The World Tonight on immigration

Big Issue "Immigration", however controversial it may be, it seems that the objectives are clear and simple. Unfortunately, it has turned very complicated in its achievement. Why? I and some may worry about how the media seem to report immigration. A bit biased since a lot of references are made to non-EEA. This has been the focus of of communication to the people of Britain. It is welcomed that a such topic is coming on "World Tonight". How would this medium show immigration to the listener? Would it be biased in its approaches? Is there anything good about immigration? Would it discuss the failures of policing the borders? Would it discuss how families who have been in the UK for over 4years bundled suddenly and deported? Look at the the case of Gamu of X-factor? Britain of all country inflicting mental pain on such families and individually? Would it discuss kids in detention? I have seen some individuals who have represented the UK but they are children of immigrants.Immigration in the UK should not be a mine-field but unfortunately it is.

Alistair Burnett.

"So when we talk about controlling immigration.."

it means we're lowering our chances of getting a worthwhile pension.

immigration, the influx of 'new blood', is vital to the country's economy. immigrants provide the next generation(s) who will pay taxes and care for us when we're (shock, horror) old.

So we have to keep importing more immigrants to look after us in our old age? And what do we do when they get old - import a load more? How many of these people would be willing to tend to our bedpans for the rest of their working lives? Gimme a break.

And then there are those who, in BBC parlance, don't integrate, though the problem is very much more severe with this particular group of people than the Cricket Test. I cannot imagine Edward I having such a problem. Sooner or later our security services will miss a plot, and then no amount of BBC flannel will keep our political class from the wrath of the people.

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

Just a thought- if you are talking about framing the parameters of the debate then you could sharpen the focus- immigration causes debate because of percieved impact on resources and not really for other reasons- i.e. other people getting my stuff- don't beat around the bush say it as people experience it. No one has a problem in theory- it's only when people percieve a threat that there is a reaction to immigration.

The other thing would be to include the bigger picture- what drives migration- it's glib to say economic migrants are looking for work- why? why is there no work in their own country- what systems allow and create this phenomenon? Why don't they create work in their respective countries?

I suppose it is necessary to focus on the often promised but seldom delivered caps but would be nice to see a more concerted effort to trace problems back to their roots rather than the slightly lazy and tired old focus on people moaning. If you include the roots, you might have a better chance of discussing viable solutions.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Immigration is only emotive when a country has not prepared the infrastructure for their arrival.

When a country has insufficient affordable housing, inadequate educational provision, insufficient jobs for its working age population, inadequate health provision, poor public transport facilities, it has not prepared the infrastructure for migrants. In such circumstances the blow back effect is observed throughout the world, civilised and uncivilised.

In a fair society migration would not be an issue.

Immigration is the biggest issue in the UK, bar none.

The Bristish public never asked for it, and all signs indicate that we
don't want it, and yet a mixture of powerful selfish business interests
and discriminatory (racist?) multicultural interests against the
mainly white British populace still prevail. Not to mention the twisted
interests of the Labour government who purposely allowed this mass
flooding of our society to go on virtually unopposed.

It too seems we are still being drip-fed with the usual well thought out
excuses on why 'we need immigration', designed of course to soften the
blow. No doubt believing that the indigenous masses will swallow
this carefully drip-fed propaganda, just like a carefully contrived
advert, because that is what it is.

You say that some in the media are reluctant to discuss it. Well apart
from the popular daily newspapers, that mainly leaves the BBC.

The incremental pro-multicultural news promoted by the BBC is obvious,
even if it is a little inconsistent at times, has aided this dumbing
down of the masses. I'm all for stability in society, but sometimes
something is going wrong, and the BBC ought to have caught this debate
very early on. YOU are after all a public broadcaster being maintained
by the British public and not by every opportunists who wishes to park
their opportunistic backside on this soil.

Wish you a lot of luck on this one

But just a couple of points

1) Any debate on immigration usually forgets about migrants in the first sentence and goes on to ranters foaming at Asylum seekers and illegal immigrants - both seperate issues

2) Immigration debates usually mean moslems and dark skinned people. In other words its an excuse for rascism. Few have a problel with New Zealanders, Australians, White Americans or white South Africans.

3) The fact that thousands of british (millions) are also immigrants in other countries is nearly never mentioned nor the fact that the countries most want to live in (US, Australia) are made up of nearly entirely of immigrants.

$) When people call for a "debate" it usually means they want the chance to rant against foreigners. You may as well call for a debate about "jews" or the "irish problem".

9. At 09:18am on 05 Nov 2010, Eric wrote:
Immigration is the biggest issue in the UK, bar none.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hardly
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Bristish public never asked for it, and all signs indicate that we
don't want it,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the british public who are not immigrants? Immigrants are British too :)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
and yet a mixture of powerful selfish business interests
and discriminatory (racist?) multicultural interests against the
mainly white British populace still prevail. Not to mention the twisted
interests of the Labour government who purposely allowed this mass
flooding of our society to go on virtually unopposed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes its all a vast consipracy to pollute the race.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

It too seems we are still being drip-fed with the usual well thought out
excuses on why 'we need immigration', designed of course to soften the
blow. No doubt believing that the indigenous masses will swallow
this carefully drip-fed propaganda, just like a carefully contrived
advert, because that is what it is.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indigenous masses- not a nice way to speak of the Welsh

When we have thousands of young doctors, teachers, nurses and IT workers graduating every year and finding it difficult to find employment , why is it essential to allow immigration for people with just these or like qualifications ? Even if this was a genuine reason to allow entry, this certainly does not do anything to stop the masses of unqualified immigrants from Asia and from Africa who arrive in Britain both legally ,illegally and in the guise of asylum seekers. It seems that for the majority of British nationals who have never been asked to approve mass immigration and in general appear to be against it for various reasons, their opinion is regarded as either ill informed or as racist. It may well be either or both, but the people of this country, whatever their views , have a right to express them, and if the majority are of the same view then it should be acted upon.

@Simon21

I fully understand your point - that Brits are also immigrants
elsewhere... this is so very true! BUT it does not make an argument
for mass immigration here, or indeed anywhere else.

My grip is that MASS immigration is the problem, and not a small
influx. The UK is too small a place for mass immigration, and it is also
wholly unfair on (any) populace too. An increasing population of this country is a growing concern, something that just has to be dealt with.

I always believe it is better to prevent than to try to cure a problem.

Being anti-mass immigration is not racist, this is a very very tired argument.

I bet that if say 4-5 million Brits went over to live in India,
or Poland (for example), then locals there would feel highly intimidated
and some form of uprise would happen.

It is not just co-incidence that indigenous populations in Europe
are very unhappy at the massive influx of foreigners on their soil -
it's called survival of ones culture and society!

Immigrants are not interested in the big multicultural plan!?, they are
only interested in their survival and procreation, just as we are too.
BUT as this is our land, and they were not invited.

If this continues without limits, the forces of nature will eventually
start to play a part in all this.

If any one is so very pro-mass immigration, then please do enlighten me and others who agree with my concerns. Write down in bullet form why all this is 'good for us'. Please do ...

12. At 11:35am on 05 Nov 2010, kaybraes wrote:
When we have thousands of young doctors, teachers, nurses and IT workers graduating every year and finding it difficult to find employment , why is it essential to allow immigration for people with just these or like qualifications ? Even if this was a genuine reason to allow entry, this certainly does not do anything to stop the masses of unqualified immigrants from Asia and from Africa who arrive in Britain both legally ,illegally and in the guise of asylum seekers. It seems that for the majority of British nationals who have never been asked to approve mass immigration and in general appear to be against it for various reasons, their opinion is regarded as either ill informed or as racist. It may well be either or both, but the people of this country, whatever their views , have a right to express them, and if the majority are of the same view then it should be acted upon.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So rascist policies should be implemented if they are popular?

Why did we hang people at Nuremburg and Lodz etc again?

What about sexist ones? If a bare majority think that young women should be kept at home, that good enough?

Don't blame the immigrants. The great majority of immigrants are decent and hard-working. They want to contribute to society and pay their way. That's wonderful. But how does it make sense to allow someone to migrate here to fill a job vacancy, while in the meantime the British taxpayer is footing the benefits bill for a local worker to sit idle?

We don't need any immigration until our own unemployment rate is approaching zero.

10. At 10:38am on 05 Nov 2010, Simon21 wrote:

1) Any debate on immigration usually forgets about migrants in the first sentence and goes on to ranters foaming at Asylum seekers and illegal immigrants - both seperate issues

2) Immigration debates usually mean moslems and dark skinned people. In other words its an excuse for rascism. Few have a problel with New Zealanders, Australians, White Americans or white South Africans.

3) The fact that thousands of british (millions) are also immigrants in other countries is nearly never mentioned nor the fact that the countries most want to live in (US, Australia) are made up of nearly entirely of immigrants.

$) When people call for a "debate" it usually means they want the chance to rant against foreigners. You may as well call for a debate about "jews" or the "irish problem".


-----------------------------------------------------------------

A good thought-provoking post. Taking each point in turn:

1) Disagree slightly on this, in that rather than an economic migrants vs illegals argument the focus of public attention seems to be disproportionately on non-EU immigration despite it being the speed and degree of mass migration from within those parts of the EU which have cultures and traditions entirely incompatible with our own that is threatening cohesion in many poorer communities.

2) Whilst I would agree up to a point, my wife is American and has experienced some fairly unpleasant comments from in the UK (some from so-called 'liberals' apparently too thick to make the distinction between a country's populace and its government and foreign policy, and others who believe tabloid propaganda about the levels of benefits available to non-EU citizens - hint: it's significantly less than the £800pcm housing benefit received by my Czech Roma neighbours). Of course, it is people like us who will be targetted by the proposed 'cap' simply because for all their tough-talking successive Govts have refused to stand up to the EU and regain control over our own borders.

3)You're right, and the hypocisy of these 'Disgusted of Torremolinos' types ranting against 'furriners' from their Anglophone enclaves in the international editions of the Dacre press is never lost upon me. And I think that any proposals to limit immigration from countries popular with ex-pat Brits would need to be carefully considered lest said countries reciprocate with similarly draconian restrictions, upsetting the balance of net migration and even prompting the return of long-standing settlers. It is however worth remembering that whilst Australia, New Zealand, the US and Canada have all been welcoming to varying degrees of white-skinned, Anglophone incomers, their track records regarding native populations and immigrants from neighbouring countries (Pacific Islanders and Asians for the Australasians, Afro-Caribbean and Hispanic people in the US) are altogether murkier.

4) Unfortunately that's what now passes for debate in a country where public opinion has been systematically and deliberately divided by a predominantly right-wing meeja. Of course the promotion of 'them and us' attitudes, Otherisation of those who have the audacity not to conform and exploitation of stereotypes is certainly not the preserve of outlets on the right of the political spectrum, as this website's steady stream of heavily biased articles and discussions calling for 'a debate' on what 'should be done' about 'the obese' demonstrate. The targets vary but the mechanisms of moral panic are universally employed.

13. At 12:02pm on 05 Nov 2010, Eric wrote:
@Simon21

I fully understand your point - that Brits are also immigrants
elsewhere... this is so very true! BUT it does not make an argument
for mass immigration here, or indeed anywhere else. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would say it does. A country where over 50% of its people would like to immmigrate to Florida etc has a slightly skewed vision about immigration - hateful if they do it - but its alright if we do
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

My grip is that MASS immigration is the problem, and not a small
influx. The UK is too small a place for mass immigration, and it is also
wholly unfair on (any) populace too. An increasing population of this country is a growing concern, something that just has to be dealt with.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Define "mass". And if population is a worry then laws on child numbers might be promulgated, enforced sterilisations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I always believe it is better to prevent than to try to cure a problem.

Being anti-mass immigration is not racist, this is a very very tired argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

And a very accurate one because we know we are not talking about english speaking whites.

Are we.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I bet that if say 4-5 million Brits went over to live in India,
or Poland (for example), then locals there would feel highly intimidated
and some form of uprise would happen.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many Spanish find the rude, boorish, intolerant nature of some British expats who have colonised the Spanish coast offensive. Many Australians beleive Brits come to lie on the beaches, bludge off the state and won't wash.

