion has sunk to this level, is it really worth the candle?

Felixio (241),

Right on!

In line with the colonial heritage aspect, we must remember that English is also the World's Lingua Franca (if that's not too odd a concept), and the other English-speaking countries are far more restrictive of in-migration. If the USA were part of the EU, we wouldn't have a problem!

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed


Phases of a Project:
(1) Exultation.
(2) Disenchantment.
(3) Confusion.
(4) Search for the Guilty.
(5) Punishment for the Innocent.
(6) Distinction for the Uninvolved.

  • 246.
  • At 03:44 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Pete Mount wrote:

Immigration aside, the country is bursting at the seems. Anyone regardless of nationality who faces the mind boggling traffic jams in & out of work everyday will have to agree that our infrastructure simpoly cannot take anymore. Quality of life is not all about how many £££'s you have in your pocket but also about free space, open country side and the ability to get there to enjoy it. something our politicians seem to conveniently ignore.

  • 247.
  • At 03:48 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Rob Bernier wrote:

The fact is if there was no need for immigration it would not be happening, when you next shop at one of the big supermarket stores just ask yourself how it got picked and packed 99% certain it was done by an economic immigrant probably from Poland being paid the minimum wage.

I would like to know why certain politicians have chosen to make what is a market driven issue into a political one.

  • 248.
  • At 03:56 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Shakir Razak wrote:

So those xenophobes and racists can't use the prejudices of colour of skin anymore, they now move on from "white of skin" to "white of mind", as long as you still think exactly like this mythical fantasy version we have of ourselves.

Or they make excuses about resource management, but instead of sincerely targeting the specific issues, they wrap the whole debate around it, if you only care about resources, then stop these people having access to health, work and benefits or any other such resources, so that only the rich, strong and prepared will come or at least survive


Don't these any immigrants believe in evolution or competition (as illustrated in life and business), don't they realise diversity and pluralism makes strength, equips all for any challenge rather than the repeatedly pure-breds with insular minds and bodies, or do they simply believe in a wider incest!

It's a question of how narrowly you see the world and history.

Yours kindly,

Shakir Razak

  • 249.
  • At 03:57 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • steve king wrote:

Immigration statistics are all lies. Look at the population of any major city and at least 30-40% are immigrants.

If you include children who are, in my opinion, still immigrants britain is fast closing on a 50% immigrant population.

Immigration has failed since the 40's we have had a very poor return from immigration, now costing at least £20bn a year. No immigrant is needed until our unemployment drops through relative zero (probably 4-500,000)every immigrant allowed in in this scenario is a school leaver thown to the dogs, Labour are very good at that and both opposition parties will be as bad.

Gordon Brown is going to spend 8bn on so called affordable houses- taxpayers money thrown onto the immigration heap. We need an immediate end to assylum which is illegal in EU law (all of the displaced should be accommodated by the nearest country of relief)return all those illegals who came through France/Belgium/Spain etc back to those countries, with suitable fines to stop the practice. Then to repatriate anyone not in full time employment who has arrived in the last 10 years. Furthermore any law breaker should be deported having lost all human rights by virtue of their crime. Any new arrivals should be employed through our embassies before they arrive in UK They will be forced to have medical insurance cover and pay 10% more tax for a qualification period of 5 years. Enforce this with a mandatory 10 years and £1m for any employer found paying an illegal to work.

We should Galvanise and incentivise our industries to follow the example that allowed us to dominate world markets by using our brains. Low wages stiffle innovation and innovation and Britain were synonymous with world development.

Immigration is a con trick - get a grip or be prepared to live like a third world nation. 75million officially will be 85-90million (heaven spare us all)

  • 250.
  • At 03:59 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Jim wrote:

Has the politicians got any idea of how many EU immigrants are in the country? Each day coach loads of EU immigrants are arriving into UK without any restriction.Its been widely spoken that the number of EU immigrants are far higher than the official figures? How the EU immigrants figures are collated when there isn't any control in the first place? What's the effect of this mass migration on our schools, hospitals, public services etc. How the treasury is taking into account EU migrants claim for tax credit and other benefits? Is the government in a position to answer these questions??

  • 251.
  • At 04:02 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • David, Presteigne wrote:

Research indicates the optimum sustainable GB population is 30m.
Just as the Chinese government foresaw the horrible dangers of an unsustainable population so should ours and take whatever action is necessary. For example in my family we stopped at one (child).

Global warming will decimate food production in Africa so we must ensure we can feed ourselves and regain control of a strong anti-immigration policy.

  • 252.
  • At 04:02 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • CAROL RILEY wrote:

Because of rising Immigration the Country's Public Services and Infrastructure is at breaking point. We need to close the borders now and not accept any more for at least ten years. People who come to work here and any dependents must speak English.
We also need to track down and remove illegal immigrants. Unskilled British workers suffer lower wages and higher unemployment because of competition from migrants.
We need to train school leavers in skills. eg - plumbing and other trades so we don't need mass immigration.
Finally we don't need more houses built because of immigration, the whole country will eventually be covered in concrete. We must keep our green belt.

  • 253.
  • At 04:08 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Ian. Walsh. wrote:

Manufactring in Great Britain without cheap immigrant labouris is impractial,China has stpprd that, but there is no excuse for it in the 'service' industries as the wages are low enough as it stands and can only slows wage increses down
It is time to call a halt and train our own youth 'apprentices',this will not happen if the half trained 'men of all trades, master of none are allowed to come here, with their 'employer' rubber stamping their cosmetic work. I have inspected the so called electrical and plumming work,the have a bad habbit of hiding old work under floor boards joined to new so it looks ok. Another excuse put forward is that as a rule they are educated. There will come a time when we will have to educate their offsprings. Asian sub cntinent immigration should cease forthwith as most so called husband/wives are and renmain illiterate.

  • 254.
  • At 04:11 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • jhill wrote:

In my opinion we should adopt the Australian methods of controlling immigration. Briefly, these are:
1. They decide what types of skills are needed.
(and where),and set limits!
2. They encourage those with the skills they
need, and check on their qualifications
before agreeing to allow into their country.
3. They give limited support in finding work,
and short term housing needs, that is SHORT
TERM housing needs.
4. They control strictly illegal immigration.
5. If you are granted a visa to work, and
you "disappear", they kick you out.
6 If you satisfy all their requirements, after
a satisfactory period, they allow you to
apply for Australian nationality.(Having
first demonstrated to their satisfaction
that you are COMMITTED to Australia.
7. One of the ways you have to demonstrate that
you will not "be a burden on the State", is
by demonstrating you have a certain sum of
money, before you are allowed in.
8. You have to abide by the Australian way of
life.If you have a religion, that is your
private matter, but the state is Secular!
9. The benefits of adopting this approach in my
opinion would reduce the British
concentration upon "race issues".
If people wish to work in GB, they should in
my opinion:
a. Agree with, and abide by, the secular
tenets of the British way of life.
b. Agree that Law, not religion, will be
their motivation.
c. Realise that they will have to demonstrate
that they have skills that Britain needs.
Also, that if there skills are not required,
then their application will be refused.
We have enough persons already doing menial
jobs, we should be encouraging only those
who are particularly skilled, and
discouraging those with no skills or
qualifications, as currently we can provide
enough of this category internally.
d.Finally, we should actively discourage
those persons coming here who are from
areas such as Pakistan/Afghanistan/Middle
East etc.,(the breeding ground of terrorist
organisations) and also should be
discouraging the practice of arranged
marriages from similar locations, as it is
reported that the males gaining access to
GB under these circumstances have little
grasp of the British democratic way of life,
and generally fail to integrate.
e. Also schools should only support the
British way of life, and encourage
immigrant children in the Secular British
way of life. This should mean that religion
should definitely not be part of the
schools curriculum, as this is a private
matter for individuals only.
Only in my opinion by demonstrating that
immigration into Britain will be governed by
strict requirements as described above, will
the immigration debate be defused, as people
coming to Britain begin to see that our way
of life is not an optional extra, but a
mandatory requirement for their entry.
If this was to be adopted, there would be
less animosity towards immigrants from
whatever background.

Many thanks for all your posts so far. Richard's reading through them and will do his best to reflect as many of your views as possible. Don't forget there are also other ways to get in touch. You can text 85058 or call (from 10pm) 0500 909693. Best regards
Jonathan

  • 256.
  • At 04:13 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • I Noble wrote:

Investing in the conuntries where migrants come from could create jobs, money, infrastructure, stability and pride enough to make potential migrants make it worth staying home rather than coming to the UK where the grass IS greener.

  • 257.
  • At 04:16 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Adrian, Kent wrote:

Immigrants may be benefitting the country financially in the job market but they are systematically destroying social services, especially housing and the NHS. The government cares nothing for the public's problems but is only interested in looking after the business world therefore they are perfectly happy to allow endless immigation. Countries are delighted to dump all their criminals and similar undesirables on us. Sadly, we are stupid enough to welcome them in to destroy what is left of this once great country.

  • 258.
  • At 04:21 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • david firn wrote:

Shouldn't we be asking what is wrong with British workers and their eductaion, not closing the door to entrepreneurial foreigners? ?

If more than half the new jobs created in the UK have gone to foreigners - many of whom were born under eastern European communism and grew up during a time of incredible political change - shouldn't we be asking what is wrong with the British system? Are we giving the right skills - both in terms of job skills and life skills, or "attitude"?

The UK has undoubtedly becoome a much more entrepreneurial economy in the decade or so since the fall of the Berlin Wall, but have British workers changed?

This from the FT.com Westminster blog:

Gordon Brown, to his credit, has presided over an enterprise economy where hard work is rewarded. People who come to Britain on long distance buses - leaving their homes and families for a foreign culture - are almost by definition hard-working and enterprising.

Mr Brown can talk all he likes about apprenticeships and working with business to find work for inactive Brits. But if foreigners prefer the kind of red-blooded enterprise economy he has created to the locals, he may find himself running into a brick wall.

  • 259.
  • At 04:22 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Tracy Wilkinson wrote:

I moved to the UK in 2003 from Montreal, Quebec to pursue a masters degree - which I payed a whopping £15000 for. I have stayed on working and completing a second degree also at the same exorbitant price. I am now working in Glasgow. I pay taxes and pay for expensive work permits to stay here. I am contributing to your economy but have few rights. I cannot claim income support or allowance. When I arrive home from a holiday in Europe I am questioned and if I want to marry my partner I am required to fill in a certificate of approval. All my life I have wanted to live in the UK but the more rhetoric I hear from the David Cameron, the Tories and the press makes me think that perhaps I should re-think my decision to make my life here - it makes me think that I am not wanted here.

  • 260.
  • At 04:27 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Sunil Das wrote:

I used to live in UK during the period when MP Mr.Enoch Powell wanted to deport all immigrants. I left for USA in 1970. My frequent visits to UK convinced me what your 62% respondents believe: - "Britain would lose its unique identity if immigration continues at its present rate". Some kind of contnrol is necessary to check the flow. Though it is very true now as it was then,in 1960s and 1970s, that without the Asian immigrants British Medical System would be collapsed. And without the African immigrants the transport system would come to a complete halt. I agree that British Govt. is not doing a great job on immigration as 72% believe. On the other hand, I think that it's also true that immigrants are not doing their best to assimilate in the society and count themselves as British Nationals or whatever and help make Britain a prosperous and a secured place for all to live happily.

  • 261.
  • At 04:33 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • steve king wrote:

Will someone ask a senior labour politician tonight how economic migrants are of any value. If the majority are paid £6 an hour (and not exploited by their own) they have disposable incomes of £250ish.

These people are those in society who need tax breaks help with housing more likely to need medical assistance we go on.

Britain plc needs to look to the bigger picture if we have fields of strawberries which can't be picked don't grow them. Grow a crop which we can use our ingenuity to harvest mechanically sell that on the world market and buy strawberries from Poland picked in Poland by Poles. No detriment to predominantly catholic Poles who integrate very well, save a few fights.

Cheap labour is the death of any high value economy it murders invention.

  • 262.
  • At 04:35 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Ian wrote:

We have not gained culturally from immigration. The vast majority of people in this country are resistant to change. Colour is NOT an issue. We accept Poles, etc. more readily than, say, Afghans, simply because of their readiness to integrate. There can be very few people in this country who do not accept, for example, Moira Stuart. She may value her heritage but she is totally integrated into the UK. Please take colour out of the whole debate and concentrate on integration. Though, of course, there needs to be limits!

  • 263.
  • At 04:39 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • robert wrote:

What has become undeniable from these posts is that democracy has become a sham and that Nu-lab never has nor ever will do what it is by law mandated to do,that is to rule in the intrests and wishes of the electorate,which must make Nu-lab the most dangerous and extreme "goverment" in the history of democracy, a goverment voted in and supported by a minority,obsessed with minority issues,imposed on the majority against their wishes.

  • 264.
  • At 04:46 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Michael Andrew Keith Smith wrote:

It seems to me that there has been a very real effort to brainwash the British people over the problems of immigration. We are constantly told that immigrants are good for us, but that is not the general opinion of the man on the street who sees the problems mass immigration causes.

The South-east of England is now sinking under the weight of incomers who are filling only a 'skills shortage' of cheap labour. I do not believe for one moment that our alleged prosperity is increased by this influx but even if that were the case it would be time to take a drop in GNP in order to save what is left of our country.

Nigel Hasltilow spoke for the vast majority of the British people last week when he quoted Enoch Powell on the menace immigration. No surprise, therefore, that he has been trashed by his own party.

  • 265.
  • At 04:46 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Jonathan wrote:

Anyone with an elementary - and I mean elementary - grasp of history will see the multi-culturalism promoters for what they are - dangerously irresponsible sowers of potential future nightmares. Human beings are way too tribal, territorial and primitive to be mixed all together in this manner. The negative experiences of mixed race/religion based societies range from tensions and resentments through to racial violence, riots and sometimes ethnic cleansing and genocide. Yugoslavia? Rwanda? Idi Amin's expulsion of Asians? Nazi Germany? India during partition? Sectarian violence in N Ireland or Iraq? Ancient Alexandria in the time of the Caesars when Jews and Greeks in the city rioted and murdered one another? A thousand other places whose horrors will never be known to history? This could never happen in the UK you say? Not now sure, but in the distant future perhaps when this island may be unrecognisable economically, socially and politically. If it does ever happen here future generations will curse the multi-culturalists and their starry-eyed naive fantasies.

  • 266.
  • At 04:49 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • ALAN HALL wrote:

IMMIGRATION

We need a social, economic and environment assessment of the impact of (national and international) migration.

On Autumnwatch they seem to know exactly how many starlings, pink-footed geese and whooper swans migrate to, from and within the UK, their origin, where they are, their dependents, environmental impact, etc.

Why can't government manage this given the benefit that (almost) every person entering and exiting the UK has a formal id document, and workers moving within the UK (should) leave NI and income tax trails.

This isn't Big Brother, simply statistics.

Impossible, difficult or expedient?

  • 267.
  • At 04:52 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • steve king wrote:

for gods sake UK smell the roses and wake up.

Until this century Britain was a mix of Europeans with minute additions all tollerable.

since selling ourselves to pay for a war we have made the most savage and unwarranted population changes. Our immigrant neighbours out breed us and will inevitably become the majority.

What then happens when the equally inevitable global warming displaces half of Africa which will be a 45deg dust bowl.

  • 268.
  • At 05:01 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Teresa wrote:

Immigration… it's just history repeating itself, these people have sometimes risked their lives for the sake of a better future for themselves and their families, in the not too distant past it was the Irish, then people from the Caribbean and so on that were 'taking our jobs, women and houses,' It deflects from the real issue of disadvantage, poverty and scarce resources, which some so called politicians have been only too happy to highlight the problems of immigrants to add fuel to the fire of discrimination. Stop using the excuse that they are a burden on public services they pay taxes so they should be accommodated for. What about all the new, middle-class invasions on our towns and cities? Have they added to the public services? No they have just put more pressure on local services like Dr’s Surgeries and yet have give nothing back in return, why don’t we have a debate about this?
Immigrants do not have the same rights to housing as a UK citizen, it's a fallacy but equally the criteria to obtain local authority housing is so strict that pockets of disadvantaged neighbourhoods have emerged, where resources are so scarce that when new arrivals are put in to the area it's inevitable that there will be conflict, Poverty is the issue here abandon the idea that we own this land and instead of showing hostility to new arrivals how about we welcome them? Many neighbourhoods where indigenous people have flocked have been brought back to life because immigrants have had no choice but to live there because of racist housing policies that existed. Run down houses have been rejuvenated with a soul of their own and I must add, against Government's appraisal of the issue, show ample community activity and cohesion just not the dominant middle-class type!

  • 269.
  • At 05:02 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Jonathan wrote:

Many British people now feel like foreigners in their own country. This is a shameful and unnatural situation. There are very few people on this earth of any colour or creed who would be happy to see their society swamped with immigrants and their culture and way of life displaced and undermined - but of course the needs of business, the targets of politicians and (in Britain at least) the 'consciences' of hand-wringing liberals (BBC take note) take precedence over what ordinary people want. So much of what we call 'multi-culturalism' is just spin, the re-branding of deeply unpopular social trends.

Jonathan (265),

A notable (and perhaps significant?) omission from your list? Palestine?

http://www.workers.org/2007/world/review-0830/index.html

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed

The past always looks better than it was. It's only pleasant because it isn't here.
-- Finley Peter Dunne (Mr. Dooley)

  • 271.
  • At 05:25 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Reimer wrote:

Well, looking skimmingly at this comment thread I make it to be perhaps 4-to-1 (at least) in favour of some major restriction on immigration, and plenty of thoughtful posters make such a case well enough.

But this being the BBC I wonder will anything of these POVs find their way into the broadcast? Given that a trailer I just caught on R5 framed the debate in terms of "1 million workers...a 6 billion pound boost to the economy" and given the Mutual Consensus among the big 3 parties invited on, I suspect the liberal establishment will close ranks to invalidate any other possible POV about matters that affect this country's future & present.

I note a poster claims that boosting the birth-rate has been the secret agenda of the open-borders chaos. Sounds plausible but why not explicitly encourage those sectors of the indigenous pop'n that are markedly failing to replace themselves to do so? Better social eng'g of that sort than the present funeral-pyre-building kind.

  • 272.
  • At 05:30 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Adrian McInnes wrote:

It is absurd to say that there should be no limits on immigration. Theoretically the numbers could be absolutely enormous. David Blunkett said 'let the market decide', in other words 'nothing to do with the government'. It is indefensible, that Parliament, never mind the British people, was not given the opportunity to debate our policy on the New European member states. We may have decided to have, like almost all the other existing EEC members, quotas if only to start the process with caution. Now, if the debate were to conclude that there are too many immigrants, it is probably too late to do anything about it. Talk about making Government policy retrospectvely ! And PS : quite why will it take until 2014 to introduce exit controls so we sensibly know who has left the UK ?

  • 273.
  • At 05:38 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Paul D wrote:

Reimer - From my POV, far more of the pop'n would be socially eng'nearable if they knew what the hell you were 'riting ab't'

  • 274.
  • At 05:40 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • mark jeffries wrote:

The true cost of un checked immigration has not even begone to be calculated.
If we dont even have the correct numbers, how can we have any idea about the following :-

a/. How much tax is being paid or avoided by immigrants and intuitively, if mainly the former, how is this giving them an unfair advantage over British workers.

b/. How much crime is caused by immigrants. Most police forces report a huge increase in all crime in areas of high immigration.

c/.How many immigrants are driving in the U.K without a valid driving License or any insurance.

  • 275.
  • At 05:40 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

There are two types of people in this world; the exploiters and the exploited. It is an uncomfortable fact that those with the power and wealth in the UK have when no longer able to use their own to exploit the world, have used the world to exploit their own. I am sure the readers of Marx and the retired grand dukes of the KGB must be laughing quietly to themselves, as the redistribution of wealth and the long term undermining of the UK economy is being done for them by the very leaders, laws makers, financiers and opinion formers of the nation that founded modern capitalism.

Something we can learn form Saudi is that great wealth, high expectations, good education leads to radicalisation, when a nation seeks to use well paid transient foreign labour across the whole economy in failure of patiently developing its own people. It is a myth that we don’t have the skills, we do, but they have been squandered, wasted through deindustrialisation and lack of investment and commitment. You will find many former foremen and post-graduates driving cabs, attending car boot sales or working in telesales. We are all too ready to put our own down, employ the new from abroad; unskilled, skilled, professional, the lot. Not just from Poland, Russia, West Africa or Asia, but from Brazil, America, South Africa and Australia, all trade on the myth that our own are not good enough, but also perceived much easier to dispose of when older as they are bound to return back home. We have been too ready to write our own off and promote the import. If you’re over 40 you are written off; too many temporary jobs, written off; gaps in employment, written off; travelled abroad for more than 6 months, written off. A British citizen has a history, a foreigner not, and if that history can be questioned, well you are at a disadvantage, written off. This leads to a demoralised, de-motivated population that lacks confidence and commitment, and ultimately see’s no social responsibility when it finds it self stuck in the benefit trap, made worse by cheap foreign labour.

When we were an imperial power we colonised huge parts of the world exploiting its resources, some of the native elite profiteered and in return we brought our laws, infrastructure, investment and culture. These new nations eventually wanted to retain their wealth and rejected our colonisation, ours laws, our investment and our culture; they considered us invaders and throw us out. These actions were preceded and proceeded by bloody civil unrest. Some nations never recovered. Now left to manage they own affairs these ex-colonials are in return rejecting their countries and seek to exploit our wealth, colonise us and impose their culture. Can anyone see a fault here, the irony and a disturbing pattern of inevitability?

Yes, I hear the argument of an aging nation and aging population; it is a function of a mature and advanced economy, so what? We should be wiser and smarter; it does not mean we should allow ourselves to be mugged.

  • 276.
  • At 05:48 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • samson che wrote:

If the west truly does or want to stop immigration then they should stop babysisting most unstable government who serves only themself and not the subject their govern

  • 277.
  • At 05:49 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Nic Hall wrote:

Recently I had my flat painted by two Polish painters running their own business here in the UK. They came in worked really hard and did a fantastic job. It took them two days and half the cost/time of the quote I received from a firm of British painters. In fact their hourly rate was about 20% higher than the British team but the difference was that they worked a full day, not tea breaks every 5 minutes etc.

Get real everyone - its a competitive world out there and in a capitalist society the strongest competition wins. Yes lets restrict entry to the UK so that we only have useful members of society allowed but lets not paint all immigrants with the same brush

I'm an immigrant myself and I know how tough it is to get started and succeed in the UK. I have succeeded though and pay my dues. Lets celebrate the success of immigration and not denigrate the huge contribution immigrants have made to Britain

  • 278.
  • At 05:53 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • P J Green wrote:

It is not just a problem of immigration. It more one of over population. This is fueling house price inflation and
an infrastructure of road and rail transport creaking at
the seams with schools and hospitals stretched beyond the limit.
We are often compared with Belgium which is said to have a higher populatuon density than the UK. This is wrong, Belgium's borders are artificial lines drawn on a map. Belgiums population is part of the greater population of the western European land mass and therefore is not comparable. Our borders are a very real coast line. We have a limited land mass and therefore rainfall. We cannot keep building more roads and houses. Our roads are constantly full of traffic or traffic jams, there is often standing room only on trains. Plans to build more houses are questioned by water companies
who cannot increase the water supplies we have. We need to reduce our population, this would of course bring house prices down and cause huge disruption to the economy.

Population desity
Belgium 798 people per sq mile
Germany 604
France 272
Ireland 135
Italy 505
Spain 205
US 75
UK 625

  • 279.
  • At 05:54 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Adrian Davis wrote:

My dispute is with the liberal consensus (which I normally count myself among) shutting down debate on the subject. How come the normally tolerant and progressive sectors of our society turn into fascistic thought-police if their views are questioned?
It is obvious to any open-minded, intelligent human being that there are both advantages and disadvantages to immigration and that to point this out, should not indicate that one is (or is not) a racist.
Nor should anyone be condemned for pointing out that "the people" have had MAJOR changes in their society thrust upon them with no pretence of democratic choice.

Jonathan (yet again),

"There are very few people on this earth of any colour or creed who would be happy to see their society swamped with immigrants and their culture and way of life displaced and undermined -"

http://www.workers.org/2007/world/review-0830/index.html

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed

  • 281.
  • At 05:59 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Clive Wheeler wrote:

I have two Polish immigrants living above me and have had some serious problems with them involving the Police.

I don't believe that they are bad people but just that they are not given sufficient information and support when arriving into the UK.

Why are they not told about the TV License, the Council tax, drink driving laws, recycling rubbish and anti social behaviour issues? If we want to welcome them into the UK we should support them and not stigmatise them and alienate them.

We are to blame in this.

It has taken me over a year to help integrate them into this multi occupied house at great emotional expense and as a tax payer I feel angry that they are being exploited by greedy and mean employers who feed off their ignorance and leave ordinary citizens to do what the establishment should.

Don't blame the individuals, if the government want migrant workers then the business community should pay for a support system of education, advice and help so that we get the best from our immigrant workers which should be funded through taxing the business community. Yes, share holders pay up!

It is so typically 'British' to not 'forward think' and 'pay out' but to exploit and then moan and blame. I'm ashamed of this country and this government that just gets more and more right wing by the minute.

  • 282.
  • At 06:00 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Ajala wrote:

Immigrants are continually blamed for weakening the cohesion of western societies, but this is a nonsense for it suggests that pre- mass immigration the majority white populations of Western European societies lived in relative peace and harmony.

Immigration started in Europe mainly after the 2nd world war. Before the war, in the 1930's the population of western European countries were dominantly white indigenes. This was also the period of probably some of the most poisonous internal hatreds in these societies histories. Parties based on clear cut hatred, - class, region, religion and Nationalism became mass organisations drawing millions to rallies and marches all over the continent, Gentile hated Jew, jew hated Gentile, Heterosexual hated homosexual, catholic hated protestant, protestant hated catholic, the rich hated the poor, the poor hated the rich and the middle classes hated them both. There were no brown or black skinned immigrants to fuel this hate or 'divide society'. The 'cohesive' indigenes managed that pretty well by themselves

If being all the same generates harmony how do you explain a period in Europe’s history where being 'the same' produced Bolshevism, fascism, civil wars, endless coup detats, Totalitarianism, and 2 world wars that killed almost 100 million people in just over 20 years. And lets not forget before that period the endless programs against the Jews (white like the majority)

The idea of pre-immigration social cohesion in Europe is a myth. The individual populations of different countries only engaged in social harmony during the brief periods they were slashing each others throats across their borders. Outside those times social revolts, religious bigotry,class mistrust and national progroms were the order of life in Europe.