But in neither country is there a serious susggestion that immigration is not a good thing and a necessary thing (Australia having relaxed its criteria recently)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is not just co-incidence that indigenous populations in Europe
are very unhappy at the massive influx of foreigners on their soil -
it's called survival of ones culture and society!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am afraid you do not know what indigenous means. Were German jews indigenous?

Are the Poles "indigenous". Who are these mysterious i"ndegnous" Europeans.

We can guess that they are white.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Immigrants are not interested in the big multicultural plan!?, they are
only interested in their survival and procreation, just as we are too.
BUT as this is our land, and they were not invited.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

If they are outside the EU yes they are invited, that is the only way they can come.

As for the EU immigrants - free movement of capital free movement of labour. Brits use this system as much as any.

Labour has as much rights as money.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

If this continues without limits, the forces of nature will eventually
start to play a part in all this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are limits - jobs, prices etc. That's why the population of France has not landed at Dover.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

If any one is so very pro-mass immigration, then please do enlighten me and others who agree with my concerns. Write down in bullet form why all this is 'good for us'. Please do ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because we need a global economy? You know the thing that generates the money?

Now you tell me what youu mean by "indigenous" - presumably you mean the Welsh? How will restricting the UK to the Welsh (and to a certain extent the Scots) help anything?

Have a debate by all means but please please let it be conducted in a well-informed way.

One misconception that absolutely cannot be allowed to go unchallenged is, as Eric puts it at comment 9, that "the Labour government ... purposely allowed this mass flooding of our society to go on virtually unopposed".

You see this almost every day in the popular press: Labour's open door immigration policy, Labour allowed uncontrolled mass migration etc etc and it is simply NOT TRUE. Non-EU immigration is controlled by detailed Immigration Rules made by ministers under the powers contained in the various Immigration Acts. The Rules actually became progressively tighter under Labour. I'll give you a couple of examples - introducing a points system for workers, increasing the "trial period" of limited leave for a non-EU spouse from one year to two. To read the right wing press you would think that Labour abolished all immigration controls. Well they didn't.

My Tory MP was rebuked by a correspondent to the letters page in our local paper (not me) for repeating this kind of hysterical nonsense, and his rather lame reply was "But that is how people feel". Well yes, people will feel like that if they are constantly told day after day that there is uncontrolled immigration - he should know better.

And another thing: non-EU migrants generally cannot get benefits, social housing and other welfare entitlements until they have become settled and qualified for indefinite leave to remain. If you think that newly arrived immigrants get preferential treatment in housing and welfare matters, you have been misinformed.

There needs to be a balanced approach to this.

Immigration has and continues to serve us well in many areas. The introduction of many hard-working and intelligent people into the UK not just recently but over the centuries has helped to make Britain a better place - it's just a shame we haven't been able to exchange them for the feckless, lazy and workshy 'natives'!

However, there does need to be some form of control from a practical side of things, no matter where people are migrating from. Those that offer nothing or even worse make our society worse through crime or claiming benefits whilst not working should be sent back to where they came from, though obviously that is dependent on where they come from and why they left their home country.

Reducing the debate to calling anyone who wants immigration controls racist doesn't help.

@BlahBoy (19)

Good post. Seems reasonable to me.


@Simon21 (10)

// "When people call for a "debate" it usually means they want the chance
// to rant against foreigners.

I would either include the word "some" or omit the word "usually" from that.

Because while what you write is undoubtedly true for some people, I'm not sure those people are the majority. By implying that they are, you just confirm the prejudices of those prone to repeating "You can't say anything without being called racist these days" (who are of course, themselves, guilty of a gross exaggeration by saying that).

For the ideal debate on immigration, we need to be careful to exclude the extreme caricatures and fight the urge to mischaracterise (or generalise about) our opponents.

One thing that no-one has mentioned is that way that officials skew the system.
My father-in-law, a 96 yr old war veteran applied for a grant for heating. (his house was like a fridge and its heating system was old).
The council had leaflets(for grants) in every conceivable language you can imagine, but could only supply an English language "Loan" leaflet for him.
So, someone who had spent the war fighting the enemy was denied help. Although it seems fashionable to ensure that those not of British origin, and who (obviously from the "other language" leaflets), those who cannot or will not learn our native tongue, are helped to be supplied with the very service which was denied to my father in law.
When this type of discrimination occurs, there is generally no outcry, (after all, who is interested in an old and infirm veteran who has asked for nothing all his life, after acting on the call of duty), but recently a certain ethnic group got a public baths altered because of their claims of "modesty". Money available for this, but not for a veteran in his 90s and in need??
An up to date event confirms the innate state prejudice obtaining in GB today.
Recently, two (English) groups were banned from holding meetings, (in the public interest). What were these groups to protest about?? Immigrants!
Fast forward to this week, and a muslim woman was found guilty of attempted murder of a politician.
She REFUSED to attend court for sentencing, and her supporters filled the court with abuse. They were ejected, no further action.
Why was the accused not dragged into court? Why were the court protesters not charged with (at least) breach of the peace?
If you reflect that the court protestors were supporting a convicted terrorist,they were not dealt with in any way, you can fathom the way the state surrendurs to these extremists,but has a different criteria for war veterans, is it any wonder that people are up in arms abour "immigrants"? Not that it does them any good!

So my veteran father in law is definitely at the bottom of any priority list. Why, because politicians will not stand up for such as him, they would rather appease those who seek to change our country to their ways.
Oh, and some of these are immigrants. Does that count??

firemensaction (21)

// "is it any wonder that people are up in arms about "immigrants"?"

For the most part, immigrants aren't actually the problem. Most are fine. Most speak English perfectly well. Most are not trying to cause trouble or impose themselves disproportionately. Same goes for Muslims (despite the best efforts of the Daily Express to pander to our baser tribal instincts and prejudices).

The problem is not really the immigrants. The problem is, ironically, an indigenous one! It is the British immigration system. We should be "up in arms about the immigration system". And the British political establishment. And the unwillingness of successive British governments to listen to the people.

The moment we direct our ire away from Westminster and onto sub-categories of people, they have us hoodwinked. We end up fighting amongst ourselves rather than holding them to account. And Westminster (thanks to its minions in Fleet St) are off the hook.

13. At 12:02pm on 05 Nov 2010, Eric wrote:
@Simon21

I fully understand your point - that Brits are also immigrants
elsewhere... this is so very true! BUT it does not make an argument
for mass immigration here, or indeed anywhere else. "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would say it does. A country where over 50% of its people would like to immmigrate to Florida etc has a slightly skewed vision about immigration - hateful if they do it - but its alright if we do

@Simon

Am I led to believe that because of some Brits wishing to emigrate
to say the US/Austrialia, that this act alone is good enough reason why
the rest of the UK 'has to' tolerate mass immigration on these (UK)
shores?? A kind of tit-for-tat philosophy?

Is that the basis of your argument?

14. At 12:03pm on 05 Nov 2010, Simon21 wrote:

12. At 11:35am on 05 Nov 2010, kaybraes wrote:
When we have thousands of young doctors, teachers, nurses and IT workers graduating every year and finding it difficult to find employment , why is it essential to allow immigration for people with just these or like qualifications ? Even if this was a genuine reason to allow entry, this certainly does not do anything to stop the masses of unqualified immigrants from Asia and from Africa who arrive in Britain both legally ,illegally and in the guise ............. acted upon.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So rascist policies should be implemented if they are popular?

Why did we hang people at Nuremburg and Lodz etc again?

What about sexist ones? If a bare majority think that young women should
be kept at home, that good enough?

@Simon.

Simon, I will try to appeal to you as a friend, and ask you not to see
things through the eye of a PC needle. It's not a perfect world
my friend. Nature is full of inconsistencies, and contradictions etc.

Mass immigration to any country (uninvited)is wrong. I used to be
a socialist and still in some ways fly the red flag in my heart. But
the evolution of the human race goes back tens of thousand of years
and more. All this PC stuff sounds great, but it's not in our genetic
coding. We are animals and so strive survive, procreate and prosper.
However, the shear mathematics of scale in time are going to
present problems. We cannot deny this. Sure, both you and I can bury our
heads in the sand if we wish, but natures forces will continue as before.

Some argue that 70, 80, 90 million in the UK is possible. They believe
that we will somehow get around this. But the shear scale and eventual
limited resources will begin have their effects, well before this I'm sure. It's not as if we can just switch a problem off at will. Society
in this scenario will have very different values compared to today. Very
little space, and who knows, millions in real poverty, tonnes more crime
and injustices going on etc.

It's so unpredictable and indeed irresponsible of us as a species, if we allow this to go on and on.

Life is tough, our ancestors (all over the planet) fought many battles,
mainly tribal ones. This, regrettably is still in our blood, you only
have to read the news. With this and other matters in mind, I firmly
believe that prevention is better than a cure. Because, there won't be
a cure.

#21 firemensaction

To a great extent I agree with your assessment of the pervasive effect our politically correct changes have had. It is exceedingly foolhardy and negative to cater disproportionately in favour of a minority unless you have first taken proper care to ensure you are also catering for the majority.

Whilst I am first to acknowledge the need for sensitivity when dealing with minority groups we must not strive to place their needs ahead of others; we must not allow them to displace moral obligations others must observe; we must not allow them disproportionate voice or publicity; we must respect their presence, encourage them into our communities to integrate and mix, to befriend and merge with the indigenous. But they do not and we do not.

They/We do not encourage a common language. They/We do not encourage mixed truly multicultural communities; They/We support 'tribal' encampments where ethnicity or behavioural similarity is the bond, even on the micro scale within our many institutions. Only our children truly mix when allowed to do so freely.

Forcing immigration upon us is a dangerous game when the indigenous populace is picked off for not being enough of anything to have a voice.

English speaking, working class, no prospects, seeks friend.....

Blogging Rules On Immigration Part I
1. It is wrong to criticize white people unfairly.
2. There is a fine line in criticizing white people fairly (or unfairly).
3. Same goes for immigrants
4. N.B. Some Immigrants have been here for 60+ years

(Public ♁ Enemy) ▢ Shut 'Em Down ▢ By The Time I Get To Arizona ▢
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42d-uaBsE3w

After talking to lots of people who have come to this country seeking a new life, education or work of refuge.
Some hate us, some love us and some are indifferent to us.
Some think GB is a free lunch and they laugh at the GB system of the welfare state for all.
Some want to get back to their original home as soon as possible because they dislike the social isolation here.
Some want to carry on their own meaningful traditions here, even if some of them are against UK policy.
Some love our higher education system, some hate it and some are indifferent.
Some dream of starting their own businesses as soon as they can save up enough money and some are content to do any job that comes along.
Some think that we have a lot of personal freedom and others think we are restricted in subtle ways.
A common theme is that everyone is human, with human needs, aspirations and dreams for the future.

This should lead us to suppose that everyone else is like us and they will treat us the way we reflect back at them. We all need to get along as best as we can because at some point in our lives we may need the hospitality of others in other lands.

In UK, we are already far over the endemic and natual sustainability population number which this island of ours is capable of sustaining within our own borders- UNDISPUTABLE FACT.

We are basically juggling with human lives, 10s of MILLIONS of them.

NO juggler can maintain continuity for eternity, whether human or machine, it is a FACTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY, hence the FACTUAL outcome which our nation faces is a devastating population collapse with millions upon millions of lives lost, devastation FAR far beyond that of the Plague.

It WILL FACTUALLY happen at some point, there is so much evidence to prove its enevitability.

Hence adding further to UK population via large or any numbers of immigration will factually only result in greater devastation due to greater population numbers.

Presently over 50% of ALL births in UK are births to immigrant populations in UK, even though immigrants account for a TINY overal proportion of the UKs population they are ALREADY outbreeding 10s of millions more people. Do the maths, its simple arithmetic to show/prove that since large influx of immigration to UK over past 20 to 30 years we have LOST our nations natural ability of maintaining previous population levels, population levels which were ALSO factually heading for a decline, but which were basically turned around due to government policys being 100% TOTALLY RELIANT upon population increases which they need to continuously grow and keep up with their unsustainable domino effect policys.

Its all very well using unsustainable population increases/immigration, to temporarily improve our nations lot economically, but it is an unsustainable SHORT TERM remedy action which like ANY danger to our existance will enevitably have to be faced full on and acted against at some ENEVITABLE point.