Of course economic development after the war eased all those hatreds. But is it just a coincidence that the post war economic development occurred at the same time as millions of cheap immigrant labour flowed into the major European nations, Arabs in France, Turks in Germany and Asians and blacks into Britain. Far from being beneficiaries of prosperity, immigrants were the cause of it.

The indigenous populations of Europe have never been as happy with each other (no wars, no barricades, no insurrectionary general strikes, no coups no popular demagogues) as they are now with large immigrant populations in their societies.

You can get rid of all of us, you've got the power, but the genie of hate you unleash will not go calmly back into the bottle once we are gone, it will turn on your societies and consume them as it did 70 years ago. The presence of 'visitors' in Europe’s midst has meant its indigenes have been on their best behaviour, if the visitors are kicked out of the continent, country by country this continent will turn on itself again in another orgy of endless self destruction - before immigration that was the only world it knew.

  • 283.
  • At 06:01 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Gordon Neil wrote:

A sensible society must take a holistic view of immigration and control that immigration to meet the needs of all elements of that society. Such an overview must of necessity encompass social, cultural as well as economic considerations. Our dilemma is that we as a society have had the gross misfortune to be governed by a party which as a matter of policy, , threw open our doors to anyone and everyone. There was no control, no consideration for the indigenous populous and no attempt to consult that populous. The result is a chaotic influx of peoples that now serious threatens to undermine the cohesion of our society. It is imperative that we recognize the stupidity of the open door policy and replace it immediately with a considered one which meets our quantitative and qualitative needs. That means reducing total immigration to more manageable proportions and focusing upon those people that can meet our economic needs , integrate into our democratic political system and will be at ease with our Judeo-Christian value based culture.

  • 284.
  • At 06:14 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Albie wrote:

Immigration into this country is politically, not economically driven.

The individual already here hardly benefits from it (if at all) on purely economic terms.

The countries output goes up, obviously. As it would if all the inhabitants of China moved here tomorrow. Why isn't that Govt policy?

And how can it be justified, at this time when Global Warming is hanging over mankind, to import individuals from "low carbon" countries into this, high carbon one?

It can't.

We have a policy of PERMANENT IMMIGRATION. Is there EVER going to be a time when the Govt says "hold on, let us try to develop SUSTAINABLY"?

Never, they will continue to import bodies from abroad because it agrees with there political philosophy and provides (some) short term fixes for their policy failures. They are yesterdays men without the foresight required to adjust their policies to cope with the modern world.

Culturally, of course we benefit from a mixed society. But when will that mixing become oppressive and erode our own culture? Is it when a neighbourhood has 10% "newcomers"? 20%, 40%, 60%?

Some areas in our inner cities have higher percentages than that. And all such districts are relatively poor with high crime rates. How can our kids receive a decent education in these areas where the majority of their fellow students don't have English as a first language?

They can't.

And as far as quality of life is concerned, it is going down the pan. How many of these new homes we "desperately" need going to be bigger than a shoe box?

We are told the increase in the demand for housing is driven by more people wanting to live alone.

Don't make me laugh. With our own population basically stable, house conversions into flats would negate much of the need for new housing.

And we have an "ageing population" that needs "new blood". Again absolute rubbish. That excuse for an argument can be used for EVER. As hopefully with medical advances our population will always be ageing!

As people remain healthy at a later stage in life it is only reasonable that they should remain productive and stay in work longer. That would benefit themselves and the country hugely.

And before we import more and more labour, why not concentrate on getting as many of the 5 million of working age who are able and not employed into work?

That should remain the Govts main priority.

There is no need for this unsustainable mass immigration.

  • 285.
  • At 06:15 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Richard Marriott wrote:

All countries experience levels of immigration and emigration. Getting a new influx of people is good in all sorts of ways - it can provide energy, new ideas and cheap labour. But there have to be limits. Why?

1. The rate of immigration is important, because if it is too rapid, it displaces the existing citizens, puts their noses out of joint and puts pressure on services before they have time to adapt, respond, invest.

2. The numbers of immigrants matter, since England is now the most densely populated country in Europe after Belgium (I deliberately say "England", since if you add in the vast underpopulated areas of Scotland and the Welsh mountains, that distorts the figures - most immigrants end up in England and in the part which is most crowded).

3. The numbers of immigrants matter, since it dilutes our culture, sense of self and social cohesion if too many come in at once.

4. The numbers of immigrants matter, since parts of England are already congested, overcrowded and stressed.

I don't blame the immigrants - people move for opportunity, family reasons and a variety of other reasons. I blame this stupid Labour Government which over the last 10 years has allowed immigration levels to get out of control. No country is obliged to take hordes of immigrants. It is one of the first duties of Government to defend the country's borders and the needs of its own citizens - on that count, Labour has hopelessly failed - probably deliberately - they have lied to us and abused us.

Under the Tories prior to 1997, net inward immigration had been running at an average level of about 45,000 per annum - perfectly reasonable - I don't remember many people getting lathered about it, apart from the usual suspects on the far right. Since Labour gained what passes for office in 1997, net levels of immigration has been running at about 190,000 per annum - and that does not included God knows how many illegal immigrants.

It is simply unsustainable, it is hopelessly wrong, it was never voted for and now mainstream opinion is getting lathered. This can only end in tears, catastrophe and bloodshed.

It is all about numbers you see.

  • 286.
  • At 06:22 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • S. Carmichael wrote:

In response to L Evans:

We are hearing more and more British indigenous people saying that they feel alien in their own country.

Well, its nice to see that Lee is concerned for British indigenous people who feel alien in Britain because of immigration but I guess such British concern too late for the indigenous people of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA and Ireland who were murdered and robbed of their land, sovereignty and land unjustly and felt alien in their countries by the British,and it is because of this that I dont want the debate to involve comments relating to words such as 'native' or 'indigenous' simply because it is of profound and stunning hypocrisy considering the massacres and injustices of British imperialism and I have a feeling that immigrants havent been as brutal and barabaric, so if Lee and other want to stop immigration completely that's fine but such words are inappropriate and disingenous

  • 287.
  • At 06:26 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • john wilson wrote:

I'm thankful we have immigrants coming to this country. I've recently been to hospital for treatment. The Surgeon was from Pakistan, the Doctor was from Poland and the Head Nurse was from India. The NHS is kept alive with immigrants, without them the NHS would collapse. I can't find any fault in anyone wanting to come to this country to find a better quality of life for themselves, I would do the same. If you go far enough back in history, most of us are immigrants.

  • 288.
  • At 06:34 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Mr D Bowes wrote:

Never in the history of this nation have we witnessed such levels of immigration.
Despite the left's assertions we are not a historically mogrel nation and the main population is genetically as we were from pre-roman times.
The motivation for large scale immigration is nothing but an economic one to prop up this shambolic and unrepresentative democracy in which we precide.
Nobody voted for this policy and if the economy take a turn for the worse there will be mass civil unrest.
Population reduction should be the main political goal, to reduce environmental pressure on our environment and provide space and opportunities for our own indigenous people.
Globalisation/mass immigration is expedient for big business propping up weak government.

  • 289.
  • At 06:37 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Amanda Brown wrote:

I think many Britons are forgetting that they too migrate to other countries. I'm from Australia and half my friends here are British, they migrated here for our weather and lifestyle - lucky for them they were given that opportunity by our government.


It has been my life long dream to migrate to England and am planning to move there next year. I am tertiary educated and married to an equally educated man, we're both professionals and don't use any public services - we have good jobs and private health care. However the more I read about this issue the less I feel we'll be welcomed into your country. I don't wish to spend my life being labelled a job stealer or outsider. I want to go and make a home for myself there and hopefully contribute something to a country I adore. I hope I am given that opportunity! If not, I guess I can at least come home to all my British friends who have settled here!

Immigrants aren't criminals. They're just people from another country who love your country.

Amanda the Aussie.

  • 290.
  • At 06:48 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Mark wrote:

The goverment needs to decide how many people our infer-structure can sustain, & then control the population accordingly. Why should the the existing incumbents of this country suffer with pour services & higher taxes because the goverment has no policy to control the population.

  • 291.
  • At 06:50 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Peter Gordon wrote:

I don't know whether eastern european immigrants are contributing £6bn per annum to the nations economy.

Nor do I know whether the cost to the nations economy exceeds that sum.

Nor do I know whether these self same immigrants spend their earnings here or repatriate the money to their own countries.

Nor do I know whether there presence interferes with the running of our public services [schools, NHS, accommodation etc].

What I do know is that when I shop at ASDA or go to the beach, there are times when I hear no english speakers. Do I feel personally threatened? - No. Do I feel on such occasions, a stranger in my own country - yes!

  • 292.
  • At 06:52 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Steve King wrote:

I hope the BBC will let it be known that the majority of the debate seems to indicate that their audience are a gang of racists, or at least that is how would like to portray us.

Immigration is THE MOST IMPORTANT issue in politics today. Get this right and hospitals work, schools work, police and justice work because they finally serve the number of people who they are designed for and who pay for them.

remember at the next election immigration has to be REVERSED staying where we are is not an option.

  • 293.
  • At 06:58 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Frank Sharp wrote:

Conservative M.P. resigns (or was he pushed)for claiming Enoch Powell might have been correct in his " rivers of blood speech" and yet Peter Hain & Liam Byrne admit the government mis-calculated by 300,000 the amount of working economic migrants and they are still in office

  • 294.
  • At 06:59 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Paul J. Weighell wrote:

Given that we are short of 3 million homes, new power generation methods and have overcrowded NHS, roads, railways, runways and schools I suspect the correct population number is about 45 million but until we have the discussion it is insane for government to open our doors to yet more incomers of any type. A competent management would:

a) first calculate how many people the current infrastructure can cope with whilst keeping a high quality of life.

b) prevent the population increasing beyond that number by education, financial incentive and preset mandatory immigration controls.

But this benighted shower of a government has deliberately decided to do it all backwards:

c) agree to allow uncontrolled economic migration from Europe.

b) fail to track new entrants or count current population correctly.

a) fail to provide infrastructure to cope with the current population let alone an increased one.

The numbers debate must be heard despite government attempts to censor it by playing the race card.

  • 295.
  • At 07:01 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Patricia Humphrey wrote:

All politicians need to stop hiding behind political correctness - this has and continues to damage Britain a great deal.

Public Services have not improved, on the contrary, the standards have dropped like a stone, language barriers, hygiene standards, cultural differences are far removed - this is all unacceptable.

No we have not gained culturally - we have imported criminals, thieves and bagabons - we have enough of our own, how many prisons do we have full up???????? and further more, I feel like a foreigner in my own country. You can't walk down the street without hearing nothing but foreign tongues. Seems to me if one is white, English and paid taxes for over 40 years that puts one at the bottom of the queue for everything.
On top of all that we (the English) are dictated to by a bunch of Scots, who give their own more advantages and expect us to pay for it!
No they have not helped our economy, most of them send their money home. The strain on all resources far outways any scrap of help they provide, prisons, education, health, transport, water, utilities, homes - this island is overcrowded.

Why do you think so many BRITISH people are leaving the country in droves???

Not only should immigration be stopped, many should be repatriated.

  • 296.
  • At 07:05 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Rae wrote:

I'd have thought that encouraging an increase in the indigenous birthrate to counter the effects of an ageing population, whilst allowing the overall UK population to decrease over time, mightn't be too bad an idea (in light of all the problems with the oil and the environment etc).

If we cease reproducing, get old, and need to borrow population en masse from overseas to keep us afloat, doesn't that mess up the demographic in the source countries? And doesn't that situation give rise to social and cultural issues all round?

Maybe we're all just too mobile now... I feel nostalgic for the days when the dream (never mine, I'm glad to say) of a weekend in New York was precisely that. Now it's attainable for many, and barely more exciting than a trip to Croydon on the bus. God grief, no wonder we've got progressively less happy since the 60s... we've too much of the 'stuff' that could never have been expected to make us happy, and have lost the art of longing.

  • 297.
  • At 07:16 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Dr Andrew Emerson wrote:

This 'debate' is nothing more than a charade, since the most reasoned and cogent comments, of which the BBC disapproves, are routinely censored - on political grounds. I know this from having attempted (unsuccessfully, naturally) to post a comment which exposed the Establishment-orchestrated suppression of the truth about immigration.

  • 298.
  • At 07:23 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Peter Sharkey wrote:

There is little doubt that an economic benefit accrues to the UK as a result of foreign workers undertaking jobs which the indigenous population either cannot, or will not, perform.

However, we could overcome the problem of immigration at a stroke by attracting expatriates rather than new citizens.

How would this work?

Whomever wanted to come to work in the UK would, subject to security checks, be free to do so, but only if a) they have been offered work on a contracted basis before they arrived and b) left when their contract term expired.

I worked for several years as an expatriate after which I returned home to the UK. During the period I was an expatriate (mostly in Saudi Arabia), I adhered to the local laws and customs and got on perfectly well with the Saudis. I had no desire to amend their way of life, their religious beliefs or any other feature of their society; I appreciated that I was a guest in their country and behaved as such and, at the end of my contract, I returned home.

We need to grasp the immigration nettle now; we don't need any more new citizens, but we may need more expatriates should demand from business justify it.

  • 299.
  • At 07:26 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Joanna Baughan wrote:

I'm really looking forward to the debate tonight. I often wonder how to contribute to a public debate and how politicans respond to such a thing.
Here is my contribution. My son came home from school today having had a visit from a road safety officer. The main safety pamphlet that he was printed in Gujerati and in English. That's fine by me, that's the way things are. But why is it that the Gujerati text on the front cover has to come before the English and be in a much larger font size than the English. Inside, the information on each page is printed in Gujerati first and then English. Why is this so? Am I justified in thinking that there's something wrong here?

  • 300.
  • At 07:31 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Malcolm Turner wrote:

The Labour Party created the British working class now they are abandoning them; they are idle, will not do dirty jobs, unadaptable, while their foreign counterparts are everything to all men. If the native worker is such a dead loss it is because Labour made them that way. It seems now that our blue collars were just votes, to be abandoned at the first opportunity when an alternative appeared. Perhaps when the immigrant worker has property, family responsibilities and his wages are being challenged by the next onion ring of migrants he too will be discarded too.

  • 301.
  • At 08:02 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Mr D wrote:

I am a Czech citizen currently working in the UK.

The Czech Republic (a new EU Member State) presently has two-and-a-half times as many citizens of other EU countries (including thousands of Brits) living there than Czechs living in other EU countries. In my book, all foreigners are very welcome in the Czech Republic.

Is it fair that when I decide to spend some time abroad that I should be subject to media hysteria about 'East Europeans'?

  • 302.
  • At 08:15 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Murdo Macdonald wrote:

My wife is an immigrant, she's from the States.

She sat and passed her 'Life in the UK' test a couple of weeks ago.

Now we have to pay £950 to the Home Office so that she doesn't get deported at Christmas.

Immigrants don't have it easy.

  • 303.
  • At 08:30 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Glenn Sayers wrote:

Socially and economically the country has gained throughout history from immigration. But there becomes a time when a little island such as ours can only take so many people, and this time has long since gone. To feed itself without imports, Britain should only have 30 million people maximum. We need to protect the country from the overcrowding it is already massively suffering from. This is a space issue, not a race issue. In an ideal world we could all move freely, but we need to stabilise migration in the UK to be the same coming in as going out, to prevent: road and public transport congestion, building on floodplains, water shortages, more demands on food imports and over-fishing, greater need for intensive farming and factory-farmed animals, species endangerment or extinctions, lower quality of life through overcrowding, etc.

  • 304.
  • At 08:38 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • B TOLAND wrote:

the bottom line, is the british people are not very politicaly aware, due to various reasons, not like the irish or french.
the three main parties are all pro immigration for short term economical reasons ie keep wages down devide the workers etc.
they not bothered if this small island becomes overcrowded compared to france germany italy etc similar populations,
the main problem is education, to many soft qualifications, not enough practical ones. to many lazy people living here and more coming in

  • 305.
  • At 08:49 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • jay wrote:

to Murdo Macdonald:-

Well at least she don't have to pay for medi-care.

  • 306.
  • At 08:55 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • David Lambert wrote:

Every time I here the word immigration it makes my blood boil.
It's a no brainer but all you clowns don't see it.
This country is already over populated.
There is no benefit whatsoever from immigration.
But ill name a few negatives for you.
Overstretched police, national health service, roads which we will end up paying tolls for and congestion charges.
Oh and they don't pay into pensions and even send money back home in many cases.
You want me to go on because I can.

  • 307.
  • At 09:07 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Robert Atkinson wrote:

As a proud nation we shouldn't have to rely on immigration to fill labour holes.Our benifit system is too easy to manipulate so people who could work don't, subsidised by the honest.Get these back to work and we won't need msss immigration.Thers's no more room and basic services are suffering because of this issue,it is not racist to be patriotic.

The ostensible reason people are talking about immigration at all, as far as I can see, is on the (claimed) basis that it has a negative effect on the availability of housing, working conditions, job security and so on.

If there's a problem with those issues, shouldn't we be having a "serious and considered debate" about _them_ first, examining all of the political and economic issues involved, rather than simply assuming immigration must be the problem and jumping right into that?

Or would it be a bit "socialist" to examine options apart from "the working class are just idle and foreigners are hard-working" vs. "they're coming over here taking our jobs"?

  • 309.
  • At 09:11 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • stephen colton wrote:

I have no problems with the hard working law abidiing people here in N Ireland.However how do we vet those who have criminal records from countries whos record systems may be poor compared to UK,do they have robust systems to be able pass on the information.I have heard some councils are not promoting Santa and supermarkets are not decorating stores because they dont want to offend non-christains.?????

  • 310.
  • At 09:24 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • eric moran wrote:

we have lost control of our own borders, this and previous governments of both persuations have systematically given away this countries independance, 450 million people across the eu have the absolute right to enter and reside in these islands, all without the permission or mandate of the people, and we are about to give more away, with the signing of the lisbon treaty, again without the permission of the people. No government has ever proposed through their manifestos any of these acts. We the people must, at some point put a stop to it.

  • 311.
  • At 09:28 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Peter Fabian wrote:

The fact that we are discussing this shows we have a problem. What we now need is leadership that takes us forward wisely and justly and balances disparate needs and expectations. Can anyone tell me where such leadership will come from? Please.

  • 312.
  • At 09:31 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • mkenwell wrote:

It doesn't seem to be the first generation immigrants who are the problem. They work hard and contribute to the economy. the second generation seem to be caught between cultures, and don't inherit the work ethic (perhaps infuenced by our own youth). We can't blame them without looking at our inbuilt problems of our own culture, where we expect everything without working for it.

  • 313.
  • At 09:31 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • John Eric Cracknell wrote:

I blame the current Government and the Liberal elite who gave us multiculturalism and brought this situation to our front door. Those who tried to warn us were called racists as is anyone who raises the issue. Why would someone want to run away from an oppressive country and then try to turn there new adopted country into the place they have just escaped from? We have almost emptied Nepal, Romanian Gypsies are stealing all our metals, and Yardi gangs with the drug culture are reeking havoc with gun crime on our inner cities. Our schools and hospitals are full of foriegn patients and workers, kids are not learning as many in the class can't speak English. Cleaners employed in hospitals on the cheep with poor sanitation standards are causing havoc and our judges think more of there rights of illegals who commit crime than those of us on the receiving end. We have reached the tipping point and the majority will not put up with this for much longer. Enoch Powell was right, the day is coming.

  • 314.
  • At 09:43 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Matt wrote:

Bet we here someone say that immigrants are doing the jobs that British people don't want to do. Same old argument trotted out over and over by BBC interviewers for the past TEN YEARS.

This argument is nonsense of course. British people don't want to do those jobs AT THAT RATE OF PAY. They never say AT THAT RATE OF PAY.

And it's the influx of immigrants that decreased the pay and made the jobs unattractive.

Cheap immigrant labour skews the market in favour of the Liberatti. The things they buy are now cheap viz restaurant meals, cleaners, nannys, soft fruit etc.

The immigrants are a new service class for these people. But they're direct competitors for anyone looking for their first job, their first property or a seat on the bus.

Bet we also hear "Polish plumber", the BBC's postitive euphemism for "immigrant". Funny how we never here "Nigerian Traffic Warden". I see far more of them than I do Polish plumbers. All thw Poles I know do our security at my work. Nice enough. But gutting for the English who were layed off to make way for the new outsourced jobs...

I have zero faith that the BBC will be able to be unbaised. For all those in the public eye it's impossible to talk about immigrants negatively (the cost side of the argument, not just money, but all the immeasurables like the hassle and disutility of dealing with people who don't speak English) without being labeled racist.

There's sea change out in the channel tonight. Could do with some in parliament and the BBC.


  • 315.
  • At 09:48 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • George wrote:

Just in from work, my wife is still there trying to meet a deadline. As urban designers, a fundamental part of work involves understanding and retaining the essence of British towns, cities and villages. We are often amazed by how few people in positions of decision making and the community know or understand makes their place a 'place'.

It isn't just about how a place looks, but more about the people that live in it and glue it together. Some of the most vibrant and exciting places in the UK are so as a direct result of the rich diversity of the population. I have heard many people say that this is a distinctly British phenomenon and not just a recent one, but an historic trait endemic to the culture here.

By the way, both my wife and I are immigrants: I'm Irish and she is German. I don't expect that to placate the anti immigrant lobby, given that the right wing naval gazing 'Ukip' types think that Europeans should be sunk in the same ship as the rest.

The fact is; if you speak to anyone in a 'front line' occupation they will predominately say that immigrants are:

Hard working, law abiding, diligent and frequently have a better handle on family and discipline of their children than the indigenous population.

If you are talking about whether immigration is out of control...... it has been out of control for years.

THIS GOVERNMENT IS TOO SOFT. We need to get tough and been seen around the world to get tough. Forget the nanny state we live in looking after the illegal aliens, what about our human rights, NHS waiting lists, fear on the streets and lack of police.. Do you need me to continue, it isnt rocket science, there will continue to be but this labour government are complete amateur and have no backbone. NOT MORE LAWS,JUST ACTIONS - DONT JUST TALK - ACT NOW!!!!

Forget detention centres too. I live in Bedfordshire and Yarlswood has been a disaster. I am sure we are continuing to pay for this. It would cost us less to ship them back to their own countries on a Hercules than have them here for

We have to be firm and strong. All non-UK convicted criminals should not be allowed here - FULL STOP.

The government should be providing facilities in the affected areas like for example Peterborough.

I FEEL EXTREMELY STRONGLY ON THIS MATTER AND WOULD VOTE FOR THE PARTY IN THE NEXT ELECTION WHO WOULD TAKE ACTION IN LESS THAN 2 YEARS

Thank you

  • 317.
  • At 09:52 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • bob nettles wrote:

In reality the question is about population growth and paying for an aging population in their retirement.

The only method we have to grow the economy and pay for our aging population is massive immigration. In turn each generation will need more people in the generations below them to pay for them.

All in all you end up with the biggest pyramid scheme you've ever seen.

Immigration (whether you like it or not)is required if we wish to continue our current model of population growth and an aging population.

  • 318.
  • At 09:56 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • stuart wrote:

I have read a few posts so I am going to sit back and enjoy the show. good luck.

  • 319.
  • At 10:06 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Simon Bennett wrote:

WHERE IS NICK GRIFFINS VIEWPOINT.

WHY ARE THE BNP NOT REPRESENTED.

  • 320.
  • At 10:06 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • ivegotanasbo wrote:

ps I meant to add the question to my previous contribution.
How come we have 5 million who are sick and therefore unemployed (hidden unemployed)? and how does this proportion compare to our euro neighbours? also, and most worrying, How come there are a million Young people (is it called NEAPs). not working in training or on benefits? Are they all drug dealing and/or similar? If not how are they living? Can we hear from some of them on the issue please?

  • 321.
  • At 10:09 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Simon Bennett wrote:

THIS DEBATE HAS BEEN CENSORED TO SUIT A POLITICAL AGENDA _ YOU WILL NOT GET A TRUE REFLECTION OF PUBLIC OPINION HERE!

  • 322.
  • At 10:10 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • John Fletcher wrote:

Encouraging vast numbers of migrant workers to this country, creates a serious shortage of people availability and skills in the countries they come from. Is this what our government means by an "ethical foreign policy ?"

  • 323.
  • At 10:21 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Mike & Polly Brown wrote:

The English should have more confidence. Our culture, including T.V. radio,film, drama, music, sport,history, scientific research etc. is so strong that it absorbs all incomers, who within a generation or two cherish their adopted home.

  • 324.
  • At 10:24 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Bill Clarke wrote:

Well, having read most of the messages on this message board, it seems pretty obvious to me that most of the contributors to this debate DO NOT ADVOCATE the continuing and uncontrolled mass immigration that the UK government seeks to ignore.

The reasons for such views against immigration should be crystal clear to anyone having read your message board here: unreasonable and increasing pressure on hospitals, schools and other public services, rising tensions among the indigenous UK population, wage levels for the less-skilled on a slow but sure downward trend, etc. etc. But most worrying of all (apart from widespread concerns over loss of our British identity) is the unprecedented strain that uncontrolled, mass immigration will exert on our ability to absorb these people – our infrastructure simply WILL NOT BE ABLE TO COPE with such huge numbers of immigrants. And, despite what the government tells us, there are very little IF ANY economic benefits to this country after one weighs up the costs associated with this mass immigration – costs that are largely borne by the UK taxpayer.

I would urge every single person reading this message to visit the website of MigrationWatch UK. They are an independent body (with no political or racial axe to grind) composed of an ethnically diverse cross-section of individuals. The research which they quote (carried out by organisations other than themselves) quite clearly shows that the economic benefits (to the UK citizen) are extremely tiny. There are also PLENTY of other reasons to reject immigration on the current scale – many have been mentioned here on the Newsnight webpage.

It is high time that our politicians and the media woke up to the true facts – the future does NOT look bright.

  • 325.
  • At 10:30 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Tyrone wrote:

THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM OF IMMIGRATION (WHICH IS ACTUALLY A GLOBAL PROBLEM) IS THE HIGH POPULATION GROWTH RATES IN BOTH THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES AND SO CALLED DEVELOPED NATIONS WITH STRUGGLING ECONOMIES. REDUCING POPULATION GROWTH RATES IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED COUNTRIES SHOULD BE THE KEY AIM OF WORLD LEADERS AND THE UNITED NATIONS, THIS WILL TACKLE BOTH THE PROBLEM OF IMMIGRATION AND CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE LONG TERM.

  • 326.
  • At 10:34 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • John wrote:

The Immigration policy has been biased and racist. Britain today gets a lot of support and food from the commonwealth and today citizens from the coomonwealth living in Britain and educated in our education system are languishing in poverty and destitute and yet we are opening up doors for eastern europe where criminal gangs who do not speak English are allowed to stay here. France, Britain and Netherlands gave amnesties and only Britain which portrays to be non racist has failed even to give residence to members of the commmonwealth who supplies us with our so called English Tea.

  • 327.
  • At 10:35 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Colin Haslam wrote:

It is completely unacceptable that i can say, board a bus in my own country and find that the driver cannot speak English! Or that I phone
my mobile phone provider and have to speak in pigeon English in an attempt to be understood. Let me translate this buzz phrase of "immigration greatly boosts the economy". What this should actually read is "too many people chasing the same jobs leads very quickly to cheap labour". This country is far to small to accomodate the population it had even back in the 1980's, if anybody knows what that was (because this shambles of a govenment certainly wouldn't of done). We need to lock the door now and eject the illegals that are here at this time. Oh, and perhaps the likes of George Galloway, Ken Livingstone and all the rest of those left wing lunatics who played no small part in creating this outrageous situation in the first place!

  • 328.
  • At 10:35 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • big gaff wrote:

Lets look at this properly. We invaded many countries and ruled most of the world, now we are paying for the past. God help us all

  • 329.
  • At 10:36 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Natasha wrote:

Immigration is bringing in people who are hungry for work and are very often very highly qualified. Immigration does not equal stress on public funds. I am a qualified management accountant and my husband is a post-doc working for the UCL, we are Russians. We have higher than average salaries (deservedly) and contribute more than an average UK citizen. Everybody who is contributing to the society has the right to work. If the government is not planning the infrustructure well you cannot blame immigrants!
We were trying to hire a potential successor for me in the company and it is very difficult to find a qualified person among the locals!

  • 330.
  • At 10:41 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Tim Smith wrote:

We are one of the smallest countries in the world and cannot take any more mass immigration. Why should we accept that we should be flooded with a new wave of immigrants. It's bad enough that so many immigrants have already arrived over the past 50 years now its gone crazy. I don't expect this to be approved or appear on the weblog. How come the current situation has been allowed to happen? Why should illegal people come here, use the health service & schools etc without having paid any taxes? If we turned up in their countries I am sure we would not be made to feel welcome

  • 331.
  • At 10:42 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Jacqui O'Ne wrote:

Let's face it, we are a small island in Comparison to other European countries...so we need to ask why they want to come here... and the only reason is because we are the only country to offer free housing, money for doing nothing whilst working illegal plus we even fro in cheap housing, what we have we the English people have paid our taxes for.. hospital, schools. Why does no other country offer such bonuses for overtaking there country. So why do you think people want to come here,

When will the government start to be the democratic society we are suppose to be.. and not the dictatorship we are appearing as.

  • 332.
  • At 10:44 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Richard Williams wrote:

Six years ago I went to Chicago and was really surprised at how all the low paid work was being done by Latin Americans. I have travelled to lots of different places in the states since and the same seems to apply elsewhere. It really upset me how unhappy these people were and I was so pleased that it was n't the same here in the UK - people getting paid minimum wage for doing these jobs. If being in the EU means that we can bring in and pay people low wages in order to do jobs that British people would n't do (for low wages)then we will just end up being like the states.

  • 333.
  • At 10:45 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • mark wrote:

The Italians have shown us the way, get rid of the criminals and illegals now. If not the Bnp will grow at the same rate of influx.

  • 334.
  • At 10:46 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • patrick wrote:

In another way round, most British people are very lazy because they depend more on benefits.For example jobs like care works, warehouse, alll these British people does not do, instead migrant are helping the government to fill in all these jobs. In the end the government is benefiting from migrant.But they need to set up proper measures.

  • 335.
  • At 10:46 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Andrew wrote:

Immigration is fine if - and only if - a number of provisos are taken into account.

Firstly, the immigrant has to be fully accounted for and able to support him or herself. Obviously, the latter part of this condition can be waived if the immigrant is an asylum seeker, but then the asylum rules state that the seeker after asylum must claim in the first safe country they come to. If we take the countries surrounding Britain, we have Ireland to the west, France to the south and then Belgium, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden, plus numerous other countries, but none of which have people from whom a valid claim for asylum can be brought.

Secondly, there needs to be a limit. As we have seen, house prices are going up - and aside from the desirability of this country, which is getting to be nebulous at best, given the "white flight", it is pure supply and demand. You can build a multitude of houses, cover the entirety of British land with flats ten deep, but if you keep piling people in, the problem will get worse not better.

Thirdly, we need to be tough. When the Police arrest some Albanian for drug trafficking or prostitution, it is not necessarily racist. Nor should we be afraid of the epithet. To some people, I am racist - and if being racist is to be proud of my Britishness, then I wear the label with pride. But gliberal loonies on either side of the political spectrum are trying to stigmatise racism when they haven't gone into what the word actually means. Also, when Blair was told by the Romanian president that he would be sued if he didn't let 20,000 Romanians a year settle here, he should have stood his ground instead of capitulating.

Fourthly, we should be ruthless with those foreign nationals who break our laws. Never mind Human Rights. Take the case of Giaco Cindamo - he should have been deported, irrespective of whether he has family in Italy. It's surely not right that his human rights, as a convicted felon, should come before those of his victim's family. Furthermore, I propose that whoever of foreign nationality should break our laws should be deported forthwith, on conviction, irrespective of whether their country's human rights record is any good. If they choose to break our laws, they should face the music - however unpleasant that music is.

Finally, I would that the immigration service was up to the job. I have heard of many cases where a man comes here, with his wife; they get divorced, and he goes back to his own country to marry someone else. Thanks to his British nationality, his new wife is given British status; in time they divorce and the cycle starts again. Also, they bring over their extended family and so the country is, in one former Home Secretary's words, swamped.

  • 336.
  • At 10:47 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • mark wrote:

Yes, where is Nick Griffin, he told of this as did Enoch Powell. The Bnp will gain 50 MPs at the next election according to a report in the guardian. It's the Bnp who will have to clean up Labours mess!

  • 337.
  • At 10:47 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • kevin fisher wrote:

Re imigaration?
Why can we not do what they do in Germany, where there is the freedom to work, but the Goverment there controls this by having any non German to have a residance permit....This way they have conrol and accurate figures!

  • 338.
  • At 10:49 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • David Callinan wrote:

We have always had immigration but never as much as now. Some immigrants work hard and pay taxes. Fine. Many gravitate into a ghetto-like life. Integration is a pipe dream unless it has had several generations to evolve. But it won't and naturalised British citizens will eventually snap.

How come the government can count a million jobs being done or created by immigrants, but they can't count how many migrants are pouring into this small country?

Why can't these million or more jobs be given first to all the indiginous Brits currently claiming benefits? Surely they should have first crack at these jobs therefore reducing the cost to the taxpayer?

What exactly are the wonderful economic benefits we are gaining from raging immigration? We have higher tax rates, rising crime, simmering terrorism flourishing in our so-called free society, diminishing services, rising council taxes and, above all, a huge undercurrent of sheer resentment and bitterness culminating in suspicion and hatred - where are the benefits for ordinary people?

  • 339.
  • At 10:50 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Mick Brookes wrote:

There is no need for the levels of immigrants who are currently arriving in the UK. We have a high level of unemployment,until we get the unemployed back to work and, apart from those who are unable to work,there is no need for large scale immigration.
We have a lack of infrastructure already which the government has failed to address. To add to this problem by allowing mass immigration is utter folly.

  • 340.
  • At 10:50 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Mrs Young wrote:

I work on an industrial site in the midland where there are more immigrant work everyday and the jobs they are filling are not jobs that English people cannot do in fact I know that a lot of immigrant lorry drivers come to England with no former driving experience than limited tractor driving licences from there home lands and as such are causing more accidents.

  • 341.
  • At 10:51 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Roy Barton wrote:

It is all a matter of numbers. They say the population is now just over 60 million. This is of course based upon guesswork. There is no way of being sure that it is not 70 million or 80 million. (I am not joking there is no way of knowing.)

Even now the government does not keep a tally of people legally and entering and leaving at ports and airports. (If they have recently started doing this it is news to me, for decades they have not and therefore there is no way of keeping count.)

The census is of course a joke as regard all the temporary workers and illegals.

Some people say that there are plenty of green field (green belt) sites to build houses and roads on. But in reality even if we build the houses the problem of providing infrastructure becomes almost insoluble.

1. Just think of all the five lane motorways, trunk roads and roads into towns that are clogged up every day.

2. Think of the railways that can’t cope.

3. Think of our overflowing prisons and over worked police.

4. Think of hospital waiting lists and failing standards at schools. (And I am not just talking about the multi-lingual problems,)

5. 25% of our youth are unemployed and not in training.

6. 25% of babies born in the UK are to non UK mothers. (How many of these babies have four grandparents who were all borne in the UK.) This is a measure of the numbers coming into the country.

If you take the statistics given out by all the countries in the world for the numbers of their citizens that they believe have moved to the UK the total comes to a very high number. EG 800,000 poles, 250,000 from the US, 250,000 from China, France 270,000, Germany 100,000 Denmark 50,000 (that’s 1% of their population.) Irish 700,000, India 1.5Million, Pakistan 1 million, Bangladeshi 500,000, Somali 150,000, Russia 300,000, Ukraine Ghana?, Zimbabwe, Turkey? Iraq?, iran?, Jamaica?, Latvia?, Romania?, etc. etc.

If there was an average of 100,000 people from each of 200 countries in the world that had not found their way onto the census, then we could easily have 20 million more than the 60 million government estimate. My point is that the actual number is any bodies guess. How serious is that for anybody trying to make plans for the country?

And before anybody says so I agree that we do need some immigration and we must allow in genuine asylum seekers. But the government needs to get a handle on it, rather than sticking its head in the sand for 10 years.


  • 342.
  • At 10:55 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Adrienne wrote:

Those who still naively believe that New Labour has 'lost' control of the UK's borders or has gone soft on immigration, need to look into a) what the 'SI' (Socialist International) is, b) who its affiliates are, c) what the EU Reform Treaty's agenda is, and d) learn a little about 'The New Left' and its heritage (and traditional enemies).

The New Left has as much in common with Old Labour as Trotsky did with Stalin. It loves the free-market though. That's why Stalin had his show trials of Trotskyite 'enemies of the people' in the 1930s, the lead up to WWII. Hitler even made a non-aggression pact with Stalin against the scourge of Europe (and the USSR) i.e. xxxxxx-Bolshevism.

In a nutshell New Labour (Neo-Conservatives) are entryists. They don't care about nations or their indigenous nationalities as they're internationalists, aka cosmopolitans/anarchists, just as Thatcherites were.

Why do you think we don't hear about Militant Tendency etc anymore? They just had a makeover. Have a look at Spiked.

  • 343.
  • At 10:55 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • peter atkinson wrote:

i'm a psychiatric nurse and an essential part of my role is to ensure people are assessed for thir own vulnerability and others before they are moved back into the community. my question is , how, if at all, are immigrants assessed for vulnerability to themselves and others prior to entering this country ?

  • 344.
  • At 10:56 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Sue wrote:

John Wilson at 289. People like you make me feel really angry. My daughter is a Doctor. White british born. She has not been able to get a job here and so has had to take herself off to Australia. The British tax payer has paid for her training but you are happy to have foreign doctors rather than give jobs to your own people. There are plenty of British born doctors and nurses but this government is intent on importing more and more from abroad. Why? Also, 'we are all immigrants.' I am sick and tired of this one. I can trace both sides of my family back to 1500 in Kent, Sussex and Devon. Does this still make me an immigrant? I really pity those who have been here only 50 years. By your account they have a long way to go!

  • 345.
  • At 10:56 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Martin wrote:

The reason us British ppl dont have the jobs is because we dont want them. Ppl in Britan (like myself) get just as much for not working as what we would for working. So I say let the foreign ppl have the jobs. I dont have one and dont want one, I can save about £100 a month without needing to work, so there is little or no incentave to work for ppl like myself.

  • 346.
  • At 10:56 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • NEIL KLEMP wrote:

Immigration effects all of Europe surely it would help if all the countries in the EU opened up their borders without any restrictions to ALL EU member states, This would ease the numbers of people migrating to just a few countries and spread their numbers throughout all European member states

  • 347.
  • At 10:56 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Alison Scott wrote:

Immigration is getting out of control!!
Where are these supposed housing going to go, the UK's fertility rate is rising again and life expectancy is at a high, so more UK citizens so where are these non-uk citizens that have immigrated going to go.
I certainly don't have a problem with immigrants as i have relations that moved from england to other countries.
The government need a way to slow it down or reduced it.
In my opinion builing more house will bring more floods like the ones of this summer in sheffield and hull. please sort something out make england a happy place for the generations to come

  • 348.
  • At 10:57 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • MARY DAVIDSON wrote:

CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME THAT IF WE NEED IMMIGRANTS TO DO THE JOBS THAT THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES SEEM TO NOT WANT TO DO. HOW THEN DID WE COPE BEFORE? WHO DID THE JOBS THEN? IN THE PAST WE HAVE ALWAYS SEEN BRITISH WORKERS IN RESTARAUNTS CAFE'S BINGO HALLS CHICHEN FACTORIES ECT. LETS FACE IT ITS ALL ABOUT CHEAP LABOUR ITS ALL ABOUT BIG BUSINESS FORCING OUR WAGES DOWN. PEOPLE HERE CANNOT AFFORD TO TAKE SUCH LOW PAID WORK AS THEY HAVE TO PAY HIGH MORTGAGES RENTS ECT COUNCIL TAX AND SO ON. WHERE AS IMMIGRANTS LIVE EIGHT OR SO TO A HOUSE AND SHARE EVERYTHING AND MOST SEND MONEY HOME SO WHERE IS THE BENEFIT TO THE ECONOMY?

  • 349.
  • At 10:59 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • john russell wrote:

Re-Post 247-Paul Day.
You're probably right;if you can't see the connection between an illegal immigrant being 'blown away' in a scenario where a country's police are charged with defending its people against violent immigrants/immigrant communities, then the debate is probably beyond you. Similarly, the connection between a policy of mass immigration and the need for democratic consent.

  • 350.
  • At 10:59 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • S Maj wrote:

I realise the program is dependant on these self opinating politicians that could not care at all about any public opinion, so why not start listening to the people and stop ignoring thier overall opinion on any relitive subject,such as imagration, or any other issues that is important to the public.If they could'nt care let me remind them we don't either so beware on the next election.

  • 351.
  • At 11:01 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Sandy Main wrote:

In Perthshire, It used to be the case that local people worked on seasonal agricultural work, including Fruit Picking and Potato Picking.

Today most all agricultural work is done by machine, but where labour is required it is almost ALL done by migrant labour, in fact Local people will be lucky to be employed, as the foreign labour is so suitable in almost every respect.

  • 352.
  • At 11:01 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Les wrote:

The current parties have no idea how to attack this challenge.

Listening to the debate over the past few days I have discovered Labour cant control the situation
Tories are struggling to come up with anything apart from closing borders
Libs are so silent because it has no leader
The surprise to me is that the UKIP have talked initatives to try and improve the situation from accepting the situation and developing training plans to use the current population and control further influx of imagriant from eastern europe and further.

  • 353.
  • At 11:01 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Stanley Maj wrote:

I realise the program is dependant on these self opinating politicians that could not care at all about any public opinion, so why not start listening to the people and stop ignoring thier overall opinion on any relitive subject,such as imagration, or any other issues that is important to the public.If they could'nt care let me remind them we don't either so beware on the next election.

  • 354.
  • At 11:01 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Matt wrote:

Given up on Newsnight already.

Six guests in favour of immigration, one against.

How is that a fair and balanced debate?

If the BBC was neutral it would reflect the opinion of the British people and have seven out of ten guests being against immigration.

Useless.

  • 355.
  • At 11:02 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • G Jones wrote:

Could someone please tell me why there is such a ludicrous obsession with immigration. Is the UK going through the same circumstances as 1930s Germany? No I do not think so either! Immigrants are not causing unemployment, they are enriching the country and reducing labour costs!

Is there nothing for the nation/press to moan about? Maybe some progress in the Madelaine enquiry may distract the lazy journalists from easy column inches and radio/tv time from this non-story!

  • 356.
  • At 11:06 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • tony parks wrote:


Hi Bacon

Why are Legal Migrants being punished. This LEGAL migrants have done what is expected of them, they
Have applied of work permits as requested from their home countries
Have paid taxes and are law abiding
Now legal migrants have to wait 5 years to obtain permanent residency, this only affects legals and not illegals. We can't just say we need them and then switch off. The reason why America is successful is because it is a country of immigrant.

  • 357.
  • At 11:08 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Fred Byrne wrote:

Preference should be given to immigrants from the commonwealth over those from the Eu. Our commonwealth fellow citizerns served in our forces during the first and second world wars. They helped to save not only Britain but Europe also. It is about time the EU recognised the debt it owes to them.

  • 358.
  • At 11:09 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Fiona Broadhurst wrote:

Migrants will work for less than the minimum wage- little wonder the CBI want more of them here

  • 359.
  • At 11:11 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • carla warnes wrote:

One of the main problems I find with social cohesion is the way that political correctness has gone made.

We need to embrace British culture not be embarassed by it which will help us to accept the cultures of others.

Companies banning the use of the word Christmas for their seasonal parties and changing the lyrics of common nursery rhymes, insites haterid.

I am of mixed race and also find these things ridiculus

  • 360.
  • At 11:12 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • john russell wrote:

Re-Post 12-Paul Emson.
Spot on Paul. Don't be down about the situation. Millions agree with you. All we have to overcome is the blackout by the political and media. Keep fighting.

  • 361.
  • At 11:13 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • anne wrote:

I sometimes feel this country/ government has gone mad. People born and bred in this country, for what ever reason are having to go without. They're not entitled to benefits despite many having paid NI and tax. But an immigrant comes over here, "legally" or illegally and is handed on a plate, vast amounts of money. I know people that work on the local council and they have told me the benefits these people get. £250 for a bedding grant. £250 not for a bed, but for the sheets and pillows, who can afford to spend that? You go to the hospital and information posters are written in many other languages. These people are putting pressure on our schools and hospitals being here. What happened to charity begins at home. Look after British citizens before looking after other countries.
GB= Big fat meal ticket. No other country would bend over backwards for immigrants like we do.

  • 362.
  • At 11:15 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Sandeep Amin wrote:

Why is it always non-european immigrants who are targeted as a burden, but the common man always agree that it is the european migrants who are taking away jobs which people from this country are entitled to have.

  • 363.
  • At 11:17 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Eric Schofield wrote:

I am here in spain and was watching newsnight as I often do with great interest. Why am I here? only due to the topics being disscussed this evening. what is taking place in the United Kingom at this time is totally unreal. I without being asked for an opinion never mind the oportunity of of giving my view in a referendum was given the right to reside, live, and work in the EEC. I had a great deal of missgivings as to the direction that the United Kingdom was heading, I therefore elected to leave. This was some four years ago. I now firmly believe that this was a posative move. Now I feel that I am firmly justified in these views. I came here to Spain under n my own steam With very little support from my home country, did my time and finally obtained my pension, my wife still pays tax on her reduced pension ( due to another government idea (SERPS). So in all we feel rather badly done to, We can't even claim our winter fuel allowance and yes even in Spain it does get really cold in the winter months. BUT to add to all this the current debate you are conducting is in my opinion a debate that should be put to the BRITISH PEOPLE. Lets Face it we and the ONE HUNDRED AND ELEVEN YEAR OLD WAR VETRAN in the news this evening along with many others Many of whom gave their lives are the backbone of this country and all deserve better. Where else in this world could WE go and find life so easy?

  • 364.
  • At 11:18 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Bruce Mcaaw wrote:

The three main political parties all have contradictory polices, they cannot be both pro immigration at any level and pro environment too. The Conservatives admittedly have started to grasp the issue but Labour and the Liberal Democrats are treating the public like fools if they do not admit that immigration leading to population increase will require more roads, houses, hospitals, power stations, waste and water. This country can only function with its current levels of population by being a high energy high pollution economy. Its time to have a coherent policy, we have enough people, its time to concentrate or raising the quality of economic, social end environmental life of the people we have rather than trying to cram more and more into the country.

  • 365.
  • At 11:22 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • steve wrote:

If the government and general public do not want more immigration lets have a plebiscite and vote on the withdrawal form Europe.

If we are this stupid then we will see our country fall into a recession. It is about time we realised that immigration has been great for our country and economy and its about time English people realised we are part of Europe and the colour of our skin or our mother tongue does not stop cohesion it is the ignorance of certain people who have not travelled past their front doorstep that stops social cohesion.
Its is a great shame for young people like myself that politicians are even debating immigration as a bad thing as immigrants will only take this as Britain being a closed minded country.

  • 366.
  • At 11:22 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • chris hanley wrote:

Why not limit new Imigration to Scotland and Wales only, with work permits only for those countries. Population is Scotland after all is falling. Make it a requirement to speak Welsh and Gaelic. England is Full!

  • 367.
  • At 11:28 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • laura wrote:

Immigration needs to be balanced with a structure for integration so that indigenous populations do not feel threatened. Their are many spokes people who articulate rights of immigrants in England but are silent on the subject of their responsibilities in return i.e. in speaking English, having an understanding of English culture and commitment to tolerant values in relation to other cultures and identities. This debate is not one way! If we want to reach a new understanding of 'Britishness' we need to be on the same track!

  • 368.
  • At 11:29 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Tim wrote:

The three party consensus in favour of immigration was in your face on display here - where was the counter argument? There is absolutely no excuse for this imbalance, emails had been pouring in all day with at least 75% against.

The BBC is a disgrace in allowing such an imbalanced panel to go virtually unchallenged by Gavin Hestler. For example why oh why did he (GH)not point out to the Labour politician that they had had 10 ten years to do something about it?

Why weren't the horrid, nasty xenophobic BNP on the panel - The BBC just don't get it, this programme was worth hundreds of thousands of votes to the BNP.

  • 369.
  • At 11:30 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • tracy wrote:

Immigration has got totally out of hand.

It is not a case of being racist BUT it is simple commonsense that it is unfair, unjust, unreasonable and unworkable to accept 1,000's of people into the country who have never paid into the system and then allow them council homes, benifits and free NHS.

There is not a bottomless pit of money. For every £1 of government money which goes to support an immigrant through the health service etc. there is £1 less available to help a UK national.

This country has become a joke - people are arriving here in their droves NOT because they want to put into the system but because they know they can take money out of it!

Immigrants should not be allowed any free healthcare, benifits etc until they have been here and paying taxes for a minimum 5 years.

Until that happens resentment will simmer and eventually boil over.

We are losing our nationality, our identity and are ability to support ourselves.

I left Birmingham in the year 2001 becuase I no longer felt safe in a city which had become overrun with gangs of immigrants.

When will commonsense prevail over misdirected political Correctness?

  • 370.
  • At 11:32 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Sam wrote:

Migration/Immigration, call it what you want is a Global phenomena. Travel the world like I have & you'll find its not just unique to the British Isles.
People will try to better their lives in the competitive world we live no matter where they are.

Over a century ago prospectors uplifted their lives and families & moved nearer to gold mines, to increase their wealth & status. In a paper money world where mobility is easier, people from the third world are doing exactly the same, moving to the West in search of their personal goals.

As a species we are evolving & this means more integration & fusion of peoples, races, cultures & customs. Live with it dont hate it.

At the same time though, when the indigeneous population feel under threat, its time for politicians to act.
Its a hard fact to swallow, but people from different cultures/customs cannot simply integrate into a western lifestyle, without understanding the values and customs of the host nation.

I think many people are becoming confused with legal migrants who want to work here & contribute to society & those who are here illegally & are genuinely draining the country of resources.

POLITICAL MIND INIMICAL TO SOLUTION

Politicians are not the norm; they are a very odd sub-set of humanity. Political office is more akin to church office, than the experience of normal employed folk, working for a wage and promoted on ability. Politics has parties; church has denominations. Both have unquestioning allegiance, hierarchy and dogma.

Politicians are single-mindedly driven to support the leader, promote the creed and rise up the ranks. They are prepared to sacrifice sleep, comfort, family – in short: HUMAN values and niceties – in pursuit of “success”. Those who rise high, seek power, status and “honours” (however dishonourable).

The typical politician is so out of touch with the human aspects of life, they are entirely unsuited to address immigration and associated social unrest. They just don’t get it.

  • 372.
  • At 11:43 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • Mrs V Bance wrote:

The Government and all those fools discussing immigration have no idea of what it is like to be at the bottom end of the wage scale. I earn £5.70 an hour, so on a full 40 hr week my pay is still only £228 gross. After deductions (and bearing in mind this is already a wage that is les than the national average) I take home £186. Is this a fair wage? Are these fair taxes? I have to be subsidised by the Government through Working Tax Credit to bring this up to somewhere near a realistic sum. Out of this I pay nearly £117 a week in rent and council tax. That is before all the other bills and food. So I, like many others, am sliding into poverty because my wages are held back because employers can get away with paying less to the unskilled immigrants. They can share houses to pay less rent, send money back home and disappear back home in a few months. Employers have the lure of cheap labour, without the tax liability or National Insurance liability. The shifting labour market is wonderful for them. So while the propagandists cheer on about how wonderful it all is for the economy, those British people at the bottom of the work ladder are being forced into increasing poverty.I would be financially more secure by giving up work, at least the rent and council tax would be paid. Does anyone remember the chairman of the CBI boldly saying, a few months, ago that the influx of immigrants was saving mortgages going up? But at what cost to the lowest paid workers of this country? The Unions are letting the British worker down - where are they in all this bitter furore? The are lapdogs of the Government now, toothless and ineffective. Shame on them. Shame on our Government for selling our country out and shame on them all for selling the workers out.