UK government long term policys are basically and FACTUALLY based upon a dog chasing it's own tail. Promises of future sustainability, future prosperity, future security are a deceitful and endemic falsehood, which can easily and simply actually be proven in a court of law, unattainable in fact and reality, these policys are basically displayed upon the dogs tail, the dog chases them, going round and round, every now and then collapsing from exhaustion, then having another go. Every now and then, especially after a collapse of some sort politicians will change the signs with new improved promises, then the dog will again get up and chase after them until the next collapse, or until the final enevitable exhaustive outcome - end of life.

Presently, politicians are using population increases to maintain and enhance their unsustainable policys.

EVERYTHING is GEARED to GROWTH.

There is but ONE simple FACT- which is- THERE ARE LIMITS TO GROWTH.

There is but a second simple FACT- which is- politicians and the general population are too COWARDLY and of self-interst and indoctrinated with religious morality and race/ethical human rights morality to face limits to growth fact or take counter necessary action to avoid a future population collapse catastrophy with suffering in UK beyond that even previously seen in Ethiopia and elsewhere around the world where people dropped like flies due to starvation. The factual reality facing the UK at some enevitable point also includes pestilence- the spread of any epidemic outbreak of a deadly and highly infectious disease, especially due to such large population numbers confined to such cramped close proximity living conditions.

When such happens, it would be hard to cope with numbers of bodys, hence disease would run wild.

Presently, USA holds the worlds biggest stock of grain crops. They could hand it out to every starving nation and person in the world, but this stock is an INSURANCE policy to maintain USA EXISTANCE. Even at the best of times climate/weather is just so unpredictable and is now even moreso due to environmental damage and climate change. Hence the RISKS to crop failures have MULTIPLIED. The USA maintains these stocks at HUGE overall cost, but USA still spends multiple times more on house insurance or car insurance or health insurance, insurances which are 100% totally meaningless in outcome reality of crop/food production failures.

The world or the worlds main food growing areas only have to experience a year of dodgy weather systems and ruined crops/harvests for world devastation to be a reality, let alone two years or 5 years, such an experienced reality is a historical documented FACT and REALITY

Russia produces some food for export, recent events resulted in Russia BANNING food/grain exports to enable its OWN people to survive. Those countrys it previously supplied now have severe hardship in seeking other sources of food supply, prices rise, famine increases and this is just the result of quite a relatively MINOR world food production LOSS

This is an ENEVITABLE reality of ANY nation when faced with ANY/ALL similar predicaments, but the worse the negative food production crisis is then consequential starvation and death outcomes MULTIPLY MASSIVELY.

Lets face the facts about human immigration.

Humans have emigrated around the world due to NEED. Essentially due to survival NEED, due to changing and devastating climate weather systems and also population growth, later & more recent historical times of human existance some has been for economic and wealth opportunity but ENDEMICALLY and first and foremost emmigration was mainly due to SURVIVAL NEEDS.

EVERY corner of the world has now been reached, hence emigration can now ONLY be to countrys ALREADY heavily populated. In general those countrys with the WORST and GREATEST UNSUSTAINABLE populations export the MOST immigrants. Many countrys they emigrate to are already beyond their own endemic populations food sustainability

People seek better lives, better SECURITY of life, as is natural behaviour of humans or even buffalo in USA or herds of wilderbeast in Africa, they have MASSIVE emmigration and seek out new pastures in drought, or severe winters, they go to where the food is, where the RESOURCES are. This was ONCE an endemic choice and available reality of human populations. Presently it is also a reality via present emigration/immigration. Thing is when more and more emigrate to the same perceived lush economic pastures and populations continue to grow, ENEVITABILITY of DETRIMENTAL consequence CANNOT FACTUALLY BE ESCAPED. It may be put off a while but ONLY and JUST AS LONG as present systems can support it. ANY knock or damage to the system will FACTUALLY result in MASSIVE devastation.

I dont think people in UK/west/USA realise how close they recently came to such a disaster via the banking collapse.

If the world monetry system had actually collapsed then how would the main UK food retailers pay for imports of food produce. How would UK pay for imports of coal/coke to keep our powerstations running, homes warm, the lights on and economy moving. How would we pay for oil imports which we turn into petrol & diesel.

If you are presently complaining about consequential hardship due to banking collapse and recession and public expenditure cuts, you NEED to FULLY 100% REALISE that the REALITY was just SO CLOSE to being a CATASTROPHY beyond that which most can comprehend/understand.

Can you imagine the panic and chaos and even VIOLENCE and DESTRUCTION which would ensue from such an outcome REALITY.

We are presently FAR FAR from being SAFE from such a CATASTROPHIC disaster, but politicians will NOT MENTION this 100% FACTUAL REALITY. Again, proveable in or out of a decent court.

Countrys in Europe are STILL on the BRINK of financial RUIN, INCLUDING the UK, and also and ESSENTIALLY the USA.

The world financial/economic situation is 100% FACTUALLY NOT as STABLE as politicians suggest.

It is still 100% teetered on the ABYSS of COLLAPSE.

Among MANY MANY FACTS, just ONE single fact is enough evidence to prove this and that is the fact of quantative easing, printing/creating money out of thin air, because there is NONE to prop up nations and counter the consequential effects of HORRIFIC economic conditions.

USA has just created a FURTHER $600BILLION, adding to its already $1.7 TRILLION of recentlycreated fantasy money, Japan, presently the worlds 2nd largest economy is also creating $£ BILLIONS of FANTASY money, countrys in Europe which finance ministers etc have recently met in the last week,it is suggested/reported are ALSO going to agree to create MORE FANTASY money.



On top of ALL THIS, STILL, we are ADDING to our LONG TERM problems via continueing with UNSUSTAINABLE IMMIGRATION. We are just following the SAME policys, basically OUT OF PURE PANIC of ECONOMIC NEED.

Hence, recent plans to reduce immigrant numbers I think will be revised or deceitfully manouvered to enable PANIC ACCESS to HIGH skilled/educated professionals etc, ULTIMATELY because university cuts and fee rises will ENEVITABLY result in fewer UK graduates due to personal UNNAFFORDABILITY.

Even at present, even with such HUGE increases in numbers over recent years being university educated, we have been TOTALLY unable to educate/train that of endemic economic need and/or social provisional need.

There is just ONE FACTUAL REASON FOR THIS.

100% TOTAL NEGLIGENCE OF CARE OF DUTY OF UK GOVERNMENTS to PLAN and FACILITATE that which is NEEDED to sustain /maintain our economic and social government policy needs/requirement from within our OWN population.
It is 100% ILLOGICAL to provide so MANY university places for subjects of NO RELATIVE and SUSTAINABLE economic/social NEED.

Presently the ConDems are tinkering with University courses, little enticements for specific subjects in an attempt to maintain numbers or increase numbers, this TINKERING is 100% INEFFECTIVE TO MEET THE FACTUAL NEEDS/REQUIREMENTS OF UK ECONOMY.

WE desperately NEED a much more RADICAL policy/plan to VERY SUBSTANTIALLY increase the areas in which skilled/professional immigrant labour is currently a national requirement.

With ALL the INJUSTICE/UNFAIRNESS UPROAR of changes and cuts to University education, our government is still 100% FAILING to IMPLEMENT educational policys which NEGATE deceptive NEED for professional/skilled or lower skilled immigrants.

Lets get ONE FURTHER FACT OUT IN THE OPEN regarding government policy on immigration and UK education/universitys.

UK government provides £millions upon £millions to other countrys education systems. The government has an UNDERLYING and endemic long term policy of HARVESTING this foreign aid (investment). Its basically an INVESTMENT in which UK taxpayers fund other nations education systems and for return of our taxpayer aid/INVESTMENT, we gain ACCESS TO CHEAPLY EDUCATED/TRAINED professionals of which we then accept LARGE numbers into the UK. 100% FACT, also proveable in or out of a decent court, no matter what SPIN/propaganda and deceptive reasons government will use to cover over/dispute such, the REALITY of FACTUAL EVIDENTIAL CONSEQUENCE is 100% PROVEABLE, and so simply visible.

One thing, peoples distrust of politicians greqw due to expenses.

If you think that MPs expenses is the ONLY area of endemic deceit, greed, negligence, ineptitude and even criminal behaviour, then wake up to fact and reality, because there is so much complication used to hide and smother from view so much TRUTH/FACT and REALITY.

I could go on, but I work for myself, my own business, as previously mentioned on comments etc, started because I saw this recession coming long before it hit. I find it so easy to add up numbers and realitys, and understand that which is so often obvious but hidden within complexity and denial.

I will now do some work, earn some tax £s to pay for the MASSIVELY increased foreign aid policys, which will enevitably result in our attrocious and deceitful governing and capitalist system continueing to harvest this aid/investment via cheaply UK taxpayer funded educated/trained immigrants, especially professionals and upper social mobility tier of earners/skills etc, while our own education system is afflicted with MASSIVE cuts and our OWN endemic population are forced to endure massive increases in debts and hardship and a possible HUGE deterioration of numbers of University educated people, especially of the RIGHT economic need/requirement.

The majority of immigration to UK, I believe, is ESSENTIALLY due to deceitful government foreign aid programmes and harvesting that aid/investment which goes hand in hand with illogical and attrocious UK education policys which factually facilitate the continual generation and NEED of skilled immigrant labour to meet that situation which has been manipulated and created in UK.

Again, its like a dog chasing its tail, essentially in this instant, because UK government have deviously docked the dogs tail and further restricted/curtailed any possibility of catching it, hence creating an endemic cycle of demand of immigration.

Foreign aid, especially and fundamentally to foreign edcation systems is endemically linked to immigration.

There is LITTLE in this world which is free.

Even general aid programmes MAINLY & FACTULLY result in access to resources or labour or contracts for water companys etc, something in exchange. LITTLE in this life is FREE, maybe the odd emergency aid programs.

UK government can arrange to provide aid for a specific cause, it can also arrange to replace a nations expenditure on a specific expense, so that nation then pays MORE into its education or whatever.

UK government does NOT have to specifically provide aid to other countrys education systems to enable harvesting of its, aid/investment policys.

The world is twisted in complications and deviousness for many reasons, but never-the-less if you look hard enough that which covers/hides such deviousness and the true reality of complications is basically just a veneer, a veneer which is as thin as endemic human decency which just covers over our endemic animalistic behaviours.

------------

HI HO, its off to work I go.

@28. At 12:24pm on 06 Nov 2010, MrWonderfulReality wrote:

You went on at length, but you are about many issues.

It's time for all of us to get practical about the reality
of life and nature. We cannot keep absorbing masses of human
beings, for all the positive and many negative side effects.

Added to our our existing problems, mass immigration serves no purpose
for us, only perhaps to profit those selfish interests of capitalism.
This alone is the 'thin end of a wedge' that few of us can anticipate
the real longer term implications, and spin-offs etc.


Prevention IS better than a cure.

Come on all, we know this to be true. Let's 'get real' for once!

Life is rough and tough, more for some true. But the idea of utopia
is a dream, it's not in nature's mathematics.

I think there are many types of immigration. I do not believe people are concerned with true highly skilled migration - a Russian Doctor, a Japanese Biologist, a Chinese Lawyer, an Indian CEO.. people have massive issues with low skilled migrants that come and get council houses and live off welfare.

The left and the BBC deny or pussy foot around this issue, I've just listened to the radio show.. Doug Murray articulates British peoples concerns clearly, but no body listens and Trevor Philips is insulting. Perhaps if British birth rate is falling - then make it easier for women and families to have children.. I can't have children as I can't afford it

I wonder how the left and BBC would feel if we took the unemployed white British population of one of our sink estates and dumped them on Japanese cities... we then told the Japanese you do not have a racial or cultural identity and do not complain as you are racist... You are part of a global financial world end of!

This is what has happened in Britain....... One point of Trevor Philips - we live in a global economy - why has Japan stayed homogenous?