  • 373.
  • At 11:45 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • D.R. wrote:

No mention of environmental sustainability in the "Newsnight" studio debate - very disappointing. The immigration issue, for England especially, is about quality of life. Each new immigrant is likely to affect housing demand - that is likely to mean more loss of green space/agricultral land. That encourages calls for more intensive farming (and all the negatives that implies), and it means an aesthetic loss too, in my view. Each new immigrant will require water, energy, will create more waste to go to our already overflowing landfills. People from other cultures want to import the food they know and love - that adds to "food miles" and more pollution through increased transportation. And speaking of transport, immigrants will add to congestion/pollution too, as they want to drive cars or go for visits "back home" on cheap air flights. These are all examples of the hidden environmental costs of rapid mass net immigration. And, all in all, most of them will be coming from countries which have a smaller global footprint, therefore increasing the world's overall global footprint. And even if that's not true (like the massive influx of white South Africans), this country (England) does not need a rising population at all because it's already overcrowded. Drawbridge up now - from wherever!

  • 374.
  • At 11:46 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • betty wrote:

It is dificult to have an effective debate without accurate information. In your programme there was discussion of the various estimates of the numbers of immigrants. However the financial cost/benefit of immigrants to the country is also effectively unknown. Unless immigrants are in reasonably well paid jobs they are likely to be accessing a range of benefits, which are administered by a range of departments. These included housing and council tax benefit, tax credits and welfare benefits - incapacity, jobseekers etc. I believe that statistics have not been kept of payments to non UK nationals so that it is impossible to come up with an accurate figure of the wage subsidies being provided by UK taxpayers.
Aside from the economic cost of immigration, there is the significant impact caused by a large increase in the population on the quality of life of the whole population, as evidenced by greater road congestion, more crowded public transport, reduced choice of school,greater pressure on stretched health services and further strain on an inadequate housing stock.
The public has become increasingly alarmed by rising population levels, and feels disenfranchised by the continuing lack of will of our representatives to address these issues. We want to remain a welcoming and inclusive society, and if we are to do so then we need our mainstream political representatives to honestly take on board these issues.

  • 375.
  • At 11:54 PM on 08 Nov 2007,
  • kezzy wrote:

It's possible that the country IS losing some of its uniqueness but at the end of the day as such a wealthy country surely it is our responsibility to help as many people less fortunate than us as we can. I may be naive and over-trusting but I believe that if we were in their situation then europe would help us out.

  • 376.
  • At 12:16 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Peter, London wrote:

By all means despise and condemn our country's unemployed, poor and deprived, and flood the country with cheap and otherwise malleable foreign labour that cares little for them either, but be prepared to accept the social and political processes set in train as a result.

So far, the forces encouraging immigration these past 15 years have behaved with blithe disregard for the rights and feelings of the working population, imagining that they will never have to face the consequences of their actions, but all that will eventually have to change.

The comfortably off with comfortable ideas to match are going to be shaken out of their fantasy, by reality.

  • 377.
  • At 12:19 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • TONY wrote:

There are parts of this country where you are not safe to go day or night, that to me abuot sums up the mess we are in...........

Programmes like these are needed to enable people to have their say.
We need more and more so that what we are saying behind closed doors can be aired without feeling a criminal. For example I dont go shopping in Birmingham any longer, I feel outnumbered and it makes me feel uncomfortable.
I think Britain is very tolerant and generous, thats why everyone makes their way here to attain a better standard of living, but at what cost to the UK tax payer. I am an only child, I didnt have any children, quite a few of my friends havent had children. Imigrants seem to have three or more and counting, all of which have an impact on the British tax payer.
I have no problem what so ever with foreign nationals wanting to live here as long as they make an attempt to intergrate, pay their way, wear westernised dress in the work place, speak our language, accept and live alongside 'our' customs and 'our' culture.
The Polish community for example, they contribute and blend in every respect; so much so they are sought after by employees for their work ethics.
Religious beliefs, not mentioned this evening, is the most distructive element of immigration. Religions that control and dictate how its followers live. What they can or cant eat, drink, wear, say, do, think. If these religious dictats are kept alive through generations there will never be integration. More and more areas will become segrated and the 'white flight' will follow.

  • 379.
  • At 12:25 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Silkstone wrote:

On Newsnight tonight Bacon read out the email at #100 above which for some reason was #101 when I commented on it at 4.04pm on the 7th (#120).

What Bacon failed to do was read out that part of the email about 'little Hitlers' and the 'vast number of British pensioners burdening the public services of Southern Europe' etc.

Why only read the first part? If there was insufficient time to read it all and this could easily have been the case with others, then considering the number of postings on this site alone, the whole idea of such a programme was a waste of time.

  • 380.
  • At 12:28 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Anonymous wrote:

We are being swamped and our politicians fail to take note of UK public concern. We have a revolving door with free access. The unwanted are entering and the educated are leaving. Significantly more are entering than leaving. Social services cannot cope. We are now told to expect another 3 million entering the UK within 10 years. British citizens are becoming aliens in our own country. Those in doubt should come and live in a city and see for themselves how UK cities have become unrecognisable to UK citizens. No wonder so many British citizens are actively planning to abandon this country to move abroad. The only escape is to get out!

Free speech is now seemingly illegal in the UK. We cannot voice our concerns It seems anyone gets instant demands to ‘resign’ or face being called racist.

I prefer to remain anonymous.

  • 381.
  • At 12:43 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Piotr wrote:

06.04.1939 - signing bilateral pact about mutual aid in case of German aggression between Poland and UK, later on similar with France. Many historical sources says, that war would be won in few months if those countries did what they were obliged to do by signing this agreement. Third Reich was not prepared for attack from west. What I mean is that if we weren’t left alone maybe our country wouldn’t be ruined and this beautiful island so attractive for us in economical sense.

Do you remember Polish pilots fighting in Battle of Britain, they had one of the best rates. We were everywhere your soldiers did fight. Trust us, we will help you again if hard time will come as you are helping us nowadays.

Please be patient and tolerant like you have been. Polish economy is getting better, less people is coming over here, more and more people will be going back home,. I believe that this situation will stabilise soon.

I love UK and British people!
Thank You:)

  • 382.
  • At 12:47 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Terry Osborne wrote:

A recent BBC program covered the NITE
( Not In Training or Employment ) status for young people. There are 1 million British 16-25 year olds classified in this way. How does the Government reconcile this with the rate of immigration allowed over the last 5 years?

  • 383.
  • At 01:02 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • L Allan wrote:

Dear Toma (post 245),
You have done nothing wrong and you are very welcome in this country. I visited Poland in 1994 and was made to feel similarly welcome in your country. People have moved around the globe for millenia and they will continue to do so, whatever the outcome of this debate. Immigrants to our country usually only want a better life, and are doing what Brits would do if they were in similar circumstances.

The most amusing part of this debate has been the spelling, grammar and punctuation. Perhaps we should learn to use our language correctly before we accuse others of not integrating into our culture. I wouldn't give a job requiring literacy to someone who cannot be bothered to capitalise "i". I simply could not bear to receive e mails from a colleague who writes only in capitals. However, I would enjoy hearing some of the phone in comments again in "Down the line" on radio 4. Perhaps Bremner, Bird and Fortune would invite Green to their next dinner party sketch?

  • 384.
  • At 01:06 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Natalie Frost wrote:

Im so worried about the response to new eu workers in this country. My boyfriend is Romanian, all Romanians have to work as self employed people and therefore create their own jobs - you'd never guess, even when listening to radio 4. He is hard working and very community minded - running a bicycle project for bored kids in his spare time. Yet he is made to feel like a sponger and a thief by the press and police who have victimised him due to to his origin. This guy and his selfless approach is just what this country needs - I dont see anyone else doing anything which doesn't lead to personal gain...but we really don't want to stay here now as we can only see things getting worse for us as the attitude of the British people, press and political parties is so hostile, i daren't turn on the radio or look at a paper.

  • 385.
  • At 01:11 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Martin Hall wrote:

During this evenings debate (Thursday 8/11/07) Leicester was mentioned as the first English city soon to have a "non-white majority". But what really took my breath away was Gavin Esler's response to this prospect when he asked "does it matter?". His response suggests that the prospect of the indigenous populations of white English people being totally outnumbered and replaced in their own cities by foreigners (whether other white/non-white) is of very little consequence. This reveals the blatant double standards and hypocrisy of opposing ethnic displacements abroad, while tacitly acquiescing to it being perpetrated against the white population of England. Where's the concern for our "human rights" to exist in our own country? Don't we count as an identifiable "ethnic group", as part of the human race? Not according to Esler and his ilk presumably(?)
Why is the ordinary indigenous population of England held in such contempt by people like Gavin Esler and his other Newsnight Cronies? Is it because they're all self-righteous middlle-class "PC" LEFTIES?

  • 386.
  • At 01:37 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • B.J. Wiles wrote:

I have just watched a current affairs panel programme on television. One of the panelists is between 20 and 30, white and public school/Oxbridge.

His views on immigration suggest that it has changed the nature of Britain for the worse - or so he seems to be saying. He, on occasions, received rousing applause from the studio audience.

I wonder what his credentials are for making such an assessment. Were not most of those immigrant families which he deplores already resident in HIS country when he was born?

How very unpleasant for him. Obviously, in the words of Mrs. Thatcher he is "one of us". But is he really one of the rest of us?

Oh, and as I believe every radio or television interviewer should, before raising any question, state their colour, creed, how they were educated and who they voted for at the last election, let me say that I am an ancient, white, anglo-saxon male, educated at a fee-paying grammar school founded in the sixteenth century and later (the late 1960s)the LSE and have always voted Liberal or (in recent times) Liberal Democrat.

There is, in my mind, little to celebrate in ancient history but if Rome had one redeeming feature (amongst many which made it the most despicable of cultures, surrounded by more enlightened peoples it classed as barbarians)it was the way it embraced individuals of other cultures and allowed - in the later empire - men of talent of any race to rise to positions of power and importance.

For Britain, Empire was a sad mistake but the peoples the chaps and chapesses from these small islands encountered while promoting the Empire taught the more discerning of them a little humility and understanding which is the true heritage of Britain. If we are to be taught "Britishness" in school, we should put against the outrageous British expulsion of the Cajun peoples from North America after the great triumph of the hero Wolf at the Heights of Abraham, the acceptance into Victorian Canada of the desperate tribe of Geronimo who were granted asylum and a new homeland when hounded out of their ancestral territory by the good people of America.

In my view, this is the "Britishness" we should celebrate. Our achievements in times of war may be lauded only in the individual acts of heroism, not by the war itself, which in many cases is the outcome of the abject failure of diplomacy. Far greater are those personal relationships which bring us to an understanding of the views of people from the Indian sub-continent and of the way of life of the peoples of Masai Mara. Once we escape the shackles of the belief that we are somehow superior, we open ourselves up to the wealth of culture that is, initially, foreign to us.

So it is the assimilation of the diverse cultures of east west north and south which mark Britain out as the place to settle in. What we have is what they seek and we are arrogant in the extreme if we try to define ourselves within narrow bounds and categories
we

  • 387.
  • At 03:37 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Steve wrote:

A few points

1 ) There are currently 3.3 million Legals and illegals in the UK . Thats the low end of estimates (as pointed out by your reporter) , Whats the high end of the estimates ? (I've been hearing that the higher end estimate is 8.6 million)

2 ) What percentage of the Legals are actually net contribute to the UK tax system , Is it true that to be a net contributer in taxes in the UK you have to be earning £27,000 +

3 ) What percentage of Legals or in fact illegals claim housing benefit or council tax benefit or family credit ?


With out these type of figures how can you have a factual debate .

Tonights program should have been about WHY there is a lack of figures ?

Surly if Legals are paying tax the Inland Revenue should have figures ?

Surly Council's and the Benefit Agency should have these figures ?

A factual example -
My local paper published Translator costs for my local hospital last weekend and the costs had nearly doubled to £110,000 a year in 3 years.

  • 388.
  • At 03:46 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Kenenth Usher wrote:

What all the parties do not want to answer in this so called "immigration debate" is about race.

Do the British people, and I term 'British' as of White European racial stock, want people's of another racial ethnic stock, to turn Britain into a non White European country. 62% of the population according to the poll said no.

It is about the fact that British workers for at least 30 years have been under trained and therefore are underskilled. This is due to countless governments who have not invested in the British workforce.

Years of Thatcherism which destroyed our manufacturing industry, has turned this nation into a second rate service industry nation.

This immigration debate should be about Identity of the British people and the British nation. The door should be locked, and a phased policy of repatriation should turn the tide to ease the pressures now coming to a boil in this nation.

A referendum should be put to the majority White European British population to ask them if they want Britain to become a non White country.

Unless this is done, we are driving fast down the road to a Northern Ireland situation and its violent outcome of populations killing each other for land space.

  • 389.
  • At 06:47 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Chris M wrote:

265. "Anyone with an elementary - and I mean elementary - grasp of history will see the multi-culturalism promoters for what they are - dangerously irresponsible sowers of potential future nightmares."

Excellent. I fully agree with this comment- it is no wonder that the likes of Trevor Phillips have called for parts of British history to be rewritten, like the Armada, to make it suit modern multicultural idealisms.

Furthermore, multiculturalism, which for me is incredibly important to the mass immigration debate for its existence depends on the variety of cultures and principles bought by immigrants, is supposedly un-discriminatory for it promotes people to live to their own cultural or religious principles.

However it is discriminatory or potentially discriminatory in three ways. One, it undermines the principles of the indigenous population, which this group has a right to protect if they whish, by allowing other principles or practises from other cultures and or religions to be accommodated or to replace these principles.

It is potentially discriminatory because the cultures and religions and religious sects that have to be accommodated often have some conflictory principles or ways or laws so, for instance, the "punishment" for different "crimes" could be different within each community leading to discrimination if all those different principles were housed in a single nation- which would increase segregation leading to tribalism.

If the multicultural nation followed the one law for one people principle, discrimination would occur to some degree but it would ensure the protection of an identity, hopefully the indigenous principles and ways, and may help the cause of integration.

Whatever, it is apparent to me now that it is impossible to create an "equal" society in a nation like Britain with so much religious and cultural diversity- leading me to believe that nu labour, far from promoting equality, are actually just as prejudiced as any other group and or party.

  • 390.
  • At 07:06 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Tim wrote:

Re Newsnight 08.11.2007

It is clear that the subject of immigration in GB is all consuming, and will only increase as millions more pour into this beleaguered nation of ours.

It is also clear, (palpably so) if anything was demonstrated in last nights programme, it was that one single 45 minute Newsnight programme is totally inadequate to do justice to this subject. It, (programme) barely scratched the surface.

The BBC has got to bite the bullet, it cannot hold debates (about anything) without presenting a balancing counter view, last night was travesty.

Immigration, as demonstrated in last night's programme is a many headed hydra, there is a whole raft of concerns associated with immigration, there was no (or very little) reference to the following.

Political Correctness.(within which censored framework) the immigration debate has been corralled.

The feeling of loss of freedom in a once free land, especially freedom of speech.

Marginalisation of British people, so much so they feel they have become second class citizens.

The perceived injustices against the indigenous British people, perpetrated by the immigration factor.

Anti race legislation which can land one in jail for saying the 'wrong thing'

'Thought police state'

The perception (as only too clear last night,) all three political parties are pro immigration and have absolutely no consideration for the people who voted them into office.

The perception by the British people of being under cultural attack, especially history, anti white, anti British, not only by government but by the BBC and whole media industry.

These are just few points the British people feel incandescent about, which the BBC do not (or appear)to even recognise let alone address.

I suspect the BBC feel the above is unpalatable, but it's no good shooting the messenger.

Until the British establishment take these complaints seriously on board I hate to think what the future holds for my children and grandchildren and the country.

  • 391.
  • At 07:44 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Richard Brady wrote:

The quality of life is fast diminishing due to the simple fact there are too many people ALREADY
on this tiny overcrowded island.
Most politicians do not have to encounter the results of their actions.
The Labour party is a misnomer,it should be calle 'Anti labour'as it
has flooded the country with people who will undercut the wages of the
unskilled.

  • 392.
  • At 09:07 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Graeme Phillips wrote:

I think we need a minimalism approach to immigration. Our national identity is close to non-existent. Immigrants replace our endangered culture with their own. Saying that immigrants contribute to our culture is like saying that adding curry powder to a cake doesn't mean it is any less of a cake. The more curry powder you add to the mixture, the more the character of the cake is compromised and the quicker it becomes unpalatable.

  • 393.
  • At 09:24 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • alan harris wrote:

Wake up Great Britain, I am an IMMIGRANT in Morocco(the english like to call us expats)I was and am true English born and bred. In Morocco I am bound by the rules and laws of the country I am a guest in the country and as such have to prove that I have enough money to support myself, not be a burden on the state where is this proof whenb you enter England, The need in the uk for more doctors and nurses and other key jobs is fuelled by the ever rising tide of immigrants come for the easy ride of state benefits, etc etc and putting more and more pressure on the true and indiginous people of Great Britain. Wake up Englsnd and do what the Spanish, Italians and other eu countries do ...REPATRIATE LEAGALLY THOSE WHO COME FOR THE EASY RIDE...

  • 394.
  • At 09:42 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Brian Chimhepo wrote:

The major problem with Britain today is illeteracy which has been generated with an easy life the British society has naturally inherited from The British Empire,stolen resources from the third world countries.Now armed with ignorance 90% of Britons are not aware of how the system works,a caller last night was convinced immigrants come into this country,straight from the plane to DSS and would be on Benefits the next morning!Its shocking.There is three types of immigrants and its not clear which the British do not want,maybe anyone who is not British.

  • 395.
  • At 09:57 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • juppz crew wrote:

This debate is extremly biased and no-one has taken into account the political and economic advantages of having valued migrant workers in the community. People complain that these economic migrants are taking the jobs that should be readily available to British people, yet there are still so many unwilling to work, therefore why should you complain if they are doing the jobs you are too proud to do? You do not think about the racist aspects that your views present. You also complain that they do not intergrate, please tell me exactly how this discussion is aiding them in that?

  • 396.
  • At 10:06 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Adrienne wrote:

Except for the lead piece by David Grossman, I thought the programme was biased, shallow and a flop. In the Radio 5 phone-ins, Bacon subtly managed the calls in such a way that anti-immigrationists were made to feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. Overall Newsnight/Radio 5 producers seemed determined not to deter potential immigrants and not to make those already here feel unwelcome, which, given the circumstances and the availability of the programme on the web was quite right and understandable.

I've said all this before, but I'll say it again in the hope that a few more will pick up on the theme and explore it. The fact remains that the birth rate in the indigenous British population (like the rest of the EU) is well below replacement level of 2.1, and the only reason it is not still falling, as it probably is throughout Europe, is because of immigration from outside of the EU. When people say it is rising in the UK (currently about 1.8, but some EU states are as low as 1.5 or 1.3), that's only through the much higher than replacement level TFRs of S. Asians and to a lesser extent, Africans. That's the issue to focus upon. That, and the fact that encouraging the brighter 50% to go into higher education and the workplace will mean delaying motherhood in that half of the population and thus tilting the birthrate towards the less cognitively able, i.e swelling the numbers in the lower half of the distribution, which is already being swelled by increased S. Asian and African immigration and their higher birth rates. So in time, there will be lots of workers, but not many chiefs. This is not about race, skin colour etc, it is all about behaviour - reproductive/kinship/family behaviour.

Anti-Sex Discrimination legislation and female emancipation is probably the major driver of compensatory immigration from outside the EU, and to the extent that the indigenous population pressures THEM to adopt their secular ways, they will in fact pressure them to join them in what is demonstrably reproductive-unfitness, i.e. a genetic suicidal pact (TFRs in S. Asians are falling, and one does see them becoming secular). They are right to resist, yet the indigenous population is encouraged to vilify Islam as sexist and subversive.

There are all kinds of pressures on females to go into education and the workplace today, but it is that which drives the birth rate down, especially amongst the more educable. It is that which is driving EU governments to open their doors to non-EU immigration.

In a nutshell, the very thing which the developed world is most proud of and which NGOs try to impress upon other non liberal-democratic nations under the auspices of UN charters, i.e. equalities and human rights, is in fact their nemesis. Those nations resisting self-destructive imperialism are therefore wise to resist are they not?

This has the hallmark of demographic warfare blowback.

  • 397.
  • At 10:07 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Thomas Bolton wrote:

It took several hundreds of years for the (then) United Kingdom to succssfully persuade its diverse people into accepting major differences in political belief and religion. Since the sell-out of Britain by Edward Heath in the 1970's there has been a continual programme changing the British Isles into an experimental multi-ethnic society with no permanent roots and probably very little future. In the name of sanity immigration should be strictly limited and in some cases reduced by a system of repatriation.

  • 398.
  • At 10:12 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Tracey Beesley wrote:

Immigration in the numbers we have experienced in the last 2 years can never be a good thing. Some areas of London have literally become "Polish", "Somalian", "Arab" - i.e. segregated in a matter of minutes. In my area, Eastern Europeans drink outside off-licences, often drink in parks and leave broken bottles and beer cans. Immigration? Too much of anything is never a good thing. I'm sick to death of it - we cannot handle any more and I do not feel it has given the kind of benefits the government want us to believe. There are too mnay people here - FACT!

  • 399.
  • At 10:15 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Phyllis Jones wrote:

I think we have far far too many immigrants in this country, they are exhausting all of our services, causing us to use our precious countryside for even more housing and they will break this, what was, a wonderful country. My grandson is unable to get an apprenticeship to train as an engineer, despite trying very hard. Our own children should be trained for jobs straight from school then there would not be this so called shortage that calls for immigrants to do the work. Certainly no-one with any sort of a criminal record should be allowed to come in to this country, and every immigrant that commits a crime should be deported, no question. All immigrants have chosen to come here therefore they must not try to change our culture but accept 100% our laws and customs and learn to live with us learn our language and respect our culure. We do not mind them following their own customs discreetly in their own homes, but do not try change ours please. There must be a limit on immigration or this country will sink. Something has to be done to change the current situation with immigration and it must be done now, cannot be put off any longer. This government has failed us miserably they must now work to try and amend their serious mistakes.

  • 400.
  • At 10:21 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Susan Jordan wrote:

Having just listened to the debate on Newsnight. I would like to comment that Labour's immigration spokeswoman seemed not to appreciate that the reason employers are taking on Poles and not British workers is because Poles are better workers. A recent Government review confirmed that employers think they are better. Sainsburys said many of them have a superior work ethic to domestic workers and tend to be more satisfied with their duties and productivity requirements. The NFU echoed this praising their ethos, efficiency and dependency. The Labour spokeswoman also seemed not to appreciate that the reason that farmers are crying out for workers is that the Government has restricted the immigration for agricultural jobs and Poles are rejecting farming work for jobs that are more lucrative.

  • 401.
  • At 11:03 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Howard wrote:

The way in which contributions to this "debate" is framed is restricted to whether immigration is economically beneficial to Britain or whether "we as a society" have benefited culturally from immigration. But a number of contributions widen the debate to identity. Immigration currently is nearly always described in terms of net immigration as if the only issue was numbers and their resource implications. But just imagine a hypothetical situation in which the entire population of Britain was replaced, overnight, by say, Chinese or Nigerians, one for one. Net immigration zero, society totally different. Clearly population size is not the only or even the most important real issue when considering the effects of immigration.
It has recently been forecast that ethnic minorities, who are now said to account for 9% of the population, with all the statistical rigour for which the current government is famous, will account for 29% by mid century within a population exceeding 70 million. This is because population outflows are predominantly indigenous British and population inflows are predominantly by non British. The Royal Navy's Admiral Parry submitted a strategic paper last year outlining what he saw as the key threats facing the country. Foremost among them was the presence in the country of large and unintegrated (because they have no wish to be) populations, many from the Indian subcontinent, living in their own culture, speaking their own languages and maintaining in many cases their own religiously and culturally defined animosity for the host population's values and way of life. The liberal/left mantra "our diversity is our strength" is clearly inspired by the view, expressed by one of the contributors to this debate, that national identity is a source of conflict and should be dismantled. But a Britain with 29% of so-called ethnic minorities, under no need to integrate as their numbers grow, will be a Britain in which the white British will be the minority in virtually every large town and where a minority of children nationally, let alone in the cities, will be indigenous British. To talk of social cohesion in this situation is a nonsense. If the situation is bad now when it comes to local authorities and companies banning or downgrading overtly Christian celebrations (the IPPR's recent recommendation to downgrade Christmas or put it on a par with other religions), think what it will be like in 2050.

  • 402.
  • At 11:16 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Nicholas Owen wrote:

It is not healthy for our political life that the discussion of a subject as important as immigration should be managed, or as some might say, rigged, as it was in your programme last night. Why were the three mainstream political parties the only ones to be represented? It is they, after all, who have between them given our country away, without consulting us. Why was Sir Andrew Green, who has single-handedly drawn attention to the extent of present and future of immigration, subjected to facetious heckling from a fellow panelist and sneers from Mr Estler ("who is going to empty your bedban?")? Why did the "expert panel" have to include a Rumanian official? Why did the programme not ask more ordinary members of the public what they wanted done about immigration?

  • 403.
  • At 11:22 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Robin McLean wrote:

I believ like a lot of people that we have taken enough immigrants into our small ISLAND country. We are now having to destroy a lot of our green belt land to make homes for all these people that have not paid a penny into our countries finances at all but get everything new. Our own friends and relatives cant get decent housing to rent as if you are not a foreign national you dont get the points to allow you have a nice new home that would be paid for by rent.Not benefits payments.

  • 404.
  • At 11:51 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • E Brown wrote:

One of the “economic benefits” of immigration is cheap vegetables and farm produce picked by immigrant labour because the pay is so poor no one in Britain will do it. Simultaneously we are paying higher taxes to keep British people who would have done this work on benefits. This is economic stupidity and only of very short-term value because eventually immigrant labour must progress and new immigrants will have to be brought in to replace it and the cycle continued.

It would make sense to pay more for these things by employing British Labour and not only take them out of unemployment, but avoid the massive social, health, housing and education costs that immigration brings in its train.

It is short-termism gone mad - we need immigrant labour so we can have money to spend on a mass of consumer items and cheap imported luxuries which we do not need.

About 30 years ago I recall politicians being advised take measures that would reduce the population of Britain to an economically sustainable level. I believe the figure aimed at was something in the order of 40-45 million.

To those who cite British imperialism as justification for immigration “We did it to them so we shouldn't complain if they do it to us” you are showing you're ignorance. Whatever the moral case against imperialism British historians have concluded that with one or two exceptions the British Empire was not worth the trouble, “A useless ragbag of territories, the result of a couple of centuries of wars and peace treaties. In short a political, economic and strategic liability”


  • 405.
  • At 11:52 AM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • John Holt wrote:

I watched the so-called immigration debate last night and there was no-one, but no-one who called for a proper controlled immigration system. They all spoke of controlling immigration for those coming in from outside the European Union (EU). How can that be a controlled system when most immigrants are from the EU,in the main from the 7 new Eastern EU countries. They are streaming in by their thousands contrary to what the government told us.

By all means let us have a points system which allows those with the necessary qualifications to come into our country, but let us not delude outselves there are thousands coming in who would not qualify under those criteria.

It is said that these immigrant add to our national wealth but it has been calculated that if you take into account the way in which these people draw on the NHS. the police, the education system and especially the housing then those low paid workers are adding a minus quantity to our wealth. Let us be clear it is largely because of uncontrolled immigration that millions of houses are going to be required over the next 20 year. Look at the cost to the country of the need for interpreters for those who can't speak our language and look at the crime imported, which is out of all proportion to that committed by the indigenous population. No the infrastructure of the country cannot deal with this large influx

The debate last night did not include one person who supported the only way in which this country can properly control immigration, so how can that be an impartial debate. The only way is to come out of the European Union and say to the bureaucrats in Brussels "In future we are going to control our borders. We will decide, using a sensible system, who can and can't come in, and those who do not meet that
criteria will be refused admission."

Coming out of the EU also has enormous other advantages like being able to use our contribution of billions of pounds, to fund our NHS, Police and Education system properly. Can some-one tell me why we continue to contribute this obscene sum to an organisation that its auditors have refused to pass the accounts for 12 years. Can someone tell me one advantage of being in the EU and don't, please don't, come up with the old, old story telling us that it is because of the EU that there has been no war since 1945. There have been wars on the continent and if anything it has been NATO that has been responsible for keeping the peace. One of your bloggers says diplomacy is the answer and of course that should be used wherever possible. It was Winston Churchill who said that jaw jaw was better than war war, but you can't negotiate with someone like Hitler. Chamberlain thought he could and look what happened. If anything is going to happen within the EU it is that nationalism will result in countries breaking away from the Federal State to become self governing again. That will happen when they realise how the EU is trying to control their lives It is happening here and they already produce 80% of our laws with them being nodded through our own parliament.When Gordon Brown passes the Act bringing into law the new Reform Treaty (European Constitution by another name) people will then realise that they have given away the right to rule ourselves. Parliament in Westminster will only be a talking shop with no power.

So come on everybody it is time to tell Mr Brown that we are having none of it, and we want a referendum on whether this Treaty should become law; or better still whether we should stay in the EU or come out and rule ourselves.

  • 406.
  • At 12:28 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • T Hussain wrote:

The immigration system is unbelievable in this country I was married to a women for a period of
6 months of which in total she was in the UK for 3 months living with me.
On the 1st day of arriving from Pakistan at Manchester Airport she revealed her motive which was the Entry into the UK a little divested as you can imagine...

She had received her Visa on the basis that I support her for 2 years then apply for a permanent Stay but if I stop supporting her she should leave immediately and submit a
application.

As you can gather from my story my marriage broke down in three months she left the house I applied for a divorce wrote to the immigration department in which a state
I do not support my estranged Wife and am in the process of a divorce and her motive into the country was an Entry into the UK.

I received information and advise from local MP's, Councillors, Solicitors and the advise I got was well there is nothing you can do the Immigration department refuse to help me while
the estranged wife moved in to 3 different properties so she could not be tracked down.

12 Months later she gets advise and goes down the path of domestic violence which when I asked the MP's Solicitors of what is going on it was a norm they said this is the best rout for her
to support her Visa application.
She Got public funding so she went to the extreme all because the immigration department are useless the procedures they have in place look like the have been put together by people like my Estranged
Wife.

My question is to the Immigration Ministers and the department of immigration is this what you call immigration law's?? Is this how you treat British citizens put them through hell.

Why do you bother complaining about immigration problems when clearly you are the ones at fault.

The immigration department have all the paper work all documents but my Estranged wife who is illegal in the Country roams freely without a problem because this is the rout you take to enter the country
I am discussed and appalled by the British Immigration Law's third world country's have better procedures then what we do all we do is talk..

Accept my apologies for being bitter and twisted but I am living a nightmare 14 months on.

Sorry Gavin,as usual where did this discussion help, it didn't it went straight out of the window;
Polls and surveys do nothing to help, they are a load of nonsense along with politicians,No significance whatso-ever.while our country is drowning under lack of border controls; who will take over first Illegal Immigrants or Nature.?

Not a word was mentioned on illegal Immigrants creeping in, taking our homes, then filling them with their families.
letbabsin Norfolk

  • 408.
  • At 12:36 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • r d grant wrote:


Uncontrolled immigration now reflects the public view of the EU. Loss of sovereinty,open borders, 84% 0f laws issue from unnelected officials in Brussels. What can you expect?

  • 409.
  • At 12:40 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Paul wrote:

Th IT tecnicians ensuring this website stays on line and this debate continues are probably immigrants.

  • 410.
  • At 12:47 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

It seems to me that whilst immigration has had a net benefit on the economy (and in my opinion culture), the costs of this are mostly borne by local public services. Seeing how it is private business who benefit the most from cheap labour, why shouldn't they pay extra corporation tax to reflect the economic costs of immigration? It seems that personal wealth in either Income Tax or Council Tax should be affected.

  • 411.
  • At 12:53 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • John Holt wrote:

In the immigration debate last night Nick Clegg made the comment that the percentage of people who had emigrated from Britain was higher than the percentage of those who were coming into our country. implying that the argument that our country was becoming overcrowded was invalid. Come off it Mr Clegg your argument is tortological; you are not comparing like with like as those UK citizens have migrated to dozens of different countries.
If you want to do a strict comparison then you must look at the number of UK citizens that have moved into a specific country and see then what their percentage is. Still that is typical of the sort of argument put out by the Lib Dims who would have us in Europe before you could blink. Incidently does everybody know that the European Constitution says that the currency of the European Union SHALL be the Euro. No? Well if this Reform Treaty goes through that is what the final outcome will be. Make no mistake the Reform Treaty is dynamite for our country and before we know it we will be subsumed into a Federal Europe from which it will be difficult to escape.

  • 412.
  • At 12:55 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Tom wrote:

It seems to me that whilst immigration has had a net benefit on the economy (and in my opinion culture), the costs of this are mostly borne by local public services. Seeing how it is private business who benefit the most from cheap labour, why shouldn't they pay extra corporation tax to reflect the economic costs of immigration? It seems wrong that personal wealth in either Income Tax or Council Tax should be affected.

  • 413.
  • At 01:05 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Simon wrote:

When talking about immigration and the health service the advocates of mass immigration point out that without it we won't have enough doctors and nurses, but there is little discussion on the morals of taking healthcare staff from other countries who surely need them just as much?

Also I don't see how a population of 70+ million is going to be anything other than an extra strain on the health service.

  • 414.
  • At 01:17 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Emmanuel wrote:


In discussing this very sensitive issue, I will urge those in the know not to forget the historical factors that have contributed to Britain being a popular destination for other nationals. Any debate over the topic will be incomplete without a thorough understanding of history, and i sincerely believe that the solution to the challenges not the 'problem' lies in here.
In as much as the issues present challenges, there are immense benefits for the country as a whole, if well understood and the right approach and attitude is adopted to tackle it.

  • 415.
  • At 01:41 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • L Evans wrote:

NEWSNIGHT
• Immigration: subject too large to air in such a short space of time but thank you for a glimpse of the problems.
• Labour politician was almost clueless and reacting to problems they have caused – too late now the horse has bolted comes to mind.
• MigrationWatch only trustworthy statistics – they have no political axe to grind
• Cohesion: If you forget the ‘human rights’ and customs and cultures (Christmas/Easter) of the indigenous people, you will never have cohesion. Trevor Phillips is investigating the issue of queue jumping in the social housing lists for example. He has promised to do something about it if it is found that newcomers are jumping the housing list. Of course they are jumping the housing list because most local authorities use a points system whereby families with children get priority. Many Asian families have more children than British Caucasian families do thus enabling them to ‘score higher points’ and jump the queue. The points system, I have been told does not prioritise the length of time someone is on the list this is particularly true for single people. No wonder long time residents feel resentful if this is the way ‘fairness’ is dealt with.
Also many councils are spending too much money on translation, this money should be used for English lessons only. It is not right that we have street signs in Asian or any other languages underneath English .
• We welcome a controlled number of skilled workers and do not welcome economic migrants or illegal immigrants. Clegg was wrong to say that we should ignore the 500,000 plus illegals as it’s too expensive to remove them. It is because of successive government’s failure to remove them that they have fallen into the legal black hole whereby lawyers, knowing the system, lengthen the process of removal. Some laws need changing.
• Religion at schools: Would adopting the French style work better – no religious symbols at all especially dress. No veils at any school for example and these should be banned in some professions, especially teaching and anywhere else where in our Western Culture we use facial expression as our means of communication.
• Crime: Deport any foreign national committing serious crimes punishable by imprisonment.


  • 416.
  • At 01:50 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Daniel wrote:

The fact of the matter is that any benefit immigration gives to an economy ..... the costs out way the benefit.

The UK is to blame for its own misery in this field, if the british government for hundreds of years didn't invade places and civilise the "Savages" as they saw every native people.

You wouldn't have the huge influx and diverse population you already have, partly because the problems in the indian sub-continent, Africa, Middle East and Ireland were the fault of "Partition" and "Plantation of foreign workers" which has happened everywhere the empire set foot.

If you want to solve this problem for good!

You must revoke the British Nationality Act of the early 20th centuary which enabled all the migrants to go to britain in the first place.......


and pullout of the EU!

The situation is britain unless you look back to the past for an ideal time will prevent the UK turning into the Balkans which it is already sleepwalking into.

The politicians need a mature debate that enables the Anti-Immigration parties to argue their points without the pro-factions being childish and calling their counterparts Racist

Enoch Powell was right in predicting what would happen in Britain.

Oh and by the way, I'm Irish and have moved back home because I couldn't tolerate the UK any longer!

  • 417.
  • At 02:30 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Paul wrote:

This debate should centre not upon Economics, or the need to have certain skilled or unskilled positions filled by a migrant workforce. The discussion is far more fundamental than that. It is quite simply a question of the existence of British Culture and influence. Migration occurs because people believe that they can obtain a better quality of life for themselves or their families by moving to Great Britain. The reason they believe this is because of the culture of English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish peoples over several centuries have cultivated a society that in terms of our freedoms at least, people have dreamed of since antiquity. If you dilute that society with cultures that have not attained such maturity, then the indigenous culture will to some extent cease to exist. If immigration continues British cultural identity will be dissolved, and I for one believe that is a bad thing for the world.

On a brighter note I’m moving to Australia, so it’s not my problem!

  • 418.
  • At 02:33 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • D.R. wrote:

It's quite clear that there is little real difference on this issue between the 3 main parties. Last night's programme confirmed this. Everyone in the studio (apart from Sir Andrew Green, perhaps) were naive at best and downright mendacious at worst. Unfortunately, the Greens have also ducked this issue even though there are plenty of negative environmental concerns as a consequence of a rapidly rising population, largely fuelled by immigration of one sort or another. So who's left to support? UKIP - yes, I'm giving up on the EU now because of this issue, but they are in favour of globalised free trade, and I'm not - a rather important difference of opinion. The BNP seem to tick a lot of boxes - but there are too many - how can I put this? - unsubtle, ill-educated nutters in the party. "Caught between a rock and a hard place" comes to mind.

  • 419.
  • At 03:09 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • stuart pedder wrote:

My reason for commenting are simply my concerns about the impacts of increased population on the quality of life for everyone in the UK.

We are told that immigration should be encouraged because it provides economic benefits, but the case has never properly been made.

From a simple perspective: suppose that the population of the UK were to double. Presumably the GDP of the UK would also double. Is this an economic benefit ?

Probably not to the ordinary person because the GDP per capita would remain the same.

What about Government ? Would I have to pay less tax ? Presumably not, because the extra taxes collected would need to be spent on twice as many services: eg schools, police, hospitals, roads, etc.

Presumably there would be some economies of scale. We would still only need one armed forces, for example. So there could be some economic benefit to Government – but then again no one has promised to reduce taxation.

So, there could be some extra income for Government, but what’s the down-side ?
Twice as many people means we need twice as much infrastructure: houses, schools, roads, water, electricity, etc. Is this realistic or even feasible ?

For example, London has recently been looking at using expensive desalinated water because there aren’t any other sources that are either commercially viable or environmentally acceptable. The same argument could also be applied to many of the other essential facilities that underpin our current society.

Also, its worth considering that at the moment we are only paying enough in taxes and utility bills to maintain the assets that we have. If the population increases, who will pay to build the new infrastructure required ?

I have a nagging worry that this is really about needing a larger working age population to pay for an aging population. If so, the answer might not be large scale immigration. We really need to work out what are the real costs and benefits.

Dear Sirs:

Like it or not because the world is more populated today than it has ever been before and all citizens are more fearlful than ever, we all are going to have to recognize that every country has its good and evil folks. That being the fact of life we are going to have to accept the formation of a world government, not like the current weak United Nations, but one in which all nations have equal say in world affairs and the combatants, no matter their nationality, restricted to the good guys and the bad guys of all nations. Watch and see the changes take place.

  • 421.
  • At 03:28 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Terry wrote:

I have little doubt that the claimed economic benefits of immigration are being grossly overestimated and exaggerated by the government for political reasons. Moreover, I suspect that any minor benefits will be very short term and narrow in scope.

But, most importantly, these supposed benefits are more than offset by the negative effects of overcrowding in this small country and the consequent loss in quality of life. The UK is already grossly overpopulated such that the current population is unsustainable.

Every extra immigrant means more countryside vanishing under concrete to build housing, roads and other infrastructure; more congestion on the roads and planes in the sky; more chemical pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions; more noise pollution; greater resource usage, most especially energy, water and food; and so on and so on. And all this leaves less and less space for wildlife and unspoilt countryside.

A sensible and responsible government would put in place policies to reduce the UK's population, not open our borders and encourage mass immigration, which is the policy of the present government.

The manner in which politicians (and BBC presenters) only ever discuss immigration in terms of its effect on the economy is particularly annoying. Of far greater importance, especially in the long-term, is its effect on our environment, which is entirely negative.

PJ Green (278),

"Population desity
Belgium 798 people per sq mile
Germany 604
France 272
Ireland 135
Italy 505
Spain 205
US 75
UK 625"

England 998 (i.e.UK without Scotland, N.I., and Wales)

S Carmichel (286), Rae (296),

I hear you.

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed

None of our men are "experts." We have most unfortunately found it necessary
to get rid of a man as soon as he thinks himself an expert -- because no one
ever considers himself expert if he really knows his job. A man who knows a
job sees so much more to be done than he has done, that he is always pressing
forward and never gives up an instant of thought to how good and how efficient
he is. Thinking always ahead, thinking always of trying to do more, brings a
state of mind in which nothing is impossible. The moment one gets into the
"expert" state of mind a great number of things become impossible.
-- From Henry Ford Sr., "My Life and Work"

  • 423.
  • At 03:58 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Trent wrote:

Too much immigration is one of the reasons we study history just to forget it.

Does not anyone recall what happened to Rome when it accepted mass immigration?

  • 424.
  • At 04:18 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Dave R wrote:

My wife, who has been through the immigration process and is currently here on a 2 year visa, has two masters degrees. She is working full time and paying taxes and national insurance with no recourse to public benefits. She is subject to our laws, pays our taxes, and yet has no right to vote in our elections.

Because she is American rather than Polish or Belgian (insert any other non-English speaking country here), she's having to take her driving test rather than drive on her foreign license.

Because she's American rather than an EU citizen, we've had to jump through innumerable hoops, paid an awful lot of money, and have driven across the country to attend visa interviews.

The immigration process for non-EU nationals is full of red tape, delays, and nitpicky and intrusive questions. When her 'further leave to remain' visa expires, she'll have to sit a joke of a pub quiz (how many people in Britain own homes/what proportion of the country is Catholic/what dates do the saints days fall on each year) to justify permanent leave to remain in our country - because obviously her qualifications, background in another english speaking country, clean police record and full continuous employment don't mean as much as a humiliating trivia quiz.

  • 425.
  • At 05:06 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Tim M. wrote:

There are two key issues here.

The first is democracy - if Government ever asked the UK electorate "what do you want us to do about immigration?" then the answer, like it or not, would be decisive, straightforward, and negative - they would want it halted or, at the very least, greatly reduced. If we aspire to be a democracy, then sometimes we should accept the view of the majority, even if it doesn't happen to be particularly comfortable, or liberal.

Second, the new dimension is that current projections for global population growth are unsustainable, most notably in terms of resources - these pressures are already becoming evident in oil prices, food prices, etc., though the biggest resource constraint of the lot could yet prove to be water.

These issues are linked, because over-population (in relation to the earth's resource base) is going to heighten the pressures over immigration. Sooner or later, Government is going to have to back the majority, restrictionist view - palatable or not.

  • 426.
  • At 05:22 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • steve wrote:

Its good the BBC is finally presenting immigration as the big issue. more programmes on this issue are needed to allow us the public (both sides) to vent steam if anything. Government action? I doubt it under Lib/Lab/Con.
A caller from Peterborough rang a cord when he mentioned only Employment Agencies being the only benefitaries of immigration. These parasites are intrinsic in keeping wages down for everyone. They facilitate immigration as key middlemen in the process of providing cheap labour.

  • 427.
  • At 05:27 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Paul Johnston wrote:

On the whole I think immigration has been a good thing for this country.It seems to me that the majority of people that come here do so to work, not to calim benefits as some people may fear.I think they come to seek oppertunity and the prospect of advancement, whether through education or the chance to earn more money through work than they could in their own country.
I do think however that it should be controlled. There are people who we do not want to come to this country, such as convicted criminals or people who do not respect the immigration process and enter illegally.
A common sense approach should be taken with these people. They should be deported and their identities kept on file to prevent them from re-entering. Surely this is possible?
Race sometimes gets mixed up in this debate and I can't understand why. It's about numbers not skin colour. We live on a small island and need to consider carefully who we allow to come here. I understand that many aspects of immigration may not be in our control, but we should make sure that the areas we do control are done so with much more care and scrutiny than they have been previously.
We need immigrants. Diversity is a good and healthy thing for a country. There are many pro and cons to this debate and we must consider them all carefully. Politicians must tread carefully. They must respect the opinions and concerns of the host community, and in many ways they must come first.
(p.s Paxamn rules!!!!)

  • 428.
  • At 05:35 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • John T wrote:

Firstly, imo, when we talk about migrants, etc, we should remember we are talking about real people, human beings, not statistics but people with hopes, fears, dreams, etc just like the rest of us. They should be treated with common decency and any exploitation should be stamped on hard.

Secondly,. The debate on the programme was as other have said unbalanced: there does need to be more open debate, this was not really it. I don’t mean the BNP should be invited, just that a wider range of opinion should have been present, there are critics of the current policies on the left, you know, the consensus held by the politicians was so obvious.

However, to say that the levels of migrant labour, etc, aren't a problem and have no consequences is disingenuous. The Blair/Brown axis has basically lost control of our borders in the last ten years and the levels of migration can be argued to be unsustainable. Part of the neo-liberal project has been the development of the UK as basically a cheap labour transit camp fuelled by exploitation of migrants, that ultimately will have major implications for long term public support of the welfare state, etc.

How would a welfare state survive in such a situation?, sentiment towards contributing to the public good would soon disappear and of course capital would no longer need to provide welfare for indigenous citizens as it would always have a undiminishing supply of labour. This is already happening with the Welfare Reform Act: the minister saying 'well, migrants work in these 'menial jobs so why can't disabled people, single parents, etc.

Amongst politicians and even much of the left, there is an almost willful aloofness and a total lack of understanding and concern for the impact such changes will have on existing communities, its impact on positive sentiment and willingness to pay for a comprehensive welfare state as indeed all that is solid melts into air. Most of all the denigration of ordinary working people who dare to challenge this rose tinted view as racist is unforgiveable

  • 429.
  • At 05:58 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Martin wrote:

Anyone who openly opposes this mass immigration into our country, or who attempts to tackle the thorny issue of 'race' is immediately vilified as a narrow-minded bigot and racist. This mostly applies to anyone from the native white working-class population. The paradox is that it is exactly these people who are the "true victims of racism". They are the victims of this governments own insidious (albeit bloodless,...'so far'!) form of ethnic cleansing. We are subjected constantly to the indoctrination of 'radical multiculturalist ideology', even to the point of being duped into cooperating willingly in our own demographic demise, which we're expected to view as desirable. How utterly perverse!
As far as this government is concerned, the native white population of England are just a horde of expendable nonentities with no valid right to exist, let alone have an opinion (unless it's theirs of course). We simply don't count! The best thing English people can do to save their country and themselves is to resist the urge to flee their towns and cities (white flight). Stay put in this country, England, named after them, by them and for them, consolidate, hold your ground and do not budge for anyone!. Why should we allow ourselves to be driven out of our own ancestral land?
Multiculturalism is a racist crime against humanity, 'our humanity!'

  • 430.
  • At 06:07 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Anthony wrote:

I watched two programmes with interest last night. Newsnight’s Big Immigration Debate and Question Time. The two shows had MPs, two being a Cabinet member, and respected political commentators. The two shows had a surprising lack of realistic comment. Though this could be seen as unsurprising given the level of ineptness in our society today, especially in our Government.
The Big Immigration Debate had a lot of figures bandied about but didn’t really make any decision about what they meant. There race card was played which stifled debate to the Governments minister’s relief/benefit. This minister had relied on the stating that they were imposing stricter controls on our borders. If these controls are anything like the Governments response to unsocial behaviour then our borders will remain wide open. It was raised that the UK indigenous population were xenophobic and racist with why should we be afraid of immigrants. Many analogies were used to endear the British public to immigrants and to vilify themselves to there own thoughts and experiences. Nobody raise the analogy “if you immerse in a basin of water you have enough to wash your face but if you are immersed in a swimming pool of water you WILL drown in it” This whole debate didn’t really focus on the fact that a large part of the UK is worried about immigration by the scale and speed of it.
After this I turned over to Question Time to hear much talk from the panel that echoed what you hear again and again from politicians. Rhetoric spouted messages of warmth and cheer to endear the speaker to the public as being full of the milk of human kindness. This good nature would be heaven IF we all lived in Utopia, but we don’t.
There was one voice on the panel that shone out. That was of Douglas Murray. He made two very forthright statements. The first was connected to the immigration issue with the fact that immigration HAS greatly changes British society. Mr Murray highlight that this fact was never acknowledged or addressed because the race card is always played. This fear of the race card has allowed Mugabe to destroy Zimbabwe without fear of intervention from US, UK, France, Germany etc. So the race card has probably lead to the death and torture of many million black people around the world than those it has helped up the employment ladder in the western world.
The other point was the funding of our armed forces. Lord Heseltine delivered a moving speech that the men and their families should have better support from the funding but he refused to suggest any figures to the level of funding. Home office minister Tony McNulty hid behind figures of stating we spend more on the armed forces now than we have done in the past. I spend 3x what I did on bread today than I did ten years ago. But I still only buy one loaf! Liberal Democrat MP Vince Cable played the Iraq card saying that shouldn’t be in Iraq then there were not be a problem. Well if we weren’t what would we have done to stop the tyrannical regime persecuting its own people and then, when it got nuclear weapons, terrorising the entire region. If we never acted against anything, Mr Cable, we do not need ANY armed forces at all. The only voice of realism was Mr Murray. He quite rightly said that the funding level should at least double I GDP terms (from 2% to 4%+). Also if Afghanistan and Iraq have over stretched our armed forces the future is very insecure if any major forces are called for?
Society has taken tolerance to much to heart. I remember my school days with different consideration towards me. I neither was the brightest or the dumbest nor was I the worst or the best behaved child. I was dealt with in different manners by different teachers. Looking back I respect and am thankful to the teachers who were the strictest and severe with me as they taught me most but academically and socially. Now public figures avoid the hard line approach as they feel they will not be liked and so society is lead be pink and fluffy brigades who think life is Utopia. This is slowly destroying society as there are many hard lessons and realisms that have to be dealt with through life.
I feel the Big Immigration Debate could have been settled by one fact. The 7million increase in the UK’s population directly from immigration over the next 10-15 yrs will require 216 houses per DAY to be built to house them. Would this be sustainable if achievable? The answer is NO. END of the debate – close or severely limit entry to the UK. OR- get used to living in the UK- the largest housing estate in the world. Now thats a way into the record books.

  • 431.
  • At 06:35 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • robert wrote:

The detatchment of Parliament from reality and from the people is becoming a serious crises for us all,they have openly stopped representing the wishes of the people,the only person recognisable as someone representing the people is Franck Field,just one person out of six hundred who you could call Honourable.