A country has a right to ensure that every immigrant has the skills and attributes required to integrate with its people and culture. At last President Sarkozy and the German Government appears to be taking the required steps. Australia after many painful episodes appears to have taken the required steps to prevent illegal economic migrants posing off as persecuted people. A sample survey of such people, who were granted resident status based on their claims of being persecuted in Sri Lanka, has revealed that most of them had paid visits to Sri Lanka within a short period.
This week a former Minister of the Government of Pakistan was killed in UK. Some LTTE sympathisers are forming Governments in exile with the intention of creating conditions in the north of Sri Lanka to permit more kith & kin to join them. It looks as if the rights of the citizens of Western nations to ensure that their children enjoy a lifestyle similar to them are being compromised by the migrants who do not attempt to integrate with their host countries.

Robin and Trevor,

it seems you have decided that movement of peoples from elsewhere in the EU to the UK is *not* immigration, so will not be discussed.

I'm afraid you have a very different idea of what constitutes immigration to the vast majority of the British people.

I suggest you both open up the debate to encompass the scope demanded by the British people.

28. At 12:24pm on 06 Nov 2010, you wrote:
----------------------

RE: I forgot a bit I was going to mention regarding food insurance stocks.

My point was that the USA has stocks to last it around a year if crops fail.

Europe is a joke. We allowed politicians to talk us out of maintaining our food mountains. The excuse uses was that they were essentially maintained for pricing purposes.

By disposing of the European food mountains we have essentially destroyed much of our survival ability.

Its crazy that we pay so much moiney in Europe for home insurance against floods or whatever yet the MOST IMPORTANT insurance needed for our VERY survival has been greatly undermined/damaged.

Whats the point of having house or car insurance if you have no food to eat. Its illogiacl, nonsensical and outrageously stupid and negligent to dispose of such an insurance policy which provides insurance for sustaining our very existance.

As mention in my previous comment, climate change/weather systems are even more haphazard and unpredictable. Last year in UK we had the worst snow for many many years, in Wales and other places it was the coldest for a long time, Cumbria had catastrophic rain. Floods accross Europe which have not been seen for many many years. This year Russia was so dry much of it burnt to cinder, especially food crops.

WE have ALL this information we have ALL this evidence, we have HISTORICAL proof/evidence of MASSIVE catastrophy caused by weather systems and crop failures, yet in Europe we have reduced our food stocks to low levels.

Hence every life in European Community is being gambled with as if it is a 10p bet on a 3 legged horse.

In UK its even worse, and immigration has turned around our population which was previously evening out and was according to statistical evidence was FACTUALLY due to decline. But in stepped government and maliciously twisted various policys, including UK education and foreign aid, to enable them to use immigration in direct opposition to sustainable policy. For what, for tempory economic benefit.

The thing with previous policys, and continueing policys, is that they are basically like a short term credit payment holiday. Eventually that holiday ENDS and payment in FULL is due, the cost of which will be astronomical.

All that is presently being done with UK economy is a bit of idealistic shuffling, mixed in with economic slavery.

If you are born into the UK then you are instantly enslaved to pay for previous generations, thats how our pensions policy works and now it is how our whole nation functions.

You can understand the costs of WWII being dragged on for generations, but the same is happening NOW, and we have not had such devastation, but I personally believe that we will experience some form of economic/social devastation within the next few years and my hunch is, is that it can happen and will happen any time between mid 2011 and 2015.
I make my assumptions based on events and consequential realitys which are happening around the world, especially in UK/Europe/Japan/USA.

I was right about the recession happening, thus I previously took action to insure myself against even the worst outcomes, I started my own business and it can/will see me through even a complete banking/monetry collapse, I have made sure of that.

Present economic policy by this Condem government is just NOT realistic.

The ONLY reason what I can think of why it is as such is ONLY if things are going to turn for the WORST.

Its like preparation for a retreat, bit like Dunkirk, abandoning so much.

Immigration policy also just does NOT FIT IN with Condem economic policy.

We are told we must live within our means. YET sustainable population and immigration is EXCLUDED from this.

FUNDAMENTALLY we need to live within our means regarding our population.

Relatively we have a NEGATIVE balance of payments regarding population. It is illogical, nonsensical and plain irresponsible to continue such negative immigrant import.

I believe we need at minimum a 5 year TOTAL FREEZE on net immigration. Just allow the same number who leave, to come in, then people in the UK can fill the jobs.

Over next 4 years there will be so many people losing jobs from ALL tiers/levels of emplyment, from top to bottom, hence there will be a MASSIVE available skills base, many which can be utilised into lesser areas of experience.

Lets NOT forget that during WWII & WWI, MILLIONS of people in Britain were required to do jobs they had NO experience of as there was NO choice. Our nation did not fall apart, we MANAGED and we persevered/progressed.

I believe present circumstances call for the same mentality.

I also believe that the LAST thing this nation needs is a BIGGER population, which is a factual reality of continued unsustainable immigration.

Theres nothing racist or imoral in suggesting a net immigration freeze.

Ultimately, it COMMON SENSE and LOGICAL.

Many politicians and ordinary people fail to appreciate that as foreign societies break down in progressively more (eg) African states, large numbers of displaced peoples will knock on our door - arriving on our beaches, transported by opportunistic shippers.
They will all claim refugee status because of the turmoil in these nations, though most will be, in reality, economic migrants. We will be unable to turn them around because it will be impossible to prove their status.
Another group will claim 'undeclared homosexuality' - impossible to contest, because most nations identify gender differences as marking the individual as the 'other', therefore subject to harrassment, therefore eligable to live in the UK.

Our bottom line is one of carrying capacity - we need a Government declaration of what is the maximum total number allowed to exist on these islands. This defines the Bottom Line - a line across which excess prospective immigrants shall not pass.

Whatever happened to Have your Say? It's just photos now....

Illegal immigrants should be discouraged at all costs. Pakistani or any other illegal immigrant groups should be found and immediately deported.

"but it's an issue which politicians in the three main parties - and indeed many of us in the media - have been reluctant to discuss much until quite recently."

You can say that again!!!! my friend Alistair Burnett.

You lot have been reluctant to discuss the topic period!!!!

While whole cities have been taken over by immigrants you lot have stood idly by and done nothing. It has even become a criminal offence to say any tiny thing in protest. And still not a word. Sharia Law has even been contemplated . . . still you submit to it all. No-go areas by police and Brits of the wrong persuasion. On and on it goes and you have seen nothing with those blind eyes!!!!

No matter whether the immigrant by stealth has a criminal record to be banned from hell itself . . . they are still admitted by the unseeing unthinking, blinkered set that runs the roost.

By keeping quiet you lot in the media have been an accessory to the demise of England and the English people.

You should be ashamed of yourselves. It is too late to say you have been reluctant to discuss the subject.

As for a program to discuss the subject: you might well say is "fraught with difficulty", when the main retinue of the panel are advocates for the status quo for immigration. For Gods sake get a life and bring in some people who are adamantly against . . . as-well-as for.

There are many 'issues of the day' that the BBC refuses to sanction for debate on HYS.

HYS is good on pictures and few, highly-selected and edited texts from screened individuals.

HYS is not about snaps - it is about having a SAY.

This is the ABSOLUTE ANTITHESES of what a comment blog actually called HAVE YOUR SAY should be about.

Who is the mis-employed editor who is managing BBC HYS affairs?

The subject of immigration is indeed a "sensitive" issue as it was always
intended to be by the "We are right,you are wrong,ergo you are racist"
brigade.

Its worked a treat hasnt it? Anyone wishing to merely talk about the subject,let alone have a reasoned debate,have been castigated and the BBC
whilst knowing deep down that this was the case,have said nothing.

Immigration when it substantially increases the population affects us all,with further demands on housing,education and medical needs.Therefore
I agree with #34 in that we have to agree on a population number that can
be sustained to the benefit of all.I believe that number has already been
reached,was reached some years ago.

The indigenous population plus the second and third generation immigrants
have been,and are being badly let down.But enough,there does need to be a
thorough debate on this issue,for too long screeches of racism has been
deemed the chosen closing argument.

Any debate on immigration will obviously involve the EU,another subject
that appears to be "sensitive".No subject that has a bearing on our daily
lives should be classed as too "sensitive",it should be openly recognised
and discussed.If governments shy away then the media should highlight this,indeed they have a duty to do so,and the BBC being publicly funded
should have been at the forefront in doing so.Always remember that we the
public fund the BBC through what is nothing more than a tax,we comply on
threat of fine or imprisonment.Thats our part of the arrangement,so now
you keep yours eh? As #37 says,you the BBC have been an accessory in the
process of keeping quiet,indeed I believe you have added to peoples anger
and frustration by choosing to ignore peoples concerns.Shame on you.

34. At 11:58pm on 06 Nov 2010, GeoffWard wrote:
Many politicians and ordinary people fail to appreciate that as foreign societies break down in progressively more (eg) African states, large numbers of displaced peoples will knock on our door - arriving on our beaches, transported by opportunistic shippers.
They will all claim refugee status because of the turmoil in these nations, though most will be, in reality, economic migrants. We will be unable to turn them around because it will be impossible to prove their status.
Another group will claim 'undeclared homosexuality' - impossible to contest, because most nations identify gender differences as marking the individual as the 'other', therefore subject to harrassment, therefore eligable to live in the UK.

Our bottom line is one of carrying capacity - we need a Government declaration of what is the maximum total number allowed to exist on these islands. This defines the Bottom Line - a line across which excess prospective immigrants shall not pass.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

And we need comments that show the writer is not someone who confuses refugees and immigrants and simply lumps them together becuase he does not like foreigners period.

33. At 11:44pm on 06 Nov 2010, MrWonderfulReality wrote:
28. At 12:24pm on 06 Nov 2010, you wrote:
----------------------

RE: I forgot a bit I was going to mention regarding food insurance stocks.

My point was that the USA has stocks to last it around a year if crops fail.

Europe is a joke. We allowed politicians to talk us out of maintaining our food mountains. The excuse uses was that they were essentially maintained for pricing purposes.

By disposing of the European food mountains we have essentially destroyed much of our survival ability.

Its crazy that we pay so much moiney in Europe for home insurance against floods or whatever yet the MOST IMPORTANT insurance needed for our VERY survival has been greatly undermined/damaged.

Whats the point of having house or car insurance if you have no food to eat. Its illogiacl, nonsensical and outrageously stupid and negligent to dispose of such an insurance policy which provides insurance for sustaining our very existance.

As mention in my previous comment, climate change/weather systems are even more haphazard and unpredictable. Last year in UK we had the worst snow for many many years, in Wales and other places it was the coldest for a long time, Cumbria had catastrophic rain. Floods accross Europe which have not been seen for many many years. This year Russia was so dry much of it burnt to cinder, especially food crops.

WE have ALL this information we have ALL this evidence, we have HISTORICAL proof/evidence of MASSIVE catastrophy caused by weather systems and crop failures, yet in Europe we have reduced our food stocks to low levels.

Hence every life in European Community is being gambled with as if it is a 10p bet on a 3 legged horse.

In UK its even worse, and immigration has turned around our population which was previously evening out and was according to statistical evidence was FACTUALLY due to decline. But in stepped government and maliciously twisted various policys, including UK education and foreign aid, to enable them to use immigration in direct opposition to sustainable policy. For what, for tempory economic benefit.

The thing with previous policys, and continueing policys, is that they are basically like a short term credit payment holiday. Eventually that holiday ENDS and payment in FULL is due, the cost of which will be astronomical.

All that is presently being done with UK economy is a bit of idealistic shuffling, mixed in with economic slavery.

If you are born into the UK then you are instantly enslaved to pay for previous generations, thats how our pensions policy works and now it is how our whole nation functions.

You can understand the costs of WWII being dragged on for generations, but the same is happening NOW, and we have not had such devastation, but I personally believe that we will experience some form of economic/social devastation within the next few years and my hunch is, is that it can happen and will happen any time between mid 2011 and 2015.
I make my assumptions based on events and consequential realitys which are happening around the world, especially in UK/Europe/Japan/USA.

I was right about the recession happening, thus I previously took action to insure myself against even the worst outcomes, I started my own business and it can/will see me through even a complete banking/monetry collapse, I have made sure of that.

Present economic policy by this Condem government is just NOT realistic.

The ONLY reason what I can think of why it is as such is ONLY if things are going to turn for the WORST.

Its like preparation for a retreat, bit like Dunkirk, abandoning so much.