  • 432.
  • At 09:29 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • robert wrote:

Newsnight opened the debate with the poll stating three quarters against goverment policy, under the BBC mandate there is an obligation to strike a fair balance which is equated according to support, so to equate fair balance three quarters of the panel should be on the side of the people, yet instead comprised all the partys of Westminster who are all pro-immigration,is there no one at the BBC on the side of the people against this undemocratic cabal.

  • 433.
  • At 09:38 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • dave wrote:

it appears to me that the beeb is fulfilling one of it's fundamental roles ie to generate free debate whatever your view on the subject being debated. Rather here than most other other parts of the world.

  • 434.
  • At 10:05 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • Adrienne wrote:

Rather than repeat it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/11/thursday_8_november_2007_the_big_immigration_debat.html#c4021037

For 'halve' read 'have'. Dissenters please refute.

  • 435.
  • At 10:18 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • W Mobberley wrote:

This is not a debate. It is government propaganda.

And where is Nick Griffin among the lineup of people with opinions?

Love it or loathe it the BNP is a legitimate political party. When it is gaining seats and in many areas outperforming the Liberal democrats it is scandalous that we never see Nick Griffin in televised discussions.

Agree or disagree with him, his absence shows that the last thing on earth the government or the BBC want is proper debate.

What the immigration fiasco does prove is that we shouldn't be in Europe as we are controlled and have no real power to make a difference in any case.

  • 436.
  • At 10:55 PM on 09 Nov 2007,
  • robert wrote:

The tragedy is that the BNP manifesto on immigration is sensible and moderate compared to the extremist policys of Nu-lab, who are determined to build 260 houses a day to support immigration policy when it is already known that all natural rescources needed such as gas,water,electric,food,somewhere to put rubbish,etc,is unsustainable even to the 60 million population now.

  • 437.
  • At 02:25 AM on 10 Nov 2007,
  • edith crowther wrote:

Am trying to read all the posts, also watching Jools Holland on BBC2. Jools has just interviewed the Dutch director of the film about Joy Division, he asked why the whole film was in black and white. The Dutchman gave a couple of reasons to do with Joy Division's image; he then paused and added, plus he visited the North of England before starting the film and he thought it was rather bleak.

So I have broken off reading about half-way through because this chimes exactly with my feeling that it is most unchristian of us to simply ditch half the people in our country and leave them to rot in poverty. There is some extreme poverty in the South as well, but only in pockets, e.g. around Brighton, in Folkestone, Portsmouth, Southampton, Kings Lynn, much of Cornwall, some of Plymouth - there is quite a list but obviously it is much worse up North and always has been. Tourists only visit the postcard places - I think that Dutchman may have got a bit of a shock.

The perception is that it is unchristian not to welcome strangers - but how about if you are chucking your own family out of your house and lavishing everything on strangers instead? Don't forget, the Good Samaritan was the wealthy outsider, aiding the native in trouble. The road from Jerusalem in Judah to Jericho in Israel went through border country, but Samaritans were and still are a distinct race and religion within Judaism, whom Jesus' people disliked in general at that time. The Good Samaritan paid for the Judean to recuperate, he didn't go any further than that - all Jesus meant was that you should be kind to your neighbour even if he is your enemy. He didn't mean you should hand him the family silver - that would be unjust to the family so it would hardly have crossed his mind to say anything like this.

I agree with all the posts that are against further immigration, and especially the ones that say it should stop now. The successive elites of this country have sold their own people down the river for far far too long - and it seems to be getting worse, unbelievably, with an expanded trough accommodating hundreds of thousands of indigenous snouts instead of just a few thousand, earning so much they have to stash it offshore. Then they complain their country is disappearing. Well of course it is going to disappear if they don't see that their disenfranchised, outcast fellow countrymen are canaries in the mine presaging their own fate if they don't clean up the whole act. First step - throw away the trough. And joint first step - stop criticising your suicidal young compatriots for behaving like desperadoes without a future, drinking themselves to death like the Amerindians in their reservations, and collecting ASBOs like kamikaze badges of honour. They don't have a future, unless you count slave labour and migrant worker accommodation and migrant worker wages for your entire life as a future for the descendants of the people who built our industrial and agricultural wealth with their toil, ruining their health so others could prosper. Also, read some history of your own country. Your parents hell did slowly go by, so teach your children well.

I thought the poem by Wappaho (somewhere around 200) was a gem - it said it all in a charming, sweet-and-sour way. But it will take more than a poem to put things right, probably.

  • 438.
  • At 04:55 AM on 10 Nov 2007,
  • John W wrote:

Political trends come and go, sooner or later people are going to tire of all this immigration and the huge problems that go with it. When that happens Tony Blair, Jack Straw etc are going to have alot to answer for.

  • 439.
  • At 10:39 AM on 10 Nov 2007,
  • ray adams wrote:

We do not need a "faux" debate on immigration from the PC BBC. STop virtually all immigration now and take stock of the current crisis.The political elite have nothing worth hearing to say on the matter.

  • 440.
  • At 11:01 AM on 10 Nov 2007,
  • ray adams wrote:

We do not need a "faux" debate on immigration from the PC BBC. STop virtually all immigration now and take stock of the current crisis.The political elite have nothing worth hearing to say on the matter.

  • 441.
  • At 01:52 PM on 10 Nov 2007,
  • RobW wrote:

First of all, every claimant on Jobseeker's Allowance is required to provide evidence that they are looking for work. The reason there are so many unemployed within the indigenous population is because employers do not want them.

Secondly - as Tony McNulty pointed out when giving evidence to a Parliamentary select committee - most workers coming into the UK from the EU are being employed by Irish construction companies. Please understand this!

  • 442.
  • At 02:02 PM on 10 Nov 2007,
  • RobW wrote:

First of all, every claimant on Jobseeker's Allowance is required to provide evidence that they are looking for work. The reason there are so many unemployed within the indigenous population is because employers do not want them.

Secondly - as Tony McNulty pointed out when giving evidence to a Parliamentary select committee - most workers coming into the UK from the EU are being employed by Irish construction companies. Please understand this!

As Adrienne says,

To avoid repeating:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/11/thursday_8_november_2007_the_big_immigration_debat.html#c4050482

xx
ed

The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n.
-- John Milton

  • 444.
  • At 05:32 PM on 10 Nov 2007,
  • J.D Endlıch wrote:

I wholeheartedly approve of the increased migration in to Britain -thınk of all the benefits it has brought us. We can keep the unskilled jobs at rock bottom wage levels knowıng that someone from a poorer country will do them. Otherwise we would have had to pay our own workers more.Perish the thought! And think how many more jobs this can create and how much cheaper we can produce commodities!. And think of all the jobs we can create in provıdıng leisure centres,community centres,cars and all the other requirements of a larger population! Furthermore by bringing in more and more people we ensure that there is a permanent shortage of accommodation which keeps our house prices nicely bouyant thank you. Well we all own a house dont we? And furthermore by welcoming in more and more migrants we can feel sure that they will have to settle in the poorer quarters thereby forcing all those Brıtısh working class bigots that they will live alongside to be tolerant,diverse and multi-cultural with their neigbours. So all in all, a win-win situation...

  • 445.
  • At 06:30 PM on 10 Nov 2007,
  • robert wrote:

I have evry faith in democracy and the good sense of the majority of the people,for instance no two democracies have ever gone to war,but what we have now is a dangerous development in that democracy is not working because parliament has become a politicly correct cabal who are not representing the people,the clear majority clearly seeing the politicians are taking the country to a balkanised disaster. The BBC called for an honest debate, in truth and in shame to our "goverment" the only honest debate has been when Nick Griffen has been allowed to speack,opinion polls show the majority in favour of their immigration policies.For anyone to make up there own mind the few times he has been allowed to speack the truth are available on You-tube.

  • 446.
  • At 06:48 PM on 10 Nov 2007,
  • wappaho wrote:

quote:

Anti-Sex Discrimination legislation and female emancipation is probably the major driver of compensatory immigration from outside the EU, and to the extent that the indigenous population pressures THEM to adopt their secular ways, they will in fact pressure them to join them in what is demonstrably reproductive-unfitness, i.e. a genetic suicidal pact (TFRs in S. Asians are falling, and one does see them becoming secular). They are right to resist, yet the indigenous population is encouraged to vilify Islam as sexist and subversive.

????????????????????????????

  • 447.
  • At 09:55 PM on 10 Nov 2007,
  • Chris M wrote:

444."And furthermore by welcoming in more and more migrants we can feel sure that they will have to settle in the poorer quarters thereby forcing all those Brıtısh working class bigots that they will live alongside to be tolerant,diverse and multi-cultural with their neigbours..."

Consider the possibility that it is you who are the bigot J.D Endlich: you appear to be nothing other than a trouble maker.

  • 448.
  • At 10:49 PM on 10 Nov 2007,
  • edith crowther wrote:


Rob (441/2) - I trust you mean that employers don't want native workforce because it is easier to exploit foreign one? You need to say so, if that is what you mean, because our nasty money-obsessed middle classes will interpret it as meaning natives are uncouth, ill-educated, and bolshy. As they should be, given what they have had to endure - but amazingly, for the most part they are not. They are just not going to swallow what a migrant will swallow, i.e. they are not going to prostitute themselves unless they have to.

J.D. Endlich (444) - your brain cells have been replaced by pound signs (or euro signs). Same goes for several earlier posts - can't be bothered to list them all. Those who have gained the world and lost their souls, know who they are. It is never too late to repent and become human. Watch film Groundhog Day.

Ed Iglehart (422) - aha, so England without the rest of the UK is THE most densely populated country in the entire world. That's what it feels like. Ed Iglehart for Minister of Information (and Culture while he's about it, what with all those terrific quotes.) By the way, re earlier trinity of posts, repetition can be curative (watch film Groundhog Day).

Wappaho (455) - once again, you have hit the nail on the head. Anything secular is prey to the wiles of Mammon. The road to ruin. Religion very often our only shield - doesn't matter which religion. Immigrant women are supposed to go out there and HAVE IT ALL, thus enriching a handful of scummy people (they know who they are). Arabs never put old people in homes, or babies in nurseries, in their own countries. Who is civilised then?

Thanks again, Edith. I have to correct you, though. Ebgland is only the fourth most densely populated country in the world, and that excluding such places as Monaco and Singapore. The most densely populated big place is Bangladesh, followed by S Korea and Netherlands. England is close behind Netherlands, and it may be a matter of which data one uses.

In any event, GB/UK is one eighth less self-sufficient in agriculture than a decage before, and Our Great Leaders seem proud of it. We will need supernatural help if the rest of the world decide to eat rather than export food and flowers.
http://users.gazinter.net/melan/Warn/Warnenu.htm

On the other hand, I live in the second-least densely populated part of GB - second only to the highlands. More trees and sheep than folk. Namelink will tell.

Have a stiff drink to hand if you follow this link:
http://www.dieoff.com

Assalaam 'alaikum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuhu
Peace, God's mercy and blessings be upon you (and all of us!)

ed

Blessed are they that have nothing to say, and who cannot be persuaded to say it.
-- James Russell Lowell


  • 450.
  • At 09:54 AM on 11 Nov 2007,
  • Adrienne wrote:

This comment was prompted by #5 posted to the Newsnight blog of
9th, but it seemed more appropriate to post it here. It has to be read carefully as it can easily be misunderstood and it covers a lot of ground. It's essentially
just about enclaves, failure to assimilate and the exploitation of human rights to further kinship and thus self-interest at the expense of those more genetically distant. Nation states serve to create gene barriers. Those barriers only partly break down through migration if large numbers migrate and remember that large scale migration has been used in the past as a political tool to wage demographic warfare.

Some mass migrations of the past, like today, were premised on claims of mass persecution or mortal danger (e.g. East European/Russian Jews in the Pale of Settlement in the late 19th and early C20th and Jews in Germany in the 1930s), but when looked at critically, the circumstances were not always (as they are not today) as clear cut as some of the asylum seekers suggest.

Wherever ethnic groups create enclaves rather than assimilate to the host nation, it's inevitable that resource conflict will arise to the extent that migrants create nations within nations, each living by their own laws and customs. Tsarist Russia created the Pale of Settlement (from the Baltic states to Ukraine and the Crimea) for the Jews but with few exceptions barred them from Moscow and elsewhere. This could have been seen as the creation of a nation state but the exclusion was perceived by some in the Jewish Pale as persecution and discrimination, which to some extent it clearly was. But by the same token, the Jewish community comprised a closed group living by its own rules which non Jews were largely unfamiliar with because of language and other endogamous barriers. The same was true in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. Hitler believed the Jews to be an 'enemy within' as many (clearly not all, and that's critically important) were disproportionately affiliated with International Bolshevism and speculative finance which he regarded as threats to Germany's and Europe's stability. This led to WWII, Poland having the largest population of Jews next to Russia (together amounting for 6.5m, more than 2/3 of Europe's Jewish population) which was first and foremost a war against International Bolshevism. Chamberlain's appeasement policy was only half the story, as before the war, Lord Halifax had conveyed Chamberlain's thanks to Hitler for dealing so effectively with the Bolshevik threat to Europe. Roosevelt was keen to keep the USA out until late 1941, and Kennedy, the US Ambassador to London was sympathetic to Germany even as late as the Battle of Britain. Today, few doubt that in the early years of the war, Hitler planned to forcibly relocate (now a war crime under UN and EU Articles) Europe's Jews to a new homeland (possibly Madagascar) just as Stalin had tried to through the creation of Autonomous Birobidzhan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birobidzhan

What happened in and after 1941 is still controversial as many of the 'Holocaust Denial' cases in recent times have shown, but one thing is for certain, a lot of people died in the second world war as a consequence of Britain and France going to Poland's defence in 1939 so perhaps the appeals from some commentators that the Poles helped Britain in the war is somewhat Kafkaesque given the facts of the matter.

My overall point in this comment is that mass migration and asylum seeking is not always all that it seems. Have a critical look at the 'Moving Here' material below and note what happened in East London after the great influx at the turn of the C20th century:

http://www.movinghere.org.uk/galleries/histories/jewish/origins/origins.htm#emigration
http://www.movinghere.org.uk/search/catalogue.asp?sequence=105&resourcetypeID=2&recordID=44818

After this influx to the UK (and on to NYC where the Jewish community grew to just under 5m by 1912) the next few decades saw some of the greatest political instability that Europe and the USA has ever experienced. Look at which countries became the evil empires. Which groups had they threatened? Whilst still a highly controversial subject, just how many died in Eastern Europe after 1941, how many were moved and lost, is still an open question if one looks into it all critically. For example, many died from diseases like typhus largely as a consequence of saturation carpet bombing of Germany by the allies (cf. Belsen, many after the camp was liberated by the Allies) and it should be noted that the so called death camps (in allied post war propaganda, 'death mills') were located in what was to be Soviet territory, were liberated by the USSR from 1944 onwards, and remained behind the iron Curtain until 1989. Very little was said about 'The Holocaust' after the war in the USSR, which is odd given that the USSR provided most if not all of the physical evidence of the more horrific aspects at the Holocaust at the Nuremberg IMT. Much of the more bizarre macabre material such as shrunken heads, lampshades made from human skin, steaming machines having been fabricated or distorted by incarcerated communists and their liberators to vilify the Germans. Such material was submitted as evidence at the IMT and yet. though discredited is still subject to the silent treatment by those with a vested interest in sustaining maximum political impact from The Holocaust. The very same people at the IMT also asserted that the Germans were responsible for the Polish Katyn massacre but in 1989 Gorbachev admitted it was Beria's NKVD (see FCO website). Once again, political correctness (and some EU states' laws) makes open, critical discussion of this entire matter a very convenient political taboo, and it's one which some believe clearly serves the political interests of the far left/New Left and now free-market Liberal Democrats (Social Democrats) only too well at the ballot boxes through vilifying anything vaguely to do with nationalism. The free world's electorates may not be as free to vote as they think.

Today, Britain has discrete Jewish, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian, African, Tamil and even Polish communities, to name but a few. Problems are inevitable when these large communities (the majority of the Bangladeshi community is in one LA, Tower Hamlets) create their own quasi-legislative and support groups (there are Somomai 'courts' in South London), as this creates enclaves which are divisive. Those doing so may not see the harm in this and may genuinely believe that they are helping 'their people', but one just has to look at London today to see how this has eroded the indigenous culture, through large numbers moving out - in a word, it is also racist and rather ironically, has led to equalities legislation which effectively becomes affirmative action providing race-cards for members of the migrant group long after they have claimed to assimilate.

http://www.vdare.com/macdonald/030918_neoconservatism.htm

One has to ask why groups migrate in the first place if they just want to recreate enclaves, as in effect, it becomes a form of colonisation to the extent that they don't assimilate. Enclaves create the very conditions which lead to persecution and asylum seeking emigration in the first place, and whether intentional or not, it must be seen as a means of subversion to the extent that immigrants do not fully assimilate to the host nation.

Given the present unprecedented levels of migration, and Frattini's recent statement that the EU should take another 20m from S.Asia and Africa, I urge anyone who has not done so already to look through all 54 Articles of the Fundamental Charter of Human Rights (FCHR) which is integral to the EU Reform Treaty as it explicitly proscribes mass deportation, i.e repatriation. http://www.eucharter.org/

Have we learned enough from C20th history? Is the FCHR enough or too much? Is modern political correctness, Human Rights and hate-crime legislation ever likely to be sufficient protection against all of that alluded to above from happening again? If one thinks the answer to that is yes, one has to explain all of the conflicts since 1950 (see UN/EU treaties), including Iraq, and most critically today, the threat to and vilification of Iran with distortions of what it has said about Israel and the West's apparent disregard of what the IAEA keep saying. If oil was at $100 a barrel, was projected to continue rising through scarcity and you could use a cheaper source of energy (nuclear) domestically so you could export more of your oil, what would you do?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7085213.stm
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=156797
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/5038.html

  • 451.
  • At 11:07 AM on 11 Nov 2007,
  • Geoff wrote:

I've just come off reading a blog called The Oil Drum, there seems to be a storm brewing, they are saying the world's oil supply is finite and we (human race) have used up half of the world's known oil resources already and the projected forecast for consumption of oil is set to increase by half as much again by 2050.

Apparently, this condition is known as Peak Oil. According to the pundits, oil production has peaked and the only direction for oil production from now on is down, in other words the world is running out of oil.

What has this got to do with the debate about immigration I hear you ask? Well it's obvious (isn't it?) Our whole way of Western life is dependant on an abundant supply of of cheap energy - that energy is OIL.

So you see, life in Britain from now on is going to change, and change rapidly at that, the coming energy crunch will make the immigration issue look like a Sunday picnic.

Don't take my word for it nip over to the Oil Drum blog - see for yourself.

  • 452.
  • At 11:22 AM on 11 Nov 2007,
  • Adrienne wrote:

Please substitute "Somali" for the typo "Somomai" in the 7th para of #450.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6190080.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/29/nsharia29.xml

@446, I'm drawing attention to what seems to drive below replacement level birth rates which then drive compensatory immigration (not all EU states can attract immigrants from teh EU, they will have to draw them from S Asia and Africa).

Vilification of Islamic 'sexism' to the extent that Islam reinforces the conventional division of labour by the sexes is clearly counter-(re)productive regardless of how unpopular (and it is almost impossible for it not to be unpopular in the liberated West), that seems to many of us.

The bottom line for any species (or sub-group/family) within a species, is reproductive fitness, and in the Developed World we have very LOW birth rates and we appear to have dysgenic fertility through the simple fact that intelligence appears to be largely inherited and the longer females stay in education and in the workplace the less children that group of females will contribute to the gene pool. Note that whilst this happens in the Developed World (East Europe and some of Southern Europe like Spain is the worst - look up TFRs for Europe post 1960), China, through its 1995 'eugenics' legislation does the opposite in breech of some UN/EU articles. All individuals and thus countries practice eugenics to a degree, simply through assortive mating and genetic screening. But watch China's mean national (genotypic) IQ and GDP go up as that of the 'free', egalitarian Developed World's (including Japan, Korea and the rest of East Asia to the extent that their brighter females 'choose' work over motherhood) goes down, although in reality, they have little choice, as brighter females see the cost of motherhood more accurately/painfully and plan or require more security. This is why sex discrimination came about in the first place. It is premised upon and sustained by, real physical and behavioural differences between the sexes which have been shaped by Natural Selection. Sexual dimorphism (more accurately, polymorphism, as there's overlap between the sexes, is real), and legislation and political correctness will not make this go away, it will just facilitate sub-group slow extinction, which is precisely what is happening in Europe either by accident or by design.

  • 453.
  • At 03:46 PM on 11 Nov 2007,
  • Doug Brett wrote:

I am a Neighbourhood Watch Co-ordinator and thus received the following email this morning from Kent Police.

Officers in West Kent are investigating the theft of three charity boxes in separate incidents which happened on Thursday 8th November and appear to be linked.
*The first incident occurred between 2.00 - 2.30pm when a group of people went into a farm shop on Hadlow Road Tonbridge. They asked if they could change some money into different denominations.
After they left staff discovered the poppy appeal charity box was missing. Crime Report BZ/19463/07
*Between 2.30 - 2.50pm a group of people went into Leigh Post Office and again asked about changing money.  This was refused as the shop staff were suspicious and after the group left the collection box for Guide Dogs for the Blind was missing.
*At a pub in Four Elms between 4.00 - 5.00pm what appears to be the same group of people asked to change money and after they left staff discovered the poppy appeal charity box was missing. The group were described by witnesses as two men and two women of Asian or Eastern European appearance who were driving a VW Polo.

Why are we destroying our country by importing hoards of these people?

  • 454.
  • At 03:56 PM on 11 Nov 2007,
  • Doug wrote:

I am a Neighbourhood Watch Co-ordinator and thus received the following email this morning from Kent Police.

Officers in West Kent are investigating the theft of three charity boxes in separate incidents which happened on Thursday 8th November and appear to be linked.
*The first incident occurred between 2.00 - 2.30pm when a group of people went into a farm shop on Hadlow Road Tonbridge. They asked if they could change some money into different denominations.
After they left staff discovered the poppy appeal charity box was missing. Crime Report **/*****/07
*Between 2.30 - 2.50pm a group of people went into Leigh Post Office and again asked about changing money. ÊThis was refused as the shop staff were suspicious and after the group left the collection box for Guide Dogs for the Blind was missing.
*At a pub in Four Elms between 4.00 - 5.00pm what appears to be the same group of people asked to change money and after they left staff discovered the poppy appeal charity box was missing. The group were described by witnesses as two men and two women of Asian or Eastern European appearance who were driving a VW Polo.

Why are we destroying our country by importing hoards of these people?

  • 455.
  • At 11:36 PM on 11 Nov 2007,
  • Dave wrote:

However politically incorrect the immigration activists may see it, one think is undeniable. That is the British people do not want and never did want their only country changed beyond recognition by the massive influx of cultures quite alien to western civilisation. And infact as we have found in many cases determined to destroy it.
It should not be forgotton that our leaders have never asked their people if we wanted this to happen, it has been forced on us and a climate of fear created by new laws to stop us objecting.
As we were never asked and certainly did not aggree to this policy I believe we are justified in demanding an immediate stop.

Adrienne,

perhaps you steer clear of it on purpose, but you neglect to mention the 'migration' of persecuted European Jews to Palestine and the disastrous results of the forcible formation of that 'enclave'. I have a parable at http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/yorkshire.txt

Outside of Palestine, the Jewish 'community' exists, but rarely allows itself to be confined in any enclave. The remarkable level of achievement of its members is enabled by this thorough assimilation into mainstream culture, where they carry weight and influence far beyond their demographic proportion.

"Britain, despite having a Jewish community 20 times smaller than that of the United States, has 59 Jewish members of parliament, including 18 in the House of Commons and 41 in the House of Lords. The latter number includes seven barons whose seats in the house were hereditary until recently. However, the umbrella organization of British Jewry said that in fact, the number of Jews in the House of Lords is even higher, totaling at least 46."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/785642.html

It would seem that the only route of salvation is one which assumes a single, fully assimilated human culture - a coffee-coloured culture! The overall numbers MUST decline, and that will not be allowed while each minority/enclave continues to assert its 'right' (or feels a necessity) to breed up a majority.

Geoff (451), If you find the drum of interest, you'll find much more at http://www.dieoff.com (as noted before)


Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed

There's a whole WORLD in a mud puddle!
-- Doug Clifford

  • 457.
  • At 01:54 AM on 12 Nov 2007,
  • Dave wrote:

However politically incorrect the immigration activists may see it, one think is undeniable. That is the British people do not want and never did want their only country changed beyond recognition by the massive influx of cultures quite alien to western civilisation. And infact as we have found in many cases determined to destroy it.
It should not be forgotton that our leaders have never asked their people if we wanted this to happen, it has been forced on us and a climate of fear created by new laws to stop us objecting.
As we were never asked and certainly did not aggree to this policy I believe we are justified in demanding an immediate stop.

  • 458.
  • At 12:05 PM on 12 Nov 2007,
  • Adrienne wrote:

Ed (#456) Yes, perhaps I should have made more of the Israel-Palestine example, but as I'd provided a link in the context of demographic warfare (the Comment Is Free link)elsewhere I thought it unecessary.

As to 'assimilation', well....please see the link provided earlier in #450 to one of Kevin McDonald's articles, and supplement that with one of the reviews of his book 'The Culture of Critique' and some of Robert Trivers' work on deception if you're not already familiar with it.

As Trivers explains very clearly:
http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail787.html

and much to his cost recently, see the Dershowitz-Trivers controversy:
http://www.counterpunch.org/abraham06272007.html

groups and their genes compete throughout nature, usually without ever 'knowing' it, so intention (and therefore, deceit) generally has little to do with it. Unfortunately, like immigration, it's a rather sensitive issue as can be seen through looking at the above exchange.

  • 459.
  • At 12:43 PM on 12 Nov 2007,
  • Brian Jones wrote:

I am a 50 year old man and it makes me very sad (and angry) to see our older generation being put asisde in favour of migrants. Our older generation suffer too, from health, bad housing and financial strains. Many fought for this country & lost close relatives in the great wars, fighting for our freedom....yes our freedon Mr Brown.

Because of our legacy, our now elder generation made this country a great place.....now it is close to ruin because of the drain & waste these immigrants have taken from us. Wise up...

Adrienne,

"Unfortunately, like immigration, it's a rather sensitive issue as can be seen through looking at the above exchange. "

Indeed. What was it about any two of a given ethnicity and three or more opinions?

Salaaaaams
ed

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story574.html

  • 461.
  • At 09:17 PM on 12 Nov 2007,
  • robert wrote:

Post 457, It makes you thinck the unthinckable,like is it because the last ten years total power has been in the hands of Scottish people, would they have concreted over Scotland,Idont thinck so. It is a fact that the scots will support any team with a fervour that plays England,I would never thinck in the past that this could apply to politicians but the way we have been Balkanised has been by very devious methods and been done with a fervour,and as you say without the consent of the people.

  • 462.
  • At 10:36 PM on 12 Nov 2007,
  • Silkstone wrote:

“CAMERON STORMS EIGHT POINTS AHEAD OF BROWN”

So announced The Sunday Express p.10 - 11/11/07, and then with extraordinary, some might say, characteristic ambivalence, proceeded totally to contradict this foolish play on words by listing the results of the latest ICM poll:

Pollsters had been asked to put aside their political party support and say whether they thought that Cameron or Brown was more…….
1. Popular - they said - Brown
2. Trustworthy - Brown
3. Likeable - Cameron
4. Of a strong leader - Brown
5. Of a conviction politician - Brown
6. Courageous - Brown
7. Understanding of ordinary people - Brown.

They were then asked who they trusted more to get the following issues right…..

1. The economy - Brown
2. Avoiding recession - Brown
3. Defence - Brown
4. Immigration - Cameron.
5. Health - Brown
6. Law and Order - Brown
7. Education - Brown.

Result: Cameron scored in just two areas with Brown taking an overwhelming twelve out of fourteen. And of Cameron’s two, only one is politically crucial….IMMIGRATION!

When asked which Party would get their vote in a General Election , 15% said Lib Dem, 7% said Other, 35% said Labour and 43% said Conservative which is where the eight point lead lies: not because of the Electorate’s faith in the Tory Leader.

If all the foregoing is correct then the collective mindset of the Pollsters when answering the earlier questions simply beggars belief.

Obviously, should Cameron NOW fail to grab Labour’s ten-year-long, covert, sinister, deceit-ridden Immigration agenda by its evil throat and shove it down Brown’s with all the strength he can muster; then he will never occupy 10, Downing Street.

Even though our sovereign power on all future Immigration control/policy is about to be ceded FOREVER by Brown in the Lisbon Treaty, Cameron will not be able to, neither will he want to, grasp the nettle because of his pro-EU stance.

He has committed his Party to leaving the door open for EU immigrants. BUT, numbers is numbers as they say: no matter from which countries they originate, and numbers is the name of the game!


  • 463.
  • At 11:29 PM on 12 Nov 2007,
  • Reg wrote:

Post 457

Perhaps your right, it would be bitter irony if in 10 - 15 years Scots are swamped by the English retreating over the border.

  • 464.
  • At 05:44 AM on 13 Nov 2007,
  • Reg wrote:

Post 463

Ooops! - error, Post 457 should read post 461

  • 465.
  • At 08:27 AM on 13 Nov 2007,
  • Reg wrote:

As globalisation marches on, oil reaches $100.00 dollars a barrel, India and China's expansion continues apace, financial meltdown like a train wreck in slow motion, US and Iran bubbling away, latest headlines read food prices are rocketing, and the world's population increasing at a rate of 70+ million a year.

With the above back-drop, what does continuing mass immigration mean for the West and Britain in particular? It means millions more humans fast tracking to aspiring consumerism, thus ensuring a speedier end game.

There is one mother of a natural correction looming on the horizon.

  • 466.
  • At 11:55 AM on 13 Nov 2007,
  • Silkstone wrote:


Re# 462 above

Clang! The term pollsters should of course read pollees.

I accidentally hit the post button before editing.

  • 467.
  • At 03:31 PM on 13 Nov 2007,
  • edith crowther wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly with Reg and Robert and Silkstone (recent posts).

Am not quite sure what Balkanisation is though I went to Cambridge - education deliberately hides stuff like this from you, and it is only by experiencing it yourself that you find out the proper language. It sounds as if it means exactly what is happening to us. It sounds like something different from tribal warfare which is kind of natural - e.g. between Amerindian tribes occasionally when they had the place to themselves, or between football supporters - this kind of fighting is chosen and controlled by those who engage it.

Balkanisation sounds like a sort of infighting that is deliberately created from above in a divide-and-rule policy. Because of the ending "-isation".

Am off to look it up.

Reg (465),

The sooner this leaky boat sinks, the easier the long swim to shore, but there'll be a lot of drowning in any event.

http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/reckoning.html
http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/buddies.html

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed

"Though I can see no way to defend the economy, I recognize the need to be concerned for the suffering that would be produced by its failure. But I ask if it is necessary for it to fail in order to
change: I am assuming that if it does not change it must sooner or later fail, and that a great deal that is more valuable will fail with it. As a deity the economy is a sort of egotistical French monarch, for it apparently can see no alternative to itself except chaos, and perhaps that is its chief weakness. For, of course, chaos
is not the only alternative to it. A better alternative is a better economy. But we will not conceive the possibility of a better economy, and therefore will not begin to change, until we quit deifying the present one."
-- Wendell Berry in "A Continuous Harmony"
http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/berry.txt

  • 469.
  • At 08:36 PM on 13 Nov 2007,
  • wappaho wrote:

Adrienne -

Vilification of Islamic 'sexism' to the extent that Islam reinforces the conventional division of labour by the sexes is clearly counter-(re)productive regardless of how unpopular (and it is almost impossible for it not to be unpopular in the liberated West), that seems to many of us.

The mark of modernity is conscious childbirth. If that policy causes challenges so we monitor, evaluate and amend. That's what many countries are currently doing. Britain has fallen behind through the influence of traditionalism found both in multiculturalism and environmentalism, both having links to christianity as well as left wing liberalism. But though Britain may have failed to sustain its bit of modernity doesn't mean the West is lost. The changes to society since the counter culture are enormous and take some adjusting to. The women who choose careers over childbirth are already yesterday's news. Flexible working and other changes continue to be made to enable the combined practice of parenting and working.

Geoff - Our whole way of Western life is dependant on an abundant supply of of cheap energy - that energy is OIL.

I like to think that our way of life was created by the availability of oil and will continue to change as resource-use shifts.

Wappaho,

"Geoff - Our whole way of Western life is dependant on an abundant supply of of cheap energy - that energy is OIL.

I like to think that our way of life was created by the availability of oil and will continue to change as resource-use shifts.

1.) true. 2.) true. 3.)true. 4.) unlikely in the extreme.

Our "way of life" is indeed based upon the profligate use of energy stored over billennia in a matter of a few centuries.

The yeast analogy referred to earlier is apt. A small population of organisms is presented with what seems to be an unlimited supply of food and ideal conditions to increase and multiply, which it does.

As sure as eggs is eggs, eventually the food is half gone and replaced by the products of its consumption. These products are, as might be expected, toxic to the subject organisms.

Towards the end of the cycle, there is very little food left, very few organisms and a poisoned environment. Along comes the brewer and decants his brew.

So goes monoculture, a one-way road to extinction. It is a rule of systems that they are resilient in proportion to their complexity and unstable in proportion to their simplification.

"Our way of life" is based upon "rape and run", on the prodigality of silly spoiled rich kids blowing the family fortune, on the unsupported idea that Human beings are for some reason exempt from the Laws of Nature, on delusions of grandeur, on HUBRIS.

CARRYING CAPACITY
by Garret Hardin, (c) 1975
(To Paul Sears)

A man said to the universe;
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
a sense of obligation."
-- Stephen Crane, 1899


So spoke the poet, at century's end;
And in those dour days when schools displayed the world,
"Warts and all," to their reluctant learners,
These lines thrust through the layers of wishfulness,
Forming the minds that later found them to be true.

All that is past, now.
Original sin, then mere personal ego,
Open to the shafts of consciousness,
Now flourishes as an ego of the tribe
Whose battle cry (which none dare question) is
"Justice!" -- But hear the poet's shade:

A tribe said to the universe,
"Sir, We exist!"
"So I see," said the universe,
"But your multitude creates in me
No feeling of obligation.

"Need creates right, you say? Your need, your right?
Have you forgot we're married?
Humanity and universe -- Holy, indissoluble pair!
Nothing you can do escapes my vigilant response.

"Dam my rivers and I'll salt your crops;
Cut my trees and I'll flood your plains.
Kill 'pests' and, by God, you'll get a silent spring!
Go ahead -- save every last baby's life!
I'll starve the lot of them later.
When they can savor to the full
The exquisite justice of truth's retribution.
Wrench from my earth those exponential powers
No wobbling Willie should e'er be trusted with:
Do this, and a million masks of envy shall create
A hell of blackmail and tribal wars
From which civilization will never recover.

"Don't speak to me of shortage. My world is vast
And has more than enough -- for no more than enough.
There is a shortage of nothing, save will and wisdom;
But there is a longage of people.

"Hubris -- that was the Greeks' word for what ails you.
Pride fueled the pyres of tragedy
Which died (some say) with Shakespeare.
O, incredible delusion! That potency should have no limits!
`We believe no evil 'til the evil`s done' --
Witness the deserts' march across the earth,
Spawned and nourished by men who whine, 'Abnormal weather.'
Nearly as absurd as crying, 'Abnormal universe!' . . .
But I suppose you'll be saying that, next."

Ravish capacity: reap consequences.
Man claims the first a duty and calls what follows Tragedy.
Insult -- Backlash. Not even the universe can break
This primal link. Who, then, has the power
To put an end to tragedy? Only those who recognize
Hubris in themselves.

http://home2.btconnect.com/tipiglen/capacity.html

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed

If you've got to travel on the Titanic, you might as well go First Class


  • 471.
  • At 01:16 PM on 14 Nov 2007,
  • Adrienne wrote:

wappaho (#469)

Is that evidence driven? Or is it aspirational? I suspect you may be being seduced by your own rhetoric. It seems almost de rigueur these days ;-).

If we pass laws de jure proscribing the carrying of knives, does that de facto mean that people don't carry knives? Of course not. So please provide empirical evidence for a rise in the birth rate *which is not accounted for by the higher TFRs in immigrant groups (primarily Muslim) which practice 'sexist' (traditional) division of labour by sex (sexist by our contemporary secular, liberal-democratic, lights). Orthodox Jews do it too incidentally, yet few criticise them as sexist.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2570503.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/08/nbabies108.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6729953.stm

What matters are empirical, demographic facts, not aspirational, promissory fantasies. Romantic denial and short-term hedonism are largely to blame for this compensatory flood of immigration I suggest, and the problem is exacerbated by 'dumbing down' which is brought about by differential fertility.

Our so called liberal democracies are very good at passing laws, but despite (partially because of?) fifty or so pieces of UK Criminal Justice legislation over the last decade, the crime rate has continued to rise, and law enforcement has become worse, not better. Does pronatalist legislation work? Consider the forces it is up against. There is a law of behaviour at work here - hyperbolic discounting.

Which group(s) of females (disproportionately) benefit from/take up Child Tax Credits and flexible working? The Labour Force Survey (which the DWP uses) would, one might think, be worth consulting on this, but as in so many surveys it doesn't ask all the right questions.

Looking behind political correctness, consider 'differential fertility' (the Russians have had an eccentric pronatalist idea, but I suspect it will only work on their less bright females):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2438594.ece

We are in denial I've suggested. Look at the responses to what I have set out here and in the other thread on 8th November. Women are trapped by liberal-democratic/free-market economic contingencies, which is why Islam depicts these as 'Satanic' perhaps?

Most critically, we have limited time. Those who make out that we can show the world the way forward viz overpopulation, are in my view, naively or explicitly subversive given the facts:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/11/thursday_8_november_2007_the_big_immigration_debat.html#c4154786

Adrienne,

"Is that evidence driven? Or is it aspirational? I suspect you may be being seduced by your own rhetoric. It seems almost de rigueur these days ;-)."

Pots and kettles?

You have provided plenty of 'evidence'.

The conclusions you have drawn are not completely clear, but in so far as I've been able to determine them, they are:

1. We are selecting against intelligence.
2. This is to some degree a result of the emancipations of our 'liberal' society.

Your suggested 'policy response' to these observations seem to be:

3. We should attempt to correct this by increasing the breeding rate among the more intelligent section of the population.
4. This might be facilitated by returning to 'traditional' gender roles.

So, if we engage in a breeding competition, we can grow our own plumbers and bum-wipers and we won't need to import them from foreign parts.

You do not consider global overpopulation a problem, or at least not a factor worth considering in the fourth most densely populated country in the world. The only problem with immigration is that it seems likely to result in dilution of our average IQ.

We disagree, it seems, but not on the 'evidence'.

btw, I enjoyed the professor's lecture on self-deception immensely.

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.


I see the lounge at room 502 has been re-opened
Wed Nov 14 14:55:04 GMT 2007


  • 473.
  • At 07:00 PM on 14 Nov 2007,
  • Adrienne wrote:

Ed (#472) I'm sorry if the conclusions have not been made explicit enough.

Socially engineering (by accident or design) a falling national IQ though unbalanced differential fertility and mass education of the brighter half of the population will just bring more crime, more socio-economic instability, poorer public services, greater corruption, more disease, lower GDP, greater risk of emergency powers, and ultimately, dictatorship and abolition of democracy as a result of too many impulsive hedonists (lower IQ is akin to child-like behaviour(s)) and too few long-term planners/managers ('grown-ups').

Globally, as national TFRs and IQs are highly negatively correlated, one can look to overpopulated 'developing nations' for a vision of what's to come. Still, given that's not a very cheery prospect for many, most won't, they'll just get upset and say they don't like what they're being told, and either go into denial or take verbal pot shots at any politically incorrect messengers (not that doing so does any good, it just reinforces denial).

Singapore (where the elite are the ethnic Chinese) tried to socially engineer a pronatalist, more favourable, differential fertility up to the 90s via tax incentives. It failed. It's surrounded by Islamic states. Now they've settled for simple universal pronatalism - everyone's encouraged to have 3 kids. I suspect it will work on the Muslims, probably not on the Chinese.

At root, I reckon it's our liberal-democratic way of life, where, given the choice, bright women paradoxically limit the size of their families and pursue independence.

  • 474.
  • At 07:30 PM on 14 Nov 2007,
  • Adrienne wrote:

Ed (#472) I'm sorry if I have not made the conclusions/consequences I envisage explicit enough. They do appear to be rather gloomy, so I thought them best left implicit (though we do see many of them about us even today).

Socially engineering (by accident or design) a falling national IQ though unbalanced differential fertility and mass education of the brighter half of the population will just bring more crime, more socio-economic instability, poorer public services, greater corruption, more disease, lower GDP, greater risk of emergency powers, and ultimately, dictatorship and abolition of democracy as a result of too many impulsive hedonists (lower IQ is akin to child-like behaviour(s)) and too few long-term planners/managers ('grown-ups').

Globally, as national TFRs and IQs are highly negatively correlated, one can look to overpopulated 'developing nations' for a vision of what's to come. Still, given that's not a very cheery prospect for many, most won't, they'll just get upset and say they don't like what they're being told, and either go into denial or take verbal pot shots at any politically incorrect messengers (not that doing so does any good, it just reinforces denial).

Singapore (where the elite are the ethnic Chinese) tried to socially engineer a pronatalist, more favourable, differential fertility up to the 90s via tax incentives. It failed. It's surrounded by Islamic states. Now they've settled for simple universal pronatalism - everyone's encouraged to have 3 kids. I suspect it will work on the Muslims, probably not on the Chinese.

At root, I reckon it's our liberal-democratic way of life, where, given the choice, bright women paradoxically limit the size of their families and pursue independence.

Adrienne,

I don't challenge your analysis, although I do consider it far from complete.

I do ask again whether you consider it wise to encourage breeding (by anyone) in an overpopulated world.

How can yet more people solve a problem of too many people? Especially yet more people of the high-consumption, low production elite?

"At root, I reckon it's our liberal-democratic way of life, where, given the choice, bright women paradoxically limit the size of their families and pursue independence."

What's paradoxical about it? It's an INTELLIGENT RESPONSE.

As to "independence", that's the biggest self-delusion of all in a country and culture which depends totally upon the resources of the rest of the world.
http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/hypermobility.html

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed

It is very difficult to prophesy, especially when it pertains to the future.

Adrienne,

Nobody's denying your data. Certainly not me, but I do contest your conclusion that we need to increase the elite's TFR. That's not targetting the problem.

The problem is above zero global TFR. Famine, war and pestilence will address that if we don't. Adding more high consumption, low production clever elites to the mix will only exacerbate the problem, not solve it.

"given the choice, bright women paradoxically limit the size of their families and pursue independence"

No paradox there, except the idea of "independence" in a culture where damn few of the elite have any idea how to make any of the things upon which their lifestyle depends - food, fuel, minerals, fabrics, to name but a few.
http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/hypermobility.html

I think I'm less in denial than you are.

xx
ed

A bug in the hand is better than one as yet undetected.

Adrienne,

Nobody's denying your data. Certainly not me, but I do contest your conclusion that we need to increase the elite's TFR. That's not targetting the problem.

The problem is above zero global TFR. Famine, war and pestilence will address that if we don't. Adding more high consumption, low production clever elites to the mix will only exacerbate the problem, not solve it.

"given the choice, bright women paradoxically limit the size of their families and pursue independence"

No paradox there, except the idea of "independence" in a culture where damn few of the elite have any idea how to make any of the things upon which their lifestyle depends - food, fuel, minerals, fabrics, to name but a few.
http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/hypermobility.html

I think I'm less in denial than you are.

xx
ed

A bug in the hand is better than one as yet undetected.

  • 478.
  • At 09:56 AM on 15 Nov 2007,
  • Adrienne wrote:

Ed #475 I'm not sure you've fully understood the implications of some of what you or I have said, or how what's been outlined works. Perhaps I've been making a more subtle point than some have appreciated so I'll spell it out, please forgive me if this was already clear.

Firstly please take a closer look at the Gaussian (Normal) distribution:

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

If Brown's New Left/Labour has its way, the UK will soon be sending more than 50% of its annual cohort into higher education (and it will be more female than male as education is primarily a verbal behaviour business). Note that it's also the brighter half of the population which goes into higher education and that it's selection of verbal ability, not a random 50%. Note that this is largely genetic selection:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

Throughout these comments, over many months, I've been talking about the top 50% of the cognitive ability distribution having lower TFRs, not just the cognitive elite at +2SD. The +/- 2SD just serves to make the point clearer given that over 5 generations according to the 1989 data there may have been a fall of 60% in the +130 IQ band and 60% increase in the 70 and below band. This only comprises about +/-2% of the population at each tail. What matters is what's happening in the other 48% of the upper (and lower) half of distribution if the upper half of the female population goes into higher education and competes 0in the workforce longer than those in the lower 50%. I suspect TFRs may become lower the further one moves to the right of the distribution. The numbers in the tails are relatively small, but the hit is greater. It's fact that 50% delay and that 33% of graduates abstain from motherhood altogether that matters. It has to be said that this is based on past *completed* fertility periods (i.e. 15-45) and we will have to wait to see if these rates persist now that it's planned to send up to 50%.

Secondly, please note that zero TFR means absolutely no offspring whatsoever. Some EU countries have TFRs of under 1.5 today, and with a TFR of 1.1 the population halves in 30 years, i.e. a generation (hence the Russia example, but it cold have been Spain). Zero TFR means rapid, catastrophic, depopulation, with rapidly falling school rolls and massive labour force loss, a rapidly ageing population with nobody to look after them, and abrupt genetic extinction within a generation.

To compensate would require massive immigration on a scale much greater than that which we're seeing now, or that which Europe will see in the near future, except...., with your prescription of zero TFRs, there wouldn't be anyone young enough to import.

Some of this SI (subversion?) is not as obvious as it seems. May Jeffrey 'Shock Therapist' Sachs have misled Europeans in his Reith Lectures this year perhaps?

The greater context of this is, I suspect, the International Socialists' agenda which appears to include the Balkanisation of the UK (each of these regions is about the size in population as of one the smaller EU states is it not?) and the creation of a supranational EU:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/general-content/citiesandregions/electedregionalassemblies/regionalassembliespreparations/221605/

  • 479.
  • At 12:21 PM on 15 Nov 2007,
  • Adrienne wrote:

Ed (#475,6,7;- 502 errors) "I think I'm less in denial than you are."

It's hard to be sure though isn't it?

I'm not sure you've fully taken on board the premises and logical implications of some of what you or I have said, or how what's been outlined works. Perhaps some of the more subtle technical points have gone unappreciated? If so, I'll try and spell the logic out more clearly, please forgive me if all of this was already clear.

Firstly please take a closer look at the Gaussian (Normal) distribution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

If Brown's New Left/Labour has its way, the UK will soon be sending more than 50% of its annual cohort into higher education (and it will be more female than male as education is primarily a verbal behaviour business). Note that it's also the brighter half of the population which goes into higher education and that it's selection of verbal ability, not a random 50%. Note that this is largely genetic selection:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

Throughout these comments, over many months, I've been talking about the top 50% of the cognitive ability distribution having lower TFRs, not just the cognitive elite at +2SD. The +/- 2SD just serves to make the point clearer given that over 5 generations according to the 1989 data there may have been a fall of 60% in the +130 IQ band and 60% increase in the 70 and below band. This only comprises about +/-2% of the population at each tail. What matters is what's happening in the other 48% of the upper (and lower) half of distribution if the upper half of the female population goes into higher education and competes 0in the workforce longer than those in the lower 50%. I suspect TFRs may become lower the further one moves to the right of the distribution. The numbers in the tails are relatively small, but the hit is greater. It's fact that 50% delay and that 33% of graduates abstain from motherhood altogether that matters. It has to be said that this is based on past *completed* fertility periods (i.e. 15-45) and we will have to wait to see if these rates persist now that it's planned to send up to 50%.

Secondly, please note that zero TFR means absolutely no offspring whatsoever. Some EU countries have TFRs of under 1.5 today, and with a TFR of 1.1 the population halves in 30 years, i.e. a generation (hence the Russia example, but it cold have been Spain). Zero TFR means rapid, catastrophic, depopulation, with rapidly falling school rolls and massive labour force loss, a rapidly ageing population with nobody to look after them, and abrupt genetic extinction within a generation.

To compensate would require massive immigration on a scale much greater than that which we're seeing now, or that which Europe will see in the near future, except...., with your prescription of zero TFRs, there wouldn't be anyone young enough to import.

Some of this SI (subversion?) is not as obvious as it seems. May Jeffrey 'Shock Therapist' Sachs have misled Europeans in his Reith Lectures this year perhaps?

The greater context of this is, I suspect, the International Socialists' agenda which appears to include the Balkanisation of the UK (each of these regions is about the size in population as of one the smaller EU states is it not?) and the creation of a supranational EU:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/general-content/citiesandregions/electedregionalassemblies/regionalassembliespreparations/221605/

Adrienne,

You are right to correct me. I did in fact mean zero population growth, not zero TFR.

On all else, you're banging away at something which I don't contest.

OF COURSE, the present situation selects against IQ (or whatever)

You are effectively arguing that we should educate fewer of our folk in order to increase the culture's average IQ, but I'm American and lost to irony.

In Brave New World, there were fewer Alphas anyway.

As I said long ago, it's largely our cleverness which has gotten us into the present unsustainable situation.

Falling TFR is a NECESSARY but not sufficient condition for survival of the species. Ironically, falling !Q may be another.

Relax. You have your IQ. Nobody's going to take that away. You can breed as much as you like and with whomever consents.

In Brave New World, there were fewer Alphas anyway.

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed

Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum --
"I think that I think, therefore I think that I am."
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"


  • 481.
  • At 11:37 PM on 16 Nov 2007,
  • CONCERNED ENGLISH MAN wrote:

THE IMMIGRANTS ARE COMPLETELY TAKING OVER OUR COUNTRY! If people in Britain don't wake up fast our country will be finished. Those men fought their war to, amongst other things, preserve our heritage. The foreigners won't integrate and are a strain on resources. In addition, they steal our jobs and houses, then as an added insult send their wages back to their own country. Great for our economy, eh? Send them all back as there is going to be a severe uprising if this is allowed to continue to escalate. I'm voting BNP.

  • 482.
  • At 07:29 AM on 17 Nov 2007,
  • greenscience wrote:

Dear Ed and Ad

Have you heard of Salk? I have a book by him (?) from the 1970s which contains a series of graphs showing how population growth could gradually stabilise across the world. I only ask because I've never met anyone else who has heard of this work but there is a Salk Institute in California.

  • 483.
  • At 09:34 AM on 18 Nov 2007,
  • Adrienne wrote:

Ed (#480) "You are effectively arguing that we should educate fewer of our folk in order to increase the culture's average IQ, but I'm American and lost to irony."

The subtle irony is, perhaps, that as cognitive ability is largely (50-80%) genetic, with 'environment contributing largely as physical detrimental effects which *lower* cognitive ability (or protect it from environmental assaults through effective behaviour management) in reality, education contributes very little to cognitive ability, it just shapes it, or, in the dysgenics case I have been explicating, it slowly but insidiously lowers its mean value in the gene pool (population) trans-generationally.

I fear most people have a radically flawed, Marxist/Lysenkoist folk-psychological/common-sense 'bucket') grasp of cognitive ability and behaviour plasticity, and that this, sadly, also covers most in our education and other behaviour management professionals (80% of psychologists today are female, and few, technically speaking, are Behaviour Analysts).

Paradoxically, if we succeeded in getting many more from the lower half of the Gaussian distribution of cognitive ability into further/higher education and less females from the top half, and if we succeeded in getting more of the former and less of the latter to stay in the workplace longer (instead of engineering the reverse), matters might not look quite so bleak.

I suspect one may not see this thesis explicated elsewhere, but not, perhaps, because it's false or logically flawed ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlAEnQWtqv0
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article3166418.ece
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/11/friday_16_november_2007.html#c4299944
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/11/thursday_prospects.html#c4222546

Greenscience,

I haven't seen anything BY Salk. Is it "The survival of the wisest" Sounds about right.