Immigration policy also just does NOT FIT IN with Condem economic policy.

We are told we must live within our means. YET sustainable population and immigration is EXCLUDED from this.

FUNDAMENTALLY we need to live within our means regarding our population.

Relatively we have a NEGATIVE balance of payments regarding population. It is illogical, nonsensical and plain irresponsible to continue such negative immigrant import.

I believe we need at minimum a 5 year TOTAL FREEZE on net immigration. Just allow the same number who leave, to come in, then people in the UK can fill the jobs.

Over next 4 years there will be so many people losing jobs from ALL tiers/levels of emplyment, from top to bottom, hence there will be a MASSIVE available skills base, many which can be utilised into lesser areas of experience.

Lets NOT forget that during WWII & WWI, MILLIONS of people in Britain were required to do jobs they had NO experience of as there was NO choice. Our nation did not fall apart, we MANAGED and we persevered/progressed.

I believe present circumstances call for the same mentality.

I also believe that the LAST thing this nation needs is a BIGGER population, which is a factual reality of continued unsustainable immigration.

Theres nothing racist or imoral in suggesting a net immigration freeze.

Ultimately, it COMMON SENSE and LOGICAL.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you want a poorer economy and want companies to decamp overseas yes it is both those things.

Sadly we need immigrants. Immigrants from beyond the EU can only come in if we need them.

Arbitary limits won't work.

29. At 1:13pm on 06 Nov 2010, Eric wrote:
@28. At 12:24pm on 06 Nov 2010, MrWonderfulReality wrote:

You went on at length, but you are so right about many issues.

It's time for all of us to get practical about the reality
of life and nature. We cannot keep absorbing masses of human
beings, for all the positive and many negative side effects.

Added to our our existing problems, mass immigration serves no purpose
for us, only perhaps to profit those selfish interests of capitalism.
This alone is the 'thin end of a wedge' that few of us can anticipate
the real longer term implications, and spin-offs etc.


Prevention IS better than a cure.

Come on all, we know this to be true. Let's 'get real' for once!

Life is rough and tough, more for some true. But the idea of utopia
is a dream, it's not in nature's mathematics.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

And neither is xenophobia and the beleif this country must be handed over to the welsh.

GeoffWard wrote @ 34:
"Many politicians and ordinary people fail to appreciate that as foreign societies break down in progressively more (eg) African states, large numbers of displaced peoples will knock on our door - arriving on our beaches, transported by opportunistic shippers.
They will all claim refugee status because of the turmoil in these nations, though most will be, in reality, economic migrants. We will be unable to turn them around because it will be impossible to prove their status.
Another group will claim 'undeclared homosexuality' - impossible to contest, because most nations identify gender differences as marking the individual as the 'other', therefore subject to harrassment, therefore eligable to live in the UK.

Our bottom line is one of carrying capacity - we need a Government declaration of what is the maximum total number allowed to exist on these islands. This defines the Bottom Line - a line across which excess prospective immigrants shall not pass."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

And we need comments that show the writer is not someone who confuses refugees and immigrants and simply lumps them together becuase he does not like foreigners period." (Simon21 @ 40)

..................
Simon,
I uderstand precisely the distinctions between migrant (emigrant, immigrant, temporary, permanent, work permitted, student visa-ed, etc, etc.).
I understand precisely the rules governing entry for work, accompaniment of family, EU movements of people of differing nationalities from the Western EU, the extended EU, the Euro-zone, the Schengen countries, the pre-Schengen countries, the non-signatories, the Amsterdam Treaty, etc.
I understand the differences between refugee status, economic migrant status from the old Commonwealth, the new Commonewealth, non-commonwealth/non-EU areas.
I understand the process of illegal transportations of paying illegal migrants, and I understand the processes and controls available and deployed to arrest illegal entry.
I understand the many scams employed to gain entry, to disappear into English under-society, and to avoid deportation.

Simon, I am married to a foreigner and, when in her country, I am a foreigner. It's probable that I know significantly more about these issues than either you or the majority of posters on this site.
So what is your point?

39. At 12:57pm on 07 Nov 2010, sevenstargreen wrote:
The subject of immigration is indeed a "sensitive" issue as it was always
intended to be by the "We are right,you are wrong,ergo you are racist"
brigade.

Its worked a treat hasnt it? Anyone wishing to merely talk about the subject,let alone have a reasoned debate,have been castigated and the BBC
whilst knowing deep down that this was the case,have said nothing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes a reasoned debate in which immigrants are nearly always lumped in with refugees etc and ill understood and nonsensical concepts like "indigenous" are routinely thrown about.

Or better yet inane remarks on "British culture" which it usually turns out actually means "English culture". The person making the remarks usually not having bothered to learn much English history, English literature, music or art and really wants to live in Florida.

Very often the cry for a reasoned debate is simply obfuscation for a tirade against moslems (despite the fact that Islam is an English religion), black and Asian people.

You rarely hear calls for debate about about white immigrants.

Anybody worked out the maths of population pressure increase? -

If just 25,000 female 'fiances', 15,000 male 'fiances' and 5,000 children are admitted to England in one year (2008) 'for a limited period prior to application for settlement' ([Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]. (a pdf file)) , and if the breeding rate of these settlers is just 2.8per couple, bred into a mono-ethnic culture within an ethnically dominated city such as Leeds/Bradford, Leicester, Birmingham, etc., what will be the rate of expansion into adjacent cities and, assuming no increase in the size of the English cities, which will be the cities 'taken over', in which order, and what will be the time-to-dominance in each of these cities?

I don't really expect blog-answers to these questions, but these are exactly the type of questions that Government and university contracted statisticians answer in their researched projections.

The answers are known to Government via the Civil Service, but are definitely NOT in the public domain. The answers are, of course, social & political dynamite.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

45. At 2:37pm on 08 Nov 2010, GeoffWard wrote:
Anybody worked out the maths of population pressure increase? -

If just 25,000 female 'fiances', 15,000 male 'fiances' and 5,000 children are admitted to England in one year (2008) 'for a limited period prior to application for settlement' ([Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]. (a pdf file)) , and if the breeding rate of these settlers is just 2.8per couple, bred into a mono-ethnic culture within an ethnically dominated city such as Leeds/Bradford, Leicester, Birmingham, etc., what will be the rate of expansion into adjacent cities and, assuming no increase in the size of the English cities, which will be the cities 'taken over', in which order, and what will be the time-to-dominance in each of these cities?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cod stats and pseudo science note the terms used - "breeding", "take-over."

Exactly the reason why no reasoned debate is possible.

Pseudo-stats games instead of rational argument because no rational argument is possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't really expect blog-answers to these questions, but these are exactly the type of questions that Government and university contracted statisticians answer in their researched projections.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Really do they use words like "take-over", "breeding rate" as well?

Hmm don't think so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The answers are known to Government via the Civil Service, but are definitely NOT in the public domain. The answers are, of course, social & political dynamite.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are they ho hum? You of course are privy to these "super secret" files?

What colour are these "fiances"?

Don't worry we know.

43. At 1:59pm on 08 Nov 2010, GeoffWard wrote:
GeoffWard wrote @ 34:
"Many politicians and ordinary people fail to appreciate that as foreign societies break down in progressively more (eg) African states, large numbers of displaced peoples will knock on our door - arriving on our beaches, transported by opportunistic shippers.
They will all claim refugee status because of the turmoil in these nations, though most will be, in reality, economic migrants. We will be unable to turn them around because it will be impossible to prove their status.
Another group will claim 'undeclared homosexuality' - impossible to contest, because most nations identify gender differences as marking the individual as the 'other', therefore subject to harrassment, therefore eligable to live in the UK.

Our bottom line is one of carrying capacity - we need a Government declaration of what is the maximum total number allowed to exist on these islands. This defines the Bottom Line - a line across which excess prospective immigrants shall not pass."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

And we need comments that show the writer is not someone who confuses refugees and immigrants and simply lumps them together becuase he does not like foreigners period." (Simon21 @ 40)

..................
Simon,
I uderstand precisely the distinctions between migrant (emigrant, immigrant, temporary, permanent, work permitted, student visa-ed, etc, etc.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

You just don't choose to use them
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand precisely the rules governing entry for work, accompaniment of family, EU movements of people of differing nationalities from the Western EU, the extended EU, the Euro-zone, the Schengen countries, the pre-Schengen countries, the non-signatories, the Amsterdam Treaty, etc.
I understand the differences between refugee status, economic migrant status from the old Commonwealth, the new Commonewealth, non-commonwealth/non-EU areas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm so you say, but the evidence?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand the process of illegal transportations of paying illegal migrants, and I understand the processes and controls available and deployed to arrest illegal entry.
I understand the many scams employed to gain entry, to disappear into English under-society, and to avoid deportation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Again so you say

You are however apparently completely unaware of immigrants and the contribution they make to the country.

You are also unaware of the length of time immigrants have been coming to this country
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Simon, I am married to a foreigner and, when in her country, I am a foreigner. It's probable that I know significantly more about these issues than either you or the majority of posters on this site.
So what is your point?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm but I do not take you at your own valuation you see? Praising yourself is no praise (its an old English saying).

I see no evidence for any of your claims.

AS for being "married to a foreigner" presumably this is fine in your case, but wrong for everyone else

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Simon,
do you have any knowledge on these immigration issues because you seems to be restricted to reactive sniping?
Try to engage people with the authority of your own knowledge, your own intelligence and your own reasoned opinion.
I would be interested in hearing, for instance, your take on the carrying capacity issue.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Let's say, for sake of argument, that Italy, southern Spain and southern France become peopled by north african 'refugees' and economic migrants.
Let's further anticipate that there is a concomitant displacement of French, Italians and Spanish to the northern parts of Europe. and then
let's imagine that displacements in continental Europe spill, say, 10 million EU individuals - entirely legally - across the channel into England.
How might England attempt to push back an EU 'human tide' when population pressures elsewhere in the EU become equally high?
Should there be limits that EU countries can apply themselves to incomers from outside the national border? I think - Yes, there should, and I also think that EU rules should accommodate these limits.

ExiledinEssex wrote @ 18: “One misconception that absolutely cannot be allowed to go unchallenged is…that ‘the Labour government ... purposely allowed this mass flooding of our society to go on virtually unopposed’.
You see this almost every day in the popular press: Labour's open-door immigration policy, Labour allowed uncontrolled mass migration etc and it is simply NOT TRUE. Non-EU immigration is controlled by detailed Immigration Rules made by ministers under the powers contained in the various Immigration Acts. The Rules actually became progressively tighter under Labour. I'll give you a couple of examples - introducing a points system for workers, increasing the "trial period" of limited leave for a non-EU spouse from one year to two. To read the right wing press you would think that Labour abolished all immigration controls. Well they didn't.”
…………………………………….
Exile, you are somewhat ‘deluded’ in that you are looking at the *policy rather than the reality of the outcomes*.
Through the years of the Labour Government the absolute number of immigrants went up massively with year-on-year increases in immigration (Home Office stats. of legal migrants).
The policy was deficient because it was not enforced with authority and rigour. Also the rules created allowed, paradoxically, for more rather than less immigration.
The politicians, and Gordon Brown in particular, used the devious tactic of making public pronouncements in terms of NETT immigration - powerfully conditioned by the accelerating rates of Emigration, to cover continued high rates of non-EU Immigration. Thus the public were being conditioned to the idea that things were ‘getting better’ whilst the reality was that the racial nature of England was being changed massively and progressively.
Par for the course – politician have continuously lied to the people, but the Labour politicians – unforgivably so.

As an ex Pom who has lived in Australia for thirty years. I understand concerns re immigration and the issue of asylum seekers (rather than illegals).

We have similar concerns BUT my major concern is not with people of different colours, cultures and beliefs coming into Australia but with the recent (and not so recent) immigrants from England who bring their extremely racist views with them.

Australia has managed multiculturalism very well for years. I am asking anyone in England who is planning to come here to live - please don't bring a bigotted attitude with you!

54. At 01:27am on 09 Nov 2010, GeoffWard wrote:

…………………………………….
Exile, you are somewhat ‘deluded’ in that you are looking at the *policy rather than the reality of the outcomes*.
Through the years of the Labour Government the absolute number of immigrants went up massively with year-on-year increases in immigration (Home Office stats. of legal migrants).
The policy was deficient because it was not enforced with authority and rigour. Also the rules created allowed, paradoxically, for more rather than less immigration.
The politicians, and Gordon Brown in particular, used the devious tactic of making public pronouncements in terms of NETT immigration - powerfully conditioned by the accelerating rates of Emigration, to cover continued high rates of non-EU Immigration. Thus the public were being conditioned to the idea that things were ‘getting better’ whilst the reality was that the racial nature of England was being changed massively and progressively.
Par for the course – politician have continuously lied to the people, but the Labour politicians – unforgivably so.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Usual guff. Gordon Brown was involved in some kind of weird anti-racial conspiracy was he?

That would be because he was Scottish and hated the English? Revenge for Mary Queen of Scots perhaps?

And the British public is nothing but a load of gullible fools? - of course you mean the white British public.

This is why such views cannot be taken seriously.

We took immigrants because we needed them. Free movement of capital free movement of labour.

At 11:29pm on 08 Nov 2010, GeoffWard wrote:
Let's say, for sake of argument, that Italy, southern Spain and southern France become peopled by north african 'refugees' and economic migrants."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

What does "peopled" mean?


Lets say these areas become peopled by "jews"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's further anticipate that there is a concomitant displacement of French, Italians and Spanish to the northern parts of Europe. and then
let's imagine that displacements in continental Europe spill, say, 10 million EU individuals - entirely legally - across the channel into England.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets say all the English decide to move into Wales to avoid the French being driven there by fear of "jews".
------------------------------------------------------------------------

How might England attempt to push back an EU 'human tide' when population pressures elsewhere in the EU become equally high?
Should there be limits that EU countries can apply themselves to incomers from outside the national border? I think - Yes, there should, and I also think that EU rules should accommodate these limits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you should stop talking guff and connect with reality a bit. Not everyone in the EU wants to live in Britain do they?

Non-EU immigration is always restricted since most of them need visas and permission to stay. EU immigrants have no restrictions thanks to free movement within EU. The number of EU immigrants are far higher than the non-EU immigrants and the cap against non-EU immigration will not solve the problem since there are still free flowing of EU immigrants. If you want to solve immigration problem, leave EU.

Simon,
I think you represent one end of the spectrum on the EU immigration issue, though it is hard to be sure what your opinion is because your postings are always criticisms of others rather than contributing your own opinions and knowledge to the debate.

This question is being asked by people in countries all over the EU.

Give it real consideration and try to offer *YOUR* position on this question:

"Should there be limits that EU countries can apply themselves to EU incomers from outside the national border?"

*I* think there should be limits to the amount of influx from other states, and I also think that EU rules should accommodate these nationally-created limits. For some countries like Wales and Northern Ireland, Lithuania and Romania, this may well be a non-issue in practice, but the SE of England is already experiencing 'beyond-the-infrastructure' combined immigration-pressure from within and without the EU.
It would seem that we are allowed to control and manage influxes (however large or small) from any country of any continent except our own continent.

I feel that this illogicality is understood by the people of Europe, who understand that unfettered trans-continental migrations are unacceptible for property-owning and land-owning democracies. (Even just after the last European glaciation, local hunter-gatherer tribes husbanded their local/regional resources by fending-off unwanted immigration from elsewhere around the continent!)
Nowadays, transient migratory working populations need management applied to gross numbers, destinations and durations - the alternative is anarchic temporary or permanent disruption of local and regional societies and economies.
Total laissez faire is the sure recipe for continental migratory anarchy.

“As an ex Pom who has lived in Australia for thirty years. I understand concerns re immigration and the issue of asylum seekers (rather than illegals).
We have similar concerns BUT my major concern is not with people of different colours, cultures and beliefs coming into Australia but with the recent (and not so recent) immigrants from England who bring their extremely racist views with them.
Australia has managed multiculturalism very well for years. I am asking anyone in England who is planning to come here to live - please don't bring a bigotted attitude with you!” (giveoutmore @ 55)
………………………
The British have always been racist in Australia, from first immigration, to naturalised Aussies and (you say), to this day. Australia was where the ex-Pom/white Australians practiced genocide – a process they eventually perfected in the Australian state of Tasmania, where they managed to exterminate every single indigenous Australian. I remember an Aussie politician recently apologised on behalf of all of you; the Head-of-State made no such apology.
But it seems the Australians have had the sense to make their asylum landing point an island some many miles from Australia; out-of-public-gaze making for much more efficiency. Illegals are also much more easy to root-out in a country with geographic isolation and a few towns in a coastal strip.
Multi-culturalism applies in Australia to culturally segregate indigenous Australians from immigrant Australians.
I am pleased to observe, though, that immigrants from other nations seem to integrate rather than segregate. This may change when significant proportions of SE Asian muslims choose aggregation and cultural segregation, as they have done across much of the rest of the muslim-immigrated world.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Having just read about the lack of support for the long suffering commutors on our rail services, I think that the government needs to read its own publications.

In the National Infrastructure document released earlier this year by the Treasury, it clealy makes the point that investment in Infrastructure, including rail services, gives a greater return in terms of GDP per capita, than any other investment.

As the rail regulator is failing to observe that the rail operating companies are often running trains with a handful of people in first class carriages whilst standard class carriages are full to overflowing, which must be unsafe. The logical solutions in this time of osterity would be to reduce the number of first class carriages and increase standard class. It also begs the question what justification is there for a train service in the 21st century, for separate classes of travel which dates back to the Victorian class ridden society.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

59. At 12:05pm on 09 Nov 2010, GeoffWard wrote:
Simon,
I think you represent one end of the spectrum on the EU immigration issue, though it is hard to be sure what your opinion is because your postings are always criticisms of others rather than contributing your own opinions and knowledge to the debate."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

But I haven't heard anything worth debating, vague notions, concepts lumped in together.

No coherent arguement except that foreigners are nasty.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

This question is being asked by people in countries all over the EU.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

And they are also asking more questions about football (a far bigger subject) and various celbrities.

Simply because many take an interest in Katie price does not make Katie Price interesting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Give it real consideration and try to offer *YOUR* position on this question:

"Should there be limits that EU countries can apply themselves to EU incomers from outside the national border?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

There already are limits. This is exactly what I mean what you say is incomrehensible.

Such limits already exist. so the question is frankly daft.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

*I* think there should be limits to the amount of influx from other states, and I also think that EU rules should accommodate these nationally-created limits. For some countries like Wales and Northern Ireland, Lithuania and Romania, this may well be a non-issue in practice, but the SE of England is already experiencing 'beyond-the-infrastructure' combined immigration-pressure from within and without the EU.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again this is incomprehensible. Immigrants work on the SE infrastructure.

Their taxes and fares help fund it.

And what has this to with "immigrants" anyway. Non immigrant British people make up the vast majority of the SE.

Are you saying the population of the SE is made up solely of immigrants?

Are you saying the SE mustn't have anymore people and that anyone moving there from Scotland must be prohibited?

Are you saying imigrants are fat and take up more room than thin non-immigrants on trains?

Again nonsensical
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would seem that we are allowed to control and manage influxes (however large or small) from any country of any continent except our own continent.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incomprehensible. You don't object to capital flowing without any hindrance of course.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


I feel that this illogicality is understood by the people of Europe, who understand that unfettered trans-continental migrations are unacceptible for property-owning and land-owning democracies. (Even just after the last European glaciation, local hunter-gatherer tribes husbanded their local/regional resources by fending-off unwanted immigration from elsewhere around the continent!)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So you claim to know what happened after the ICE age do you? Do you know how ludicrous that sounds.

Apart from claiming to speak for Europe a bit grandiose.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nowadays, transient migratory working populations need management applied to gross numbers, destinations and durations - the alternative is anarchic temporary or permanent disruption of local and regional societies and economies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Aggain incomprehensible. Loose use of terms that thereby become meaningless.

Any facts? And wehy do EU immigrants need more management than anyone else? Because their eyes are close together?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total laissez faire is the sure recipe for continental migratory anarchy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Free movement of capital sorry. British people must be able to get jobs wherever they can.

Unless of course you would prefer North Korean type socialism

Simon,
I have checked your postings on three or four blogsites so I can get a more representative understanding of what makes your mind tick the way it does - because you certainly have a unique perception and perspective, and not a little incomprehension.
I don't know if you are currently under psychotherapeutical treatment but you certainly seem 'hyper' at the moment - it might be a good idea for you to call in on your counsellor and, when you feel more stable, we could have a better chat.
Geoff.

As per opinion immigration is necessary to push the British economy to new levels. Without skilled labour U.K. will not survive tough economic markets.
www.icarelive.com

I have just one question, Where are all the "Jobs" that these new immigrants are going to fill?
I believe we have achieved the ultimate insanity when we pay our own unemployed to stay at home and do nothing while importing labour from all over the world.
Witness the new promise by our government to make claiments work for their benefits, long past time. My wife often deals with these in her work. It is quite normal for her to visit one of her clients at 3 pm and find them still in pyjamas. Wake up! We don't have enough homes, jobs, schools or hospital places for the people here. who needs more?

65. At 7:14pm on 09 Nov 2010, GeoffWard wrote:
Simon,
I have checked your postings on three or four blogsites so I can get a more representative understanding of what makes your mind tick the way it does - because you certainly have a unique perception and perspective, and not a little incomprehension.
I don't know if you are currently under psychotherapeutical treatment but you certainly seem 'hyper' at the moment - it might be a good idea for you to call in on your counsellor and, when you feel more stable, we could have a better chat."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes Geoffrey

I would respectfully suggest that someone so full of self delusion as yourself, who claims knowledge when he patently has none, who cannot use present a coherent argument and who tries to disguise his patent xenophobic prejudices under a thin pall of pseudo statistics and cannot even express himself clearly in the English language might need more than counselling to improve.

When you feel able to present a coherent argument without

1. Presenting meaningless stats

2. Lumping all those who come to this country as one unholy mass

3. Positing ridiculous notions such as the population of France decamping to live in the SE


Then do continue.Otherwise cease calling for debates you are incapable of even comprehending.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I maybe too naive and with less knowledge to comment but there is one thing I really want to press. Please before anyone comments on immigration and its dynamics accept the fact that even with respected democracy the public is not in control of the policies. Which reflects and highlights the root cause of division in opinion, perception, and reality as well. The root cause is that the general public is not united on a single resolution. The situation of immigration can only be straightened out once the public in general unites under a single resolution.

Simon,
as a lifelong xenophile there are only some things that bring out contra-indications in me, and they are usually the actions or lack of actions of the political class of the UK and Europe.
If you are young, Simon, the England that you have experienced will be very different from that known to me over a long lifetime, when things have been so very different - for instance, you are unlikely to have experienced the cities across England being masses of rubble - much more so than Bagdhad; you will not have known the post-war green and pleasant land with a more homogeneous society largely at peace with itself.
It is not the difference that is important - all societies change and mutate - it is the rate of change and the lack of 'personal' (national) control over the speed and directions of change.
Europe historically experienced this spasmically and catastrophically with the mongol invasions from the steppes, but good came out of it with the incorporation of the horse and wheel into European agricultural practice; and the waves of plague & black death across Europe raised the hire-value of the artisan and peasant worker. So it's an ill wind that blows nobody any good - similarly with the present waves of inward migration; in the fullness of time the people of these islands may perceive the benefit that these peoples bring - there is more than just curry and borsch that can be added to English culture.
The rate of change that open borders and globalisation encourage generate (inevitably) a counter-desire to arrest the speed of the process; more so in those that have lived through very different Britains. This you will come to understand as you, yourself, get older.
Geoff.

President Obama, Islamic Muslims, and the UN Human Rights Council

By Oscar Y. Harward

For some time, it has been a mystery as to why President Obama would appeal Arizona’s SB 1070 to the United Nations Human Rights Council. The State of Arizona and America are not governed under or by the United Nations. Arizona’s SB 1070 is a newly initiated law to stop or control “illegal immigration” entering Arizona from across the Mexican border and transporting excessive criminal activity into the State of Arizona. At the present time, some news reports say members of the Mexican “drug cartel” dominate and control some portions on southern Arizona. While Governor Jan Brewer and others have cried out for US Military help from President Obama, it appears President Obama supports the Mexican “drug cartel”.

Immediately after Arizona’s Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 into law, President Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder filed a lawsuit to prevent implementation of the new law. US District Judge Susan Bolton combined all lawsuits filed against Arizona’s SB 1070. Judge Bolton issued a mixed ruling leaving both the State of Arizona and the Obama administration appealing the decision to the US 9th Court of Appeals in San Francisco, CA. Now, it is up to Circuit Court Judges John Noonan, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Carlos Bea, appointed by President George W. Bush, and Richard Paez, appointed by President Bill Clinton to make a legal decision. Whatever their decision, the loser will most likely appeal to the SCOTUS.

At the same time of SB 1070 being decided in the Federal Courts, President Obama appealed Arizona’s SB 1070 to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). President Obama is appealing an Arizona law to the UNHRC? When and on what “right” did President Obama determine that the United Nations would supersede Arizona’s SB 1070 law and the US Constitution?

The UN General Assembly elects forty seven (47) members to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Their members are http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/membership.htm:

African States (13): Angola (2013), Burkina Faso (2011), Cameroon (2012), Djibouti (2012), Gabon (2011), Ghana (2011), Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (2013), Mauritania (2013), Mauritius (2012), Nigeria (2012), Senegal (2012), Uganda (2013), Zambia (2011).

Asian States (13): Bahrain (2011), Bangladesh (2012), China (2012), Japan (2011), Jordan (2012), Kyrgyzstan (2012), Malaysia (2013), Maldives (2013), Pakistan (2011), Qatar (2013), Republic of Korea (2011), Saudi Arabia (2012) Thailand (2013).

Eastern European States (6): Hungary (2012), Poland (2013), Republic of Moldova (2013), Russian Federation (2012), Slovakia (2011), Ukraine (2011).

Latin American & Caribbean States (8): Argentina (2011), Brazil (2011), Chile (2011), Cuba (2012), Ecuador (2013), Guatemala (2013), Mexico (2012), Uruguay (2012).

Western European & Other States (7): Belgium (2012), France (2011), Norway (2012), Spain (2013), Switzerland (2013), United Kingdom (2011), United States (2012)


Shazam!!! Now I see! Obama’s political logic has arrived. Based on “human rights” reports, United Nations HRC is controlled by “Islamic Muslim nations” and other African states. Radical Islamic Muslim countries who practice “Sharia Law” may be ruling on America’s human rights, Arizona law, US Code, and Constitutional law? How about HRC members Cuba, Uganda, Pakistan, Russia, China, Mexico, etc. and their human rights? What American, as a defendant, would want these countries on a jury to decide America’s “Human Rights”, US Code, or perhaps, Constitutional law?

President Obama was totally aware of his injudicious activity in appealing Arizona’s SB 1070 to the United Nations Human Rights Council. Obama’s decision may have been based on the fact that the UNHRC is controlled by Islamic Muslin nations; many who hate America.

President Obama is attempting to allow the United Nations to overthrow Arizona law, US Code, and our Constitutional freedoms by authorizing the United Nations HRC to intimidate and supersede Constitutional sovereignty against law abiding American citizens.

issue of immigration has to be looked from a social perspective, Mostly immigration happens for developing economy or in rare cases under developed countries (if they can afford) to Developed economies in the west. The main cause identified all these years is better prospects and living standard and live under good governance. It is also proven that If Developed countries help developing economies create Jobs and provide expertise in expanding their industry within the immigration reduces dramatically. Let us take India for example, during 1960'to 2001 was a time when Indians looked the only available option for economic success is to work abroad. but Now with fast growth in IT, Auto and other industries the the trend reduced dramatically by almost 80%. We can even a trend where in indian's who are citizen's of developed countried in the west are returning back to give their share. Let all political parties and governments think and take steps to address the root cause of immigration, If we dont do it we are just fighting the symptom and it keeps appearing every now and then.

Joel Meyers
[Personal details removed by Moderator]

72. At 11:49am on 10 Nov 2010, GeoffWard wrote:
Simon,
as a lifelong xenophile there are only some things that bring out contra-indications in me, and they are usually the actions or lack of actions of the political class of the UK and Europe."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes Geoff asking to be taken at one's own estimation is a rather childish trait is it not?

Your writing reveals you to be anything but a xenophile. Sadly age and bigotry are not mutually exclusive.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are young, Simon, the England that you have experienced will be very different from that known to me over a long lifetime, when things have been so very different - for instance, you are unlikely to have experienced the cities across England being masses of rubble - much more so than Bagdhad; you will not have known the post-war green and pleasant land with a more homogeneous society largely at peace with itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You see once again Geoff it is your habit of making assumptions unsupported by evidence that undercuts your arguments, such as they are.

And your Enid Blyton fantasy (she was a famous English author) about a green and pleasant land at peace with itself is precisely that, a fantasy.

Apart from the riven factions in NI, where state sponsored terror was the norm, there was the vicious factionalism over the dismemberment of empire, the atrocities in EA, The Suez crisis, frequent economic chaos (the run on the pound, the credit squeeze) and of course the cold war.

Not to mention a high crime rate, alcoholism and widespread domestic abuse.

I wonder if you asked those children wrenched from their families and transported to Australia to save them from life in Britain, if they recall this land at peace with itself?

So perhaps you need to read up a little more?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is not the difference that is important - all societies change and mutate - it is the rate of change and the lack of 'personal' (national) control over the speed and directions of change.
Europe historically experienced this spasmically and catastrophically with the mongol invasions from the steppes, but good came out of it with the incorporation of the horse and wheel into European agricultural practice;

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Geoff history is not your strongpoint and I would earnestly advise you not to use it in arguements.

Take the above example where you have just made a fool of yourself.

The mongols did not introduce the horse into Europe or the wheel.

They defeated the Hungarian heavy cavalry at the battle of Mohacs. What do you think the Hungarians were riding - lemmings?

And what makes you think that the Romans and even the Vikings did not know the wheel?

What do you think chariots used? snail shells?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

and the waves of plague & black death across Europe raised the hire-value of the artisan and peasant worker. So it's an ill wind that blows nobody any good - similarly with the present waves of inward migration; in the fullness of time the people of these islands may perceive the benefit that these peoples bring - there is more than just curry and borsch that can be added to English culture.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is practically gibberish Geoff. I think you might be unwell. Are you comparing immigrants to the black death?

And you seem to beleive you speak for the "people of these islands" which unless you are the Queen or the PM you don't.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rate of change that open borders and globalisation encourage generate (inevitably) a counter-desire to arrest the speed of the process; more so in those that have lived through very different Britains. This you will come to understand as you, yourself, get older.
Geoff.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

O tempora o mores, tempus fugit. it would be nice to abolish rap and Simon Cowell but impossible to do so I am afraid. The only thing to do with change is accept it.

And not use it as a stick to beat immigrants who have been coming to this country for over 2000 years.

Simon,
your comments are appreciated, they give me a smile each morning.

Historically, you are looking at the wrong sources - try Clutton-Brock (1992) for 3,000 bc - Kazakhstan to Ukraine & Mesopotamia, domestication of the horse for draft and riding - the great migratory leap forward; you are thinking about 4,000 years too recently.

Back to Wiki & the web, I think. You will find, as I do, that the serendipity of blogging is a great way to expand your knowledge and hone your opinions.

To GeoffWard #76

What have you learned from this thread?

76. At 12:45pm on 11 Nov 2010, GeoffWard wrote:
Simon,
your comments are appreciated, they give me a smile each morning.

Historically, you are looking at the wrong sources - try Clutton-Brock (1992) for 3,000 bc - Kazakhstan to Ukraine & Mesopotamia, domestication of the horse for draft and riding - the great migratory leap forward; you are thinking about 4,000 years too recently."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes Geoff I think you will find the Mongols did not live in Mesopotamia and they did not introdduce the horse and the wheel to Europe (opinions on this matter vary).

Again you lump everything together and end up looking very foolish

Plainly you do not even know where Mesopotamia even is.

You were the one who confused the mongol invasions with these innovations and tried to balance them off.

As I say what do you thing the Hungarian cavalry were riding when they faced the mongols - shasliks?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to Wiki & the web, I think. You will find, as I do, that the serendipity of blogging is a great way to expand your knowledge and hone your opinions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I tend to avoid Wiki, it is unreliable.

Back to Wiki & the web, I think. You will find, as I do, that the serendipity of blogging is a great way to expand your knowledge and hone your opinions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I tend to avoid Wiki, it is unreliable.
............
Simon,
what you can do is go to the bottom of the Wiki-page to where it says 'References'. This can lead you to some really reliable source material - like the reference I sent you. I hope you found it both reliable and interesting.

Now why do I think that the debate will be balanced in favour of removing caps? Is it the people who are participating in the debate perhaps? I think I will brave the bad weather and take the dog for a walk. I like debates that are open ended and frank.

_marko wrote @ 77:
"Geoff Ward - What have you learned from this thread?"

Hi Mark,
it would be impolite of me to say what I have learned from this particular thread, I'm tempted to use the tag of #80 and say 'Llareggub', but one does one's best to keep the spirit of discourse alive.
Luckily, there are Sensible posters like Grannie who constantly provide me with inspiration through the quality of their well-presented and interesting contributions.
The posting that got me thinking on this thread was Forest @ #4
Geoff.

Immigration stands supreme when it comes to good peoples concerns.We are fed up of being ignored about our concerns.Nothing anyone is saying on the pros of immigration is believed.The pros always seem to come from people who have a vestive interest in immigrants and who benefit from them directly which is certainly not the case for most of us.Simple you come to our country,you pledge allegiance to our country,you learn our language,you work for our country,you respect our traditions,you do not commit crime while you are here,and certainly you do not incite hatred in our country.(everything we would have to abide by if we went to your countries)No excuses if you are illegal you are illegal and should be removed immediately with no excuses especially as for the most part your home countries are glad for someone else to take on their problems.If you commit a crime what so ever you for go your rights and should be thrown out immediately,not paid to leave.You should pay for all that you recieve here in our country and if you cannot pay you should be removed immediately.I can confidently say that i am speaking for the vast majority of the English,Welsh,Scottish and Irish whether you like to hear it or not.If you do it right you are welcome,if not get out because things are about to get rather uncomfortable for you.We the British may moan about each other and awful lot but when our backs are against the wall we the English,Irish,Scottish and Welsh stick together in the common cause.Be warned......

What a great article

www.icarelive.com

Immigration is about more than just moving to another country ... it is about becoming part of that country.

Observe it's laws, it's customs, it traditions. Bring your own by all means but only if they don't impinge on the expression of your new countries Laws, customs and values and you will soon be integrated.

Ride roughshod over them demanding your right are more important, burning symbols of national importance (still not reported by the BBC) and you prejudice the chances of others being welcomed and accepted.

Walk with gentle feet until you know there are none there to be trodden on.............

Immigration is not only problem of UK but of all developed and even developing countries. But we should stop seeing it a problem in today's global world. In the present era as everything govern by economy and market strategy, we should also see the pros of immigration. We know that maximum immigration is actually brain drain for the home country. I mean best brains of any developing or under developed country migrate to better country for better use of their talent and hence a better lifestyle. Now the country who are the victim of immigration get the best brains for their use and benefit. Other than this they also get a big market in the home country of immigrants.
[Personal details removed by Moderator]

UK and the West Europe are confused about the vision of their future.
Immigration is one of the main subjects , however additional issues are direct connected.

While dreaming that is imposes worldwide big universal values- the human rights-the aging population of the West (only the West Europe) is actually fading way.

A:EUROPE HAS LOST THE CURRAGE TO STAND AND DEFENT ITSELF!

The combination of the decreasing birthrate of the traditional aging West Europe population in combination with the high birthrate of the recent immigrants and the next to come immigrates needed to support the economy leads only to:
WITHIN 3 TO 5 DECADES WEST EUROPE WILL BE EUROARABIA
The Arabs don’t want to melt in the traditional West Europe culture.
They consider their religion and culture to be superior and are acting to impose it.
Already Europe is not defending in-house freedom of speech, debates to impose gradually the Sharia law are frequent, confusion and searching for an answer of what is mean to be an West European are all over.

B:VALES ARE FOR SALE

Nasrallah- Hamas terror organization leader said that the West will give away all their values for a good economical deal.
And they get the prove: On the reception of the Lockerbie bomber in Libya, Kaddafi son words to the bomber read by a mouth movement expert were that his freedom was on the economical negotiations with UK.

C:EUROPE HAS LOST THE MORAL JUSTIFICATION

As well a large group of West Europe NGO'S C claim to stand for peace, democracy,human&women rights.
However they support Muslims courtiers standing against those values.
They don’t demand The Muslims to stop the violation of the values they claim to stand for.

D:THE SHORT VISSIOJN OF WEST EUROPE LEADERS IS LEADING TO?????

EU wishing to play a Global superpower role is searching for a differentiation.
How peaty that instead of uniting forces and contributes a faire share to defend the free world the Europeans are splitting forces with USA.
Ultimately the free world will pay the price.

hi is the BBC now part of global censorship why is the following story being discussed or even aired on tv/radio/newspapers/newsgroups

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328703/Two-faces-Armistice-Day-Boy-brimming-pride-fanatics-burning-hate.html

we should be showing this disgrace on our leading news channels come on BBC if it was us burning say the koran it would make national headlines why not this act??????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Immigration has become most restrictive since last year than ever before.
The government wants money. They get a big chunk of money from foreign students. Foreign students pay three to four times the fees of local students. They bring big money into this country. And this is never published in newspapers.

Plus the new rules for students trying to extend visa to HSMP (High Skill Migration Program) requires immigrant to pay taxes equivalent to earning of £38,000 (impossible to achieve if you are new to this country and new to this culture). Now in this case as well, they get a big chink of money in the form of taxes on earnings and visa renewal fees (£800 per year of visa renewal fee). They are sucking the money hard earned by immigrants. UK economy would cripple without immigrants.

For many of the above comments the issue isn't about immigration, but about Islam.

The Mail article (#87) is simple propaganda; Goebbels would have been proud.

To take a handful of extremists and make out they represent the Muslim majority is an attempt to tar everyone with the same brush.
A bit like portraying a few drunken, white, offish English footie fans at an international football match as representing all white English people; it's simply not the case.

They ignore the fact that there are Asian Muslims serving in the armed forces; that Iraqis risk their lives acting as interpreters for the coalition; that most Muslim Afghans and Iraqis don't support the Taliban, Al Qaeda or any 'insurgency'; that most Asian Muslims in Britain value education for their daughters (something the Taliban kill teachers for providing) and fervently hope the sectarian bombing of mosques in Pakistan doesn't extend out of that country.

(I am reminded of the many Irish people, both Catholic and Protestant, I met in the '80's in London, that had moved to escape the sectarian violence and wanted only to live a life in peace.)

"Observe it's laws, it's customs, it traditions. Bring your own by all means but only if they don't impinge on the expression of your new countries Laws, customs and values and you will soon be integrated." (#86.)

Integration. You mean as the British did in India, Australia and the West Indies and so on? Afternoon tea, evening dances etc. Refusal to mingle or intermarry.

Hardly integration. But let's not be surprised. (And intermarriage in the UK is happening; one thing the human family has in common is a sex drive.)

I also know many immigrant people that are integrating, aculturising, and are law abiding - and their children also so.

A highly westernised and educated Afghan woman, for example, springs to mind; she's now an asylum seeker - after leaving her husband from an arranged marriage in Afghanistan (something unheard of there) and in [serious] danger of her life from the Taliban should she return.

I hope she finds a new life here; she can contribute, she is educated and has skills; she also wears a headscarf - and is a Sufi (a peaceful sect). But if you don't know her, she's just another 'Muslim'.

One hard fact some in this country can't seem to face up to is that emigration (or immigration, as it's known in other countries) has been going on for centuries; it's just that for the main part it was us doing it!

Vast amounts of white Brit's (or their descendants) now live aboard in Australia, Canada, USA, Spain etc.
How well have they done at taking on the identity of the 'indigenous' culture? This debate is about motes and beams.

Sharia Law? I'm a freethinker and so oppose any attempt to use any religious belief to shape laws in this country. Be it Catholic, Protestant, Muslim etc.

I've worked with quite a few immigrants, or their descendants; [white] South Africans, Australians, New Zealanders etc as well with Pakistanis & Turks (some of whom would quite happily go to the pub for a few pints); French, Spanish, Greeks, Poles, Serbs, West Indians and Africans etc, etc.
Many hope to return to their own country one day; just as some of my friends working in Kuwait or the Caymans etc hope to retire to the UK.

Advantages immigration brings?
As well as skills and entrepreneurship (I know two brothers of Turkish descent that run a 'corner' shop; it's open 16 hr's a day, 7 days a week - they work those hours it so their children will have a better life; I don't know any white English people that work those kind of hours; but a lot of immigrants do.).

One factor that I also appreciate is that immigration has brought many beautiful women, from all corners of the world, to our shores. Something that turns my head every time I walk down a city high street.

Should there be restrictions on immigration? Well yes, for social cohesion sake; but let's be realistic and humane about it.

We need skills. (For example - Japanese technology; e.g. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Honda etc is way ahead of ours; many other countries are catching up with them.) We also need people willing to work and take risks.
Borders are also becoming porous (not just ours; look at the number of Brit's in Spain).

The advent of mass travel since the 1960's has made it easier and easier to travel between countries. (A hundred years ago the invention of the bicycle and car made it easier to travel between counties.)
Short of a severe fuel shortage crisis I can' see it being reversed. A globalised economy simply compounds this.

Let's have a sensible debate about immigration (and emigration, I have many friends living and working aboard) and let's not let anti-Islamic or simple minded racists hi-jack it.

It is almost always a joy to see Godwin's Law enacted, as it is fast becoming the most balanced tool in the nonsensical debating infirmament, coming as it does equally from any quarter.

The less attractive aspect is when it is wheeled out to try and close an aspect of discussion that someone doesn't happen to fancy, often indicative of a lack of persuasive argument by any other means. When all is not smooth, maybe the rough does need acknowledging so as to find solutions?

But in an historical context on matters of public communication, it can at least serve as an important reminder of how easy it is for media uniquely controlled by the state to be used and abused, without the audience-based check/balance many private media risk of withdrawn funding, especially in editorial terms playing up one thing... or quietly ignoring another.

Which is why one values freedom of speech and soft-touch moderators.

@ 89. At 9:27pm on 12 Nov 2010, jayfurneaux wrote:

Integration. You mean as the British did in India, Australia and the West Indies and so on? Afternoon tea, evening dances etc. Refusal to mingle or intermarry.


Hi Jay

Absolutely The British got it badly wrong in the past and are a historical example of what not to do.

On the other hand they were colonialist invaders not immigrants to these countries and trying to impose their “superior” culture on the “natives”.

So are some cultural groups invading Britain (Europe) today?? Discuss!

To me it became clear, that immigration is efficient to increase the pressure on the working people and to keep their standards down. Foreign workers do accept all conditions in order to work and to stay.

Also it became clear, that especially left political parties try to please immigrants and try to easen the naturalisation (becoming a citizen) of them in order to create voters for their purposes and against old conservative attitudes, which they hate by heart.

I find Godwin's Law an outdated memetic device.
In my search for Ward's Law of Blogsploitation I am trying to find the key factors that cause (early)blog-closure (This investigative process itself may trigger the subject of the investigation; if so, I apologise in advance):
Primary reason: two posters get into argument to the annoyance of other posters, who withdraw.
Secondary reason: poster(s) drift off-topic and nobody is interested in going back on-topic.
Third reason: off-topic switching citing 'muslims' or 'immigration'.
Fourth reason: Two or more posters criticise the BBC.
It is my belief that the last two themes (Reason 3) have replaced 'Hit**r' and 'Na*i' as the primary triggers for (early)blog-closure.
If I am right, this blog will remain open - but only because the trigger-words 'muslims' and 'immigration' are on-topic .

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The problem is that many brits (driven by hysteria and misinformation in the tabloids) think in a very small-town way and seem to forget that they are part of a wider world.

Immigration isn't a one way street. Every year many many Britons live and work abroad (usually expecting everyone to accept them with open arms, and everyone to speak English for them, while they fail to learn the local language). I heard 1 in 10 britons live or work abroad. Yet all we here is about all these terrible foreigners coming to steal our jobs and rape our women.

That the government has chosen to pander to this hysteria by introducing irrelevant laws to make it difficult for wives to join their husbands, paying students to learn English in the UK, and skilled workers to come to the UK - in the name of stopping murderous benefit scrounging job stealers - is rather shameful.

The world isn't small anymore. Of my school friends, i know people working in at least 8 countries, most of whom have married a foreigner, and I'm thankful that those countries aren't as xenophobic as the UK recently appears to be. I also work with people from a dozen countries because my company, like most companies, is international. That's the modern world.

Living abroad isn't easy - you have less security, you have to adapt to new language and culture, you are very vulnerable. But it also has great rewards. It'd be good if the UK wasn't trying to make it even harder for people - and i hope other countries don't reciprocate against the UK. Because I'd like as many Britons as possible to get the chance to experience life overseas - and then look back and see how ridiculous this whole fuss is.

PS/ @Alistair Burnett - i hope you'll cover the fact that wives coming to the uk don't get free access to health services.
PPS/ If the government starts putting any more barriers in the way of me living with my wife then frankly I'm going to ignore the whole visa system and come without one. I'll kick up a hell of a fuss and I'd like to see them try and stop me. It's not their right or their job.

'Also it became clear, that especially left political parties try to please immigrants and try to easen the naturalisation (becoming a citizen) of them in order to create voters for their purposes and against old conservative attitudes'

#92. Not just parties of the left. Many immigrant communities have values that align more with the right: self sufficiency, self reliance enterprise and self sacrifice; family, family values etc.
I am often surprised the 'Right' (through knee jerk rejection of the unfamiliar) has allowed the left to become the champion of these people in the past; in many ways they have more in common with traditional Conservative values; but today's mainstream rightist and centrist parties do seem to be adapting.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The isn't just a huge problem in the UK it is here over in the States too. Some reports say that we get in excess of 10K Mexicans a day (illegal) and as high as 40,000 a day. They have now surpassed the African American population. Not only do we have Mexicans that, but we have people coming from all over the world that stay without visas or citizenship. I love people and I don't have a problem with that, just that it changes the way the country operates. Not only do we have so many illegals, but we also are taking so many of our jobs over seas. This compounds some of the problems that we are having even more. There is definitely a lot of work ahead. It will be interesting to see how Obama addresses this.

56. At 09:41am on 09 Nov 2010, Simon21 wrote:
'We took immigrants because we needed them. Free movement of capital free movement of labour.'

A couple of salient requirements of Capitalism.

Who exactly are the 'we' in this case anyway? Employers like a little cheap labour, they also like a divided workforce and if you can get by accepting cultural ghettos then all well and good. If you import skilled staff from abroad it means you don't have to waste money training someone living here. Not good with 7% plus unemployment IMHO.

I don't see how this country can support 70 million plus people with it's limited natural resources. It needs to be remembered that the argument about Globalization is about the way Global Capitalism sustains itself, which generaly is to the benefit of nobody but the rich and powerfull. The Property Developers eyeing up green field sites to build houses on are licking their lips as population preassure increases...aren't they???

These issues concern everyone, regardless of skin colour, that is living in this country now.

The Left (sadly) polarizes the issue just as much as the Right. One thing i remembered from the last election was the Labour MP in Nick Griffins constituency saying that the 'people had voted resoundingly against the Nazis'. Fantastic.... but when asked about how she intended to confront the issues (preassure on housing, preassure on services, unemployment, poverty) she had nothing to say.

RE: Immigration Debate

I have found myself pondering recently upon the oft-repeated phrase used by politicians that 'Immigration is good for our economy'.
I then began to notice frequent references to politicians consulting businesses about levels of immigration.
As we hear a lot about immigrants working for less than the minimum wage and being generally exploited, I assume wage levels for the country as a whole are being held-down by this mechanism.
As so many people are now long-term unemployed in the North of Britain, why not relocate public sector employment to those areas or relocate the unemployed to the South East where most jobs are available?