I'd love it if you could send some interesting scanned sections to tipiglen (btconnectdotcom)

I do recommend reading some of Garrett Hardin's stuff, particularly Lifeboat Ethics and the original Tragedy of the Commons essay, both of which I re-read last night. Sobering stuff.
http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_lifeboat_ethics_case_against_helping_poor.html
http://dieoff.org/page95.htm

Adrienne,

You haven't said anything new. I accept your thesis, but don't see why that means we should breed more from the 'upper' section, especially when, as I've been at pains to point out, it's cleverness (and breeding) which have got us in the current mess. I think you'd find much to agree with in the Hardin essays noted above - perhaps more than many.

Salaaams, etc.
ed

After two days of "forbidden" messages, now I get a 502! Oh well,...
and another Sun Nov 18, 11:47 GMT
and another 11:52
and 11:57
and 12:02
12;06
12:11
12:21
12:29
12:38
12:44
12:51
12:58
13:03
"I suspect one may not see this thesis explicated elsewhere, but not, perhaps, because it's false or logically flawed ;-)"

but simply because it's largely irrelevant. ;-)
13:10
13:22
13:31
13:35
13:40
13:44
13:53
13:57
14:06
14:11
14:17
14:25
14:47
14:58
15:04

  • 485.
  • At 03:00 PM on 20 Nov 2007,
  • Johnnie Oz wrote:

What amazes me is that no one during the entire 1.5 hours mentioned one very basic fact:
some 75 % of the immigrants (people from overseas as the BBC puts it) are individuals who have an automatic legal right to be in the UK. EU nationals, overseas nationals with UK passports etc. These people cannot be kicked out. Get over it.
Source: The Economist, Oct 2007.

So that leaves 25% of whatever the total figure is. Even IF all of these people are "illegal" and "undesireble", this is only a large minority. However, many of these people have been actively recruited to staff hospitals etc. So the uproar is over a small number of people, which goes to show that the public is being hoodwinked into thinking this is some kind of problem. And BBC, especially Newsnight is complicit. You act like the Daily Mail with posh accents.

  • 486.
  • At 03:03 PM on 20 Nov 2007,
  • Johnnie Oz wrote:

PS by keeping this issue alive "THE BIG IMMIGRATION DEBATE" etc you are adding fuel to the fire. Is this the BBC's role? Please stick to analyzing the issues. Newsnight is an indepth program...i thought. This is surreal.

What fire is that, Johnnie Oz?

Is Oz short for Oztrich?

xx
ed

The animals are not as stupid as one thinks -- they have neither doctors nor lawyers.
-- L. Docquier

  • 488.
  • At 06:18 PM on 20 Nov 2007,
  • Adrienne wrote:

Johnnie Oz (#485) Learning can be a very surreal experience. It's possibly all the endogenous opioids going on and off as one encounters the unfamiliar and tries to deal with it.

  • 489.
  • At 03:09 PM on 21 Nov 2007,
  • shana wrote:

these people are crazy, uneducated and stupid.

  • 490.
  • At 09:49 PM on 21 Nov 2007,
  • Adrienne wrote:

Oz (#485) Here are a few questions for you (Your #485 had not appeared when I replied earlier, I was replying to #486).

1) If, as the Lord Mayor of London's research folk say, over 99% of London's population growth over the next 30 years is projected to be in BME groups, just whom will all of the non EU immigrants be serving in the hospitals and who are all of the planned new houses be for given that the indigenous population's TFR is well below replacement rate?

2) If the evidence for the genetic basis for group differences in cognitive ability is sound, what's the quality of 'high skilled' technical services likely to be?

3) Finally, what was the attraction (push and pull) to this country in the first place? How, in time, is it going to be any different from where they migrated from?

It takes a long time to build up a culture, but it doesn't take very long to destroy one.

Think 'Golden Goose'.

Shana (#489) Which people?

  • 491.
  • At 11:38 AM on 22 Nov 2007,
  • Fazer wrote:

We have been so stupid. Brown talks about "British Jobs for British
People". The Brits think that means indigenous Brits (whites). In fact
he means naturalised Brits (S Asians, Africans etc.) Tax payers money
goes on re-generating the inner cities for THEM. Building houses for
THEM. It must do if 99.9% of London's growth over the next 30 years is
in BME groups! It would not matter if there was not an IQ difference,
but there is. This is not about race/colour, it is about ability, i.e
skills and their contributions to society.

As Adriennes says...

  • 492.
  • At 01:17 PM on 05 Dec 2007,
  • Adrienne wrote:

A consequence of dysgenic/differential fertility and immigration. Note/project the cost given that the economy is 80% Service Sector and 'if' these abilities (IQ proxies for verbal and quantitative scales) are largely genetic.
http://news.independent.co.uk/education/education_news/article3223679.ece
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1205/p02s01-usgn.html

  • 493.
  • At 09:34 AM on 07 Dec 2007,
  • Adrienne wrote:

Scotland:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7132202.stm

Manchester:
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/A18_DerivedEMG_Wards07.pdf
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/A18_DerivedEMG_Wards11.pdf

Most of the UK's population lives in urban areas, and this is where politicians (especially New Labour), looks for its votes and makes most of its empty Lysenkoist promises.

Note the projected negative growth (2007-2011) for the White population (which nationally turns out to be responsible for slightly less than its fair share of crime relative to its population base rate, the Asians even less) compared to the positive growth for the EMG population (a function of TFRs and immigration).

One should, perhaps, bear in mind different birth rates within all groups as a function of educability, with the birth rates in the more educable in each group likely to fall as they chase their careers. The latter are also more likely to move out to better/safer areas if they can afford to, thereby removing some of the social 'dampers' on their one-time neighbours. It's how the social divide works in a liberal-democratic meritocracy. What this should highlight is that colour has nothing to do with any of this, although gene barriers, which determine frequencies in classes, undoubtedly do.

If crime and SES are largely driven by educability and local demand for skills, the future for these areas may be bleak indeed unless population growth can be re-balanced (yet nobody knows how to do that in a liberal-democracy). As this separation of groups is an insidious process, most people tend either not to see it for what it is, or not care very much about if they can, and do escape.

This, surely, is what politicians should have been better managing, but haven't been. They've been making it worse by omission at best and more likely promising to fix matters through education. But where's the evidence that education works that way? Ability isn't uniformly distributed and people aren't universally malleable (i.e. receptive to education). If politicians admitted the facts here, they wouldn't be able to sell their Lysenkoist panaceas to unwary electorates in these areas, they wouldn't get away with so much spin, and they'd have to do a lot more publicly accountable, evidence driven, management, i.e governing instead of blaming the environment (including teachers see below).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/04/nedu404.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/06/nmaths106.xml

I emigrated from London to Christchurch New Zealand back in 2000. No regrets at all.

Life is pretty good here

  • 495.
  • At 03:27 PM on 30 Dec 2007,
  • HARRY HARRISON-ANSAH wrote:

we all know immigration monitoring is very ,very important so there is a need the immigration Authoriteis to re-consider to grant all those people who have been here for so many to remain in UK and then they can go ahead to monitor from hence:

  • 496.
  • At 02:59 PM on 31 Dec 2007,
  • Anne-Marie Grant wrote:

lets all face facts, the government will year after year still bang on about trying to weed out the illegal immigrants( without success!) , by making it harder for them to gain employment hence making it harder for them to attend to there own basic need( shelter, food, clothing and in some case for their children/ families living with them ). There are alots of illegal immigrants who wish to work ( many so do without their documents!) but have not got the papers to do so. However on the other hand their are people who are born in this country who sponge off the state for many years not wanting to work.

I think many people forget that illegal immigrants are human beings! and have the right for their basic needs to be met. I do feel that amnesty should be given but not necessary having the right to public services unless you have contributed to the comer for a number of years.

  • 497.
  • At 02:15 AM on 10 Jan 2008,
  • sam wrote:

IMMIGRATION or IMMIGRANTS ?

WELL BOTH THESE BODIES BELONGS TO HUMAN BEINGS M I RIGHT ? YES 100%
I am going to be very honest here .. why eruopion peoples now are very important to come and work in uk .. EVERY BODYA have been saying that NHS is going down have any of politions think that why its because in the last 4 years about 4 million peoples from europ enter into uk and now they are here using every single free service and NHS is one of them .NHS never expect that serive need to be provided to extra 4 million peoples in 2 or 3 years and no one plan for that ... now i have to mention about peoples from other part of the world why every one think that not euorpion but peoples from other countries have fill this part of the world WHY immigration department or governtment are not stopping europions?DO they have blind eye on them if they do so then WHY ????
if u want immigration at his best then please creat a balance there .

i have been reading in news paper's about INTERNATIONAL STUDENT'S that they only allow to work 20 hours during week time and they can study in college or uni minmum 15hours ... we are actully losing the strenth and sharpness and freshness of many INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS.

FINE A STUDENT SHOULD STUDY but why not why not they allow to work more than 20 hours if they can and they are studing minmum 15 hours and making satifactory results then then allow them to work in there fields because in the futher they can do some thing better for our country than an ordinary europion immigrant can they ?
Government should creat some kind of home for INTERNATIONAL STUDENT'S because they pay 5 times more than europion student and british student's then WNY NOT allow them to work more .
i am a student as well and i m studing in queen marry uni in bach of computer sicence and my fellow's INTERNATIONAL STUDENT'S are always disturbe coz of the government stupid police's against INTERNATIONAL STUDENT'S so my advice is that ' yea let them pay fees 5 times more than europion and british student but creat a home for them as well where they can work and study freely .

  • 498.
  • At 09:34 PM on 14 Jan 2008,
  • Miles wrote:

Dont you think it is all about not using brains to solve this problem. Illegal immigrants are being given permits in other countries like spain, Holland and end up coming to work in UK, why is the UK failing to give work permits even for a year or 2 to its illegal immigrants to solve all this problem. People are failing to make ends meet because they are not able to work and if given the ok to work they would get what they wanted and go back to their countries. Britain should think on how to solve this problem.

  • 499.
  • At 06:28 PM on 20 Jan 2008,
  • Adrienne wrote:

WELL MEANING BUT UNINFORMED OR INFORMED AND SELF-INTERESTED/MALICIOUS: DOES IT MATTER?

http://www.iamanenglishman.com/page.php?iCategoryId=594&iParentId=593&PHPSESSID=facc223cd5ae4783570267d9213bc735

Its not about colour, it's skills and genes. When the pro-immigration
camp emotively make their politically correct case, note how they tacitly assume a uniform distribution of cognitive ability (or even random normal variation) in the influx, and have naive assumptions about the efficacy of education/educability which are counter-indicated by the consensus of empirical scientific evidence. In the past, cost and other forces made immigration more selective.

So why do they argue the way that they do? Where do their assumptions
come from? It's explained by ignorance and irrationality which is sadly resistant to corrective evidence. Why do ideologues dominate so many of these public panels, and why do more informed, rational voices cower?

The answer is that ideologues are invariably educated in the highly
verbal humanities and social 'sciences' (which methodologically are pseudo-sciences) rather than truly evidence driven disciplines.

There IS a consensus on what destroys cultures and economies, and it's one which even the Greeks were aware of. It's used as an element of economic and political warfare.

Immigration on today's scale is used as a tool of demographic warfare, the objective being to Balkanise the UK as a pre-requisite for absorption as a dozen or more regions into Europe.

In time, recent trends must have a severe, adverse, effect upon the
economy and well-being of all, but by then, there won't be a UK, or even an England as we know it. Whether the politically correct class one sees in the clip above know it or not, given our below replacement level TFR and the differential fertility which is exacerbated at such times.

Note, this was absent at the beginning of the C20th when there was also a great influx. It was different back then because the indigenous TFR was higher than replacement level, which data suggests limits differential fertility.

These advocates of large scale immigration are basing what they say on an inadequate understanding of history, demographics, genetics and economics. But they don't care. This is why they are dangerous, and the humanities and social sciences are full of these misguided people who have found their way as adults into the media and political class. They don't hear their critics because they censure (and censor) them, by shouting them down. Watch the clip and judge for yourself, and sadly, this IS representative as many will know. What they don't ever do, is ask whether they might have something to learn, which is always a worrying sign.

the government immigration authrities must do their best not to remove any one who has been in UK for more than 10 years.

  • 501.
  • At 07:07 PM on 10 Feb 2008,
  • Chris M wrote:

This thread is still being added to?

493.'Note the projected negative growth (2007-2011) for the White population'

An interesting point. Some months ago there was a 'debate' over the fact that the 'white' group would become an ethnic minority in cities in, although I can't be sure, something like 30 years (and eventually a minority everywhere).

I believe David Dimbleby asked the then prospective leader of the 'Liberal' Democrats, Nick Clegg, whether this was a problem to which he replied, if I remember correctly, something that implied 'no'.

According to wikipedia, 'Ethnic cleansing refers to various policies or practices aimed at the displacement of an ethnic group from a particular territory in order to create a supposedly ethnically "pure" society.'

Now I doubt very much that the aim of continued mass immigration into Britain is 'aimed' to 'create...an ethnically "pure" society' but surely any policy (in this case mass immigration) that turns an ethnic majority into an ethnic minority could fit the 'ethnic cleansing' category (whether the 'cleansing' is on intended on not)?

According again to wikipedia 'Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.'

Of liberty, it says 'is generally considered a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the ability to act according to his or her own will.'

I presume that this could be taken to mean, in other words, that to be liberal is to accept- or be tolerant of- difference. To be white is a form of difference. Thus to say that a 'white' group becoming a minority, or being displaced altogether, is not a problem as Clegg pretty much did surely contradicts to a degree his own ‘liberalism’ to a point where in fact he may be doing the discriminating.

Related to this, is this potential ethnic displacement not contradictory to the concept of ‘diversity’ as surely ‘whites’ add to the ‘diversity’ of Britain?

Some may counter to this by the ‘we did it to them argument’ referring to the fact, of course, that white elements have been involved in the imperial ethnic cleansing of many native identities thus to ‘balance’ it out the same should occur the other way; this argument is surely rather nasty considering that this seems to advocate the ‘punishment’ of contemporary innocent white people who may never even have left the British Isles, let alone considered ethnic cleansing through imperialism?

If the Conservatives get to power hopefully they can see this danger, and other dangers, of mass immigration, but undoubtedly with the Conservatives track record it will be back to the old broken promises…

  • 502.
  • At 12:09 PM on 12 Feb 2008,
  • wappaho wrote:

I think we are too hung up on race. The point is that multiculturalism was a concept conceived within the west by westerners. england has long been multiracial, what we have now is the problem of factions of anti-west activity.

  • 503.
  • At 05:36 PM on 12 Feb 2008,
  • Chris M wrote:

Wappaho, I agree with you to a certain degree.

Some immigration into Britain has indeed been beneficial and some multi racialism/ cultralism that results from immigration is beneficial (as this is true enrichment)

Certainly I believe that the biggest problem (i.e. bigger than race issues) with mass immigration is the great variety (perhaps too much variety) of different cultures/ sub cultures and religions/ sub religions it brings, which are encouraged to retain their individuality because of multiculturalism, which may have conflictory principles and beliefs between one another, or against the cultures already present in Britain, or may find something ‘offensive’ which is a practise or belief of another culture or religion; or a practise or belief of certain members of these cultures or religions or sub versions of such religions and cultures. In turn this may be so problematic that it leads to a contradiction of multiculturalism as one cultural or religious practise has to be given preference over another (i.e. Gay rights over certain Christians belief that gays should not be allowed to adopt children from adoption agencies).

You say that England has a multi racial history. This, in my opinion, is a misconception of our history. Certainly it has a multi ‘national’ element but according to a certain train of thought I have read, a majority of people in this nation can trace roots back to people that arrived in this country before farming took off and any later additions (like the Saxons and Danes) were genetically similar anyway.

What I think is a potential big problem, even though I said that the main problem with immigration is culture related, is immigration to the point that it turns white people into a minority (perhaps a great minority). This will lead to destabilisation, is completely against the idea of 'enrichment' (adding something) and is discriminatory.

‘The point is that multiculturalism was a concept conceived within the west by westerners.’ I presume you meant some Westerners?

  • 504.
  • At 06:45 PM on 12 Feb 2008,
  • Adrienne wrote:

Race is a reality, as one can see by simply observing British Chinese with British Chinese, Asians with Asians, Blacks with Blacks etc. The exceptions do not invalidate the rule of assortive mating. Gene barriers produce subtle differences in all sorts of behaviours which covary with obvious phenotypic differences and these are accommodated by cultural practices. Of course some in each racial/ethnic group will have more in common with those of other racial/ethnic groups, that's the way of the world, but it doesn't change the basic statistically sound principle.

It's just some daft/egregious (literally not very good) academics and disreputable ideologues who claim otherwise. Immigration has been used both as a political and as a demographic tool, and both Europe and the USA are going to reap the consequences if they are not doing so already.

It's one thing (and a just thing) to decry 'racism' i.e the deprivation of rights and equality before the law because of their race/ethnicity, and quite another to accurately describe how behaviours statistically cluster by race/ethnicity. The latter is crippling rational thought including research and effective behaviour management, to such an extent that some don't receive the services they need.

People like Lewontin and Gould have behaved as disreputable Lysenkoists/Marxists not scientists, but the sad fact is that this criticism will fall on many a deaf ear, even today, when we know that all sorts of diseases etc vary in frequency as a function of haplotype and gene barriers. This means that resources have to be spread to accommodate more diversity than it needs to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy

  • 505.
  • At 12:08 AM on 13 Feb 2008,
  • Chris M wrote:

'Immigration has been used both as a political and as a demographic tool, and both Europe and the USA are going to reap the consequences...'

I mostly agree with that except that one cannot generalise what motives or ideas there may be behind the people who are pro mass immigration as indeed the motives vary between the supporters of such a policy (as I am sure you know).

A family member of mine, who is 'white', believes that as immigrants arrive in Britain the mixing pot scenario will occur; ironically she lives in a small countryside town with a population I would describe as all, or mostly, 'white'- which is something I have tried to point out to her. This person believes that everyone in the world is on some course to mass integration; everything seems to suggest anything but this. If this did occur it would probably lead to a loss of global diversity (i.e. different regions have different predominant cultures/ religions, which is what we should be really celebrating), a loss of that global ‘multi’ element, if you accept the idea that people will only integrate with one another if they share some or almost everything in common which would imply that we would require- either as the outcome of political enforcement (the most probable way except a risk of backlash as this process would be discriminatory) or some natural occurrence (unlikely as many people from all cultures and religions see their difference as superior difference)- a loss of mass strong difference and strong variation, both religiously and culturally to get to a globally integrated society; or else the strongly different religious and cultural beliefs, and their adherents, will repel each other like the polls of a magnet and cluster with ‘their own type’ just as if oil on water. I imagine a ‘mass integrated’ planet, if you accept it could only happen if the previous loss of diversity occurred, would be incredibly dull.

Of course, many people will not agree with this. What is it they say? – ‘united through diversity.’ Some integration between diversity probably does occur (I have known a number of Muslims quite well; one particular Muslim I got on with very well although he spoke good English and did other things I could relate to) and indeed some different communities can live along side one another to a degree; but it is debatable as to whether diversity will ever be truly ‘united’; is this not a contradiction anyway? The thing that suggests this above all is the communities within communities’ occurrence in British cities; there is little doubt in my mind that it occurs- I could point out on a map of Bristol where the predominantly Muslim ‘area’ is- where the predominantly Sikh ‘area’ is- where the predominantly Afro Caribbean (am I allowed to say black?) ‘area’ is- where the predominately white ‘area(s)’ are.

This lack of integration has not been helped by LEFTIST ELEMENTS making race and religion an issue, like the constant construing, by some elements, of every statistic as an example of racism; for instance the idea that if so many black people are arrested this has a long an complicated explanation in racism, white supremacy and the Marxist anti racist ‘struggle’, rather than idea that the black people were arrested simply because they committed a crime…

To re quote, 'Immigration has been used both as a political and as a demographic tool, and both Europe and the USA are going to reap the consequences...' I feel the consequence of continued mass immigration will be a ‘cull’ of nations in Europe as we break up along un-integrated cultural and religious lines, which was perhaps a motive behind mass immigration, with some, anyway?

  • 506.
  • At 12:30 PM on 24 Feb 2008,
  • Dave Coppard wrote:

I live in a country where unless it is a matter or life, people fear going into hospital

Name the Country. ....................

I live a country where the public and especially the elderly are in fear or of going out after dark. Name the Country....................

I live in a country where Director's/ Politicians/ and others in high places are incapable or incompetent of doing their job, sacked/ dismissed/ given cold handshake/ and walk away with millions. Name the Country. ................

I live a country where the Police owing to democracy are like Tigers without teeth, and better defined as office workers. Name the Country. ....................

I live in a country where for parents deemed unfit to correct them, and discipline them, the same goes for the Teachers, and every child blamed for being unruly. Name the Country. ......................

I live a country that has lost count of the amount of illegal immigrants, and done nothing to rectify the matter. Name the Country. ..............

I live in a country where Politician’s are permanently in denial of facts and circumstances, terrified to speak their mind, yet still voted in, promising prior to elections their manifesto will enhance everyone's lives, just another lie, as once in power, amnesia sets in. Name the Country.................

I live in a country that Boast it is the 4th richest in the World, yet its Pensioners are the Poorest. A married couple expected to survive on £139.60 Per Week Yet a Politician is allowed to claim £250.00 Per Week without any Expense Sheet, and no doubt Tax Free anyway. Name the Country.................

I live in a country where people are afraid to have a sense of humor anymore; in fear, the Listener deliberately twists what is said. No! This is not Nazi Germany. Name the Country................

I live a country where OAP's sit wrapped in blankets merely just to keep warm, and alive, as they cannot afford the heating bills. Name the Country....................

I live a country where the Government encourages one to make private financial arrangements for old age, i.e. Personal Pension, doing this causes those who make provisions to be severely penalized in their retirement. i.e. 1 Months Council tax absorbs virtually 1 week Total State Pension, leaving Balance of 3 weeks to survive on. Name the Country........................

I live in a country that allows those who choose leave their country of origin to live here, also allows them to dictate the way citizens of this country should live, whatever went wrong with "When in Rome do as the Romans do" Name the Country..................

I live in a country where OAP's are imprisoned for not paying Council tax, yet taking a vehicle without the owner's consent, Causing Death, is subject only to a reprimand, 3 Months Community Work or, Minimal Fine. Name the Country...................

I live in a country where in my youth can take drugs, alcohol; use the NHS freely, when in trouble, owing only to street brawls brought about by the use of drugs or alcohol. Have now reach the age of 65 to be persecuted owing to my age when needing medical attention? But then most not like the you youths of today, the elderly population have never taken drugs, or excessive alcohol, or been violent to Paramedics, Ambulance staff, Doctors and Nurses. Yet, denied medical rights based purely on their age. Name the Country..................

I living a country where the legal system allows those who operate within its infrastructure, to make fortunes from the suffering and misery of those they act. Yet even when failing in the Duty of Care, Professional Negligence, still walk away with their huge fees. On the other hand, when winning the costs outweigh the damages. The Regulatory bodies seem to find whatever those members of they represent failure is to rule it is outside of their Jurisdiction, in other words condone the actions, and the victim remains a victim. That’s why Law Courts are called Law Courts, because there is no Justice. Name the Country. .......................

Finally, I live a country where the Government, and this applies to whoever gets into power, boasts about its Manifesto, what it will achieve once in power. Blames the previous Government for all it's failings. States and Quotes continually the current Government's past errors, but then once in power like all Governments immediately suffers Acute Amnesia. Name the Country.....................

  • 507.
  • At 11:34 PM on 25 Feb 2008,
  • Peter Berry wrote:

What classical marxists thought of immigration

http://www.evangelos12.btinternet.co.uk/immigration.htm

  • 508.
  • At 11:47 AM on 09 Mar 2008,
  • Maria Sofiano wrote:

Immigration? That opens a whole can of worms!

I want to say first that I have nothing against anyone who has a different culture, colour or religion to myself.

However, I do feel that here in the UK we do seem to have adopted a very softly softly approach to migrants here and I feel the 'racist' card is very often over used. Everyone should be equal, and no one should have preferential treatment. Both my mother and my maternal grandfather, both being Irish, suffered a large amount of racism in the 50's & 60's, but were expected to 'deal with it'. I do feel that maybe racism, which is prejudice against any race, does seem to only work one way, which I feel is unfair. We are all 21st Century human beings, surely we are mature enough and worldy wise enough to all rub along together as we live on the same little island! There is more tolerance and less aggression required from all sides and the UK could be a better place!

  • 509.
  • At 07:36 AM on 10 Mar 2008,
  • wappaho wrote:

I siumply don't see how we can say 'I have nothing against any other culture'.

The culture i grew up in was sexist and in the 1980s I like many others invested considerable time in changing this situation.

Now you want to tell me that I have to accept as eqaully valid cultures that directly, visibly, vocally and aggressively oppose the ideology that was created through gender equality legislation?

sorry, no can do.

  • 510.
  • At 11:59 PM on 03 Apr 2008,
  • Mark wrote:

Well look back at the UK economy 10 years back,now we think we have too many immigrants,well wait till our economy crash when they're gone!

i married with pakistan man,we are living together in pakistan from one year,my husband visa is refused that i am english lady and non muslim,so visa officier think being as english and non muslim is not accepted by her,so it is govt policy that use religion and color against for the peoples,is uk basic constitute allow such onservation for fundamentals humans rights,is they above the law,i feel very shame its ebcause english peoples are not acceptable in their eyes,if am paksiatn so it is acceptable by visa officier,basically they are racist and need more education and qualification in their field,this is worst behaviour in british history in modern time,

  • 512.
  • At 07:50 PM on 15 Apr 2008,
  • David Stone wrote:


I know about the same amount of immigrants as white brits. ALL the immigrants I know work and pay taxes. I can name AT LEAST 15 brits who sit back and do nothing.

Who do we blame?

An immigrant that comes to the UK and make good use of the opportunities, freedom of speech etc etc here?

A Brtish citizen who makes little/no use of any of the opportunities, but complains about the immigrants every time.

So my message to the few lazy brits: relax, sit and complain endlessly.

This post is closed to new comments.

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites