Immigration: Should the borders be opened on Jan 1st 2014 to Romania and Bulgaria?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Immigration: Should the borders be opened on January 1st 2014 to Romania and Bulgaria?


http://i.huffpost.com/gen/997236/thumbs/r-UK-IMMIGRATION-large570.jpg?6

On the 1st of January 2014, the borders of the United Kingdom will be opening to Romania and Bulgaria - both EU member states - due to EU rules. Despite both countries joining the EU a number of years ago, the reason why the borders have not opened until now to the UK is because the last Labour Government secured a 7-year stop gap which extended the amount of time that the UK could opt out of the opening of the borders to both countries.

A lot of noise has been made in the run-up to the opening of the borders by Nigel Farage of UKIP, the Labour Party and the Conservative backbenchers that HM Government should do something or halt the opening of the borders - the problem is, due to EU legalities the British Government has no choice other than to withdraw from the EU. Other concerns on opening up the borders concern crime figures for the Roma, housing shortages, youth unemployment and healthcare.

The numbers expected to come are unknown - and the Government are refusing to say how many they predict due to the last government predicting 13,000 Poles a year which ended up with over 800,000 over a period of 5 years. This time the Government say not as many will come as the situtation is different, but MigrationWatch are predicting around 50,000 a year. The Government and supporters of opening the borders argue essentially that only a small number will come into the UK and that the media and other political parties such as UKIP are scaremongering.

But what do you think? Should the borders be opened up to Romania and Bulgaria or are opposition parties like Labour and UKIP right to warn about the dangers of having a total open border policy to 29m very poor people?


There are plenty of nifty prizes to be won within this forum. Positive contributions towards official debates will sometimes be rewarded with a month's VIP subscription in a colour of your choice as part of the Top Contributor award. As well as this, reputation will be awarded throughout the debate to those who make valid and constructive posts. Those who make the best contributions within a month win the Debater of the Month award and wins themselves a month's worth of forum VIP and 10 reputation points. Finally, those who create debate topics that generate a lot of buzz and engaging discussion will receive 20 reputation points.

The debate is open to you.

[AgnesIO]

Under the idea of Europe, yes they should be opened. However, I personally don't think they should be completely opened. We should take who we WANT (ie. any jobs that we need; in a similar way Australia only lets people in if they have a trade to offer).

Not sure we can use Labour as a fair comment though; they are just as (more?) responsible for open borders than the Conservatives! Their attempts to say otherwise is merely a way to gain votes in the next election.

Will try and remember to post more later; dinner ;)

[Reality]

I don't like the idea of all the Romanians and Bulgarians coming to take out jobs just to be paid less and work longer hours, our country as it stands has one of the highest unemployment rates in the EU so I don't think this should be allowed; if they become a UK citizen after the x years then yes they have all right to until then no.
I also think that the boarders shouldn't be opened to early as the UK needs to sort out its unemployment rate before you let them into to the country as they will just want to work for the above reasons as mentioned.

[AgnesIO]

I don't like the idea of all the Romanians and Bulgarians coming to take out jobs just to be paid less and work longer hours, our country as it stands has one of the highest unemployment rates in the EU so I don't think this should be allowed; if they become a UK citizen after the x years then yes they have all right to until then no.
I also think that the boarders shouldn't be opened to early as the UK needs to sort out its unemployment rate before you let them into to the country as they will just want to work for the above reasons as mentioned.

Actually, it has one of the lowest.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/5/5c/Unemployment_rates%2C_seasonally_adjusted%2C_Octob er_2013.png

[Reality]

Actually, it has one of the lowest.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/5/5c/Unemployment_rates%2C_seasonally_adjusted%2C_Octob er_2013.png

Oh right from all of the hyperboles on the news it's sounds so much worse than what it actually is then! I was lead to think its much higher than the other EU countries!!! Thank you for the update!!!
I do think that the parties are right to warn about the millions of people that can be coming into the UK over populating it and making it a more corrupt system than what we already have in health care, employment rates, doctors per thousand, I mean the parties should be right in o worrying about the cast increase to the boarders being open. I have nothing against the people that live in the countries I just have a problem with the jobs that will be taken, the easy access of health care!

[AgnesIO]

Oh right from all of the hyperboles on the news it's sounds so much worse than what it actually is then! I was lead to think its much higher than the other EU countries!!! Thank you for the update!!!

Welcome, to the Daily Mail and the Sun. :L

Admittedly, it could arguably be better if there were no immigrants, but I imagine until the benefits system is reformed it will never be as low as it could be.

[Reality]

Welcome, to the Daily Mail and the Sun. :L

Admittedly, it could arguably be better if there were no immigrants, but I imagine until the benefits system is reformed it will never be as low as it could be.

That's also something that shocks me! The UK is willing to shut the boarders; when they re-open them and let them back in the will let them have health care, jobs and benefits given by the government, the benefits system at the minute I completely disagree with, it's corrupt just like everything else the dual coalition government we has at the minute the, "promises" are made but are never followed through! I think the UK will be far better off when we have a stable government, stable economy, and someone who knows what they're doing in power in government!
Back to the benefits system, I think the government will allow them to claim benefits and ultimately bleed the system dry from what it's got just to support the immigrants that were once previously denied entry to the UK, now given health car, benefits and everything under the sun just because they're living in the UK

[AgnesIO]

That's also something that shocks me! The UK is willing to shut the boarders; when they re-open them and let them back in the will let them have health care, jobs and benefits given by the government, the benefits system at the minute I completely disagree with, it's corrupt just like everything else the dual coalition government we has at the minute the, "promises" are made but are never followed through! I think the UK will be far better off when we have a stable government, stable economy, and someone who knows what they're doing in power in government!
Back to the benefits system, I think the government will allow them to claim benefits and ultimately bleed the system dry from what it's got just to support the immigrants that were once previously denied entry to the UK, now given health car, benefits and everything under the sun just because they're living in the UK

The coalition government is not to blame for the benefits system; it has been out of control for a long time (yes, under Labour too!). I was not referring to immigrants claiming benefits; it is the people of the UK who need to be restricted too. The thing is, even if we had no immigrants, unemployment will not go down as much as it could potentially do until they create a system that means work pays, not sitting on your arse all day.

[Reality]

The coalition government is not to blame for the benefits system; it has been out of control for a long time (yes, under Labour too!). I was not referring to immigrants claiming benefits; it is the people of the UK who need to be restricted too. The thing is, even if we had no immigrants, unemployment will not go down as much as it could potentially do until they create a system that means work pays, not sitting on your arse all day.

I know what you mean; the UK citizens do need to be restricted as well on benefits as they too bleed the system dry of its money!
The immigrants, when they're finally allowed entry to the UK should be legally obliged to have to be a citizen of the UK for a period of months before they can start work, this isn't to say they won't be able to support them self as you see in Australia they refuse entry unless you have enough money to support yourself. This is what the immigrants should be doing if they can support them self for a month to two months they're allowed to start work if they can't then they should be allowed entry!!

[AgnesIO]

I know what you mean; the UK citizens do need to be restricted as well on benefits as they too bleed the system dry of its money!
The immigrants, when they're finally allowed entry to the UK should be legally obliged to have to be a citizen of the UK for a period of months before they can start work, this isn't to say they won't be able to support them self as you see in Australia they refuse entry unless you have enough money to support yourself. This is what the immigrants should be doing if they can support them self for a month to two months they're allowed to start work if they can't then they should be allowed entry!!

Bad idea, in my opinion. We can't expect people to be able to live months on end without an income; ask your parents whether they would be able to do this comfortably; I imagine the answer would be no.

I know they do this for travellers in Australia (to make sure they can make you pay for a flight out), and they have a very good system where they only let people in if they need that persons specific trade; although Australia do still have their own unique immigration problems.

[Reality]

Bad idea, in my opinion. We can't expect people to be able to live months on end without an income; ask your parents whether they would be able to do this comfortably; I imagine the answer would be no.

I know they do this for travellers in Australia (to make sure they can make you pay for a flight out), and they have a very good system where they only let people in if they need that persons specific trade; although Australia do still have their own unique immigration problems.

I don't know if you saw, but this morning in the news they said that immigrants from the countries will have to wait three months to claim job seekers allowance! I was close ;)
What do you think?!

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't know if you saw, but this morning in the news they said that immigrants from the countries will have to wait three months to claim job seekers allowance! I was close ;)
What do you think?!

That's just the usual rubbish that the Tory Party put out to appear tough when they know damned well that such a rule or proposal would be illegal under EU law. Under EU law, you and I are EU citizens as is a Romanian, a German or a Frenchman - therefore we are all entitled to the same services on a national level - which means Britain is screwed as it has a very generous welfare state and a strong currency compared with other members of the EU.

The Conservatives are in a big panic over this now hence why they're coming out with proposals like the one you mention, but considering it was they who all voted for enlarging the European Union to Eastern Europe - they are even more to blame than Labour for it.

[Vodafone]

The UK is overpopulated. Why are immigrants being allowed in at all when the economy is dependent on the import of almost everything, even a worrying percentage of the food supply..

[-:Undertaker:-]

The UK is overpopulated. Why are immigrants being allowed in at all when the economy is dependent on the import of almost everything, even a worrying percentage of the food supply..

Because the politicians and large corporations (who only advertise their jobs abroad in Eastern Europe) will tell you that the hundreds of thousands of young Britons in the youth unemployment figures are all lazy and good for nothing, and therefore we need to import half a million cheap workers a year so that the corporations that pay low wages can continue paying low wages whilst their profits rise year on year as they continue to avoid tax and fund the main two political parties. Meanwhile, you'll be instructed via the BBC and media in general to enjoy this new 'vibrant' and 'diverse' Britain where you don't have a hope of a decent job and your local services are pushed to breaking point - and if you complain about any of this then you're just a racist bigot who is 'out of touch' with the new Britain.

In other words, the political class tell you to bend over and take it.

[Vodafone]

I agree with your sentiments, couldn't have said it better myself really.

[Reality]

I know what you mean and they will tell us to just take it, or alternatively leave and go find somewhere else to live if you don't like it.
The generosity that the state provides means this country is seen as the 'weak point' in the world, the country that will give you everything and will only notice it when you start 'robbing' their system and being fraudulent when you start avoiding tax or claim benefits that aren't needed. The place we call Britain will soon be called 'Benefit Britain', with more than 80% of the population filled with immigrants, working longer with less pay, and the Brits from this country distributed all over the work searching for jobs, because they were to stupid to realize the damage until it was caused...

That just piped into my head, so some of it maybe be irrelevant or diverse!!

[The Don]

Yes, I think our borders should be opened up to Romania and Bulgaria under the EU. I also can't seem to find any statistics that back up your claim of over 800,000 polish over 5 years.

- - - Updated - - -


you'll be instructed via the BBC and media in general to enjoy this new 'vibrant' and 'diverse' Britain where you don't have a hope of a decent job

This video has a funny (although not the most politically correct) take on that whole argument (around the 4:00 minute mark)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsPDT5qHtZ4

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes, I think our borders should be opened up to Romania and Bulgaria under the EU.

So what do you say to the issues of services being put under strain, social cohesion being broken with cultural ghettos forming and youth unemployment?


I also can't seem to find any statistics that back up your claim of over 800,000 polish over 5 years.

http://www.polish-migrants.co.uk/polish-population-in-the-uk.html


This video has a funny take on that whole argument


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsPDT5qHtZ4

A doped up clown/'comedian' passing off lines from the Communist manifesto as New Age thinking? Give me a break.

The 'nations' of Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union and countless others were built on the thinking of trashing heritage, culture and patiotism in favour of internationalism and creating new identities. Did they work out well? Is South Sudan working out well? It's very easy for naive young people to be all 'why don't we all live together man, peace and get rid of borders yeahhhh' but that's what you believe when you are around the age of 12 or if you continue to smoke dope into later life and listen to Lennon's 'Imagine' on repeat. You soon realise though that the world is a little more complicated than that, and that actually thousands of years of history, religion and culture have huge impacts on the real world.

You get me, dude? Or was everything you just said a wind up? I do know this sort of insanity exists though, as I once was debating somebody over immigration in university and they were all for open borders so I asked them - if a million Rwandans sought asylum to Britain in the event of a crisis, would you let them all in? She stared at me and had to admit she would. I said i'd let such a crazy statement stand without comment as it speaks for itself.

This is basically your logic (Jo) vs my logic (Savage) on this -


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alp5WmXDdzI

[The Don]

http://www.polish-migrants.co.uk/polish-population-in-the-uk.html


So the beginning of that article opens with "It is increasingly difficult to give an accurate figure of the size of the Polish community in the United Kingdom", I guess we're off to a promising start (that is before I point out the domain of the website and how incredibly bias anything from it will most likely be...).

Now, let me directly quote the source of your incredibly accurate information

Wiktor Moszczynski of the Federation of Poles of Great Britain gave his own estimate at the end of 2008 as being in the region of 800,000
So, the information you're passing off as fact is actually just some guesstimate, from some random guy, from an incredibly bias site and without any sources to back it up.

The office for National Statistics seems to put that number to just over 532,000 (which has risen from just under 100,000 over a TEN YEAR gap), which is nearly 1/4 less than you would have us believe, and is in fact far more reliable than the bias and false information you've provided. Here's a graph for you...

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/resources/polishintheuk_tcm77-229906.png
source (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migration1/migration-statistics-quarterly-report/august-2011/polish-people-in-the-uk.html)

That roughly averages out to be 50,000 per year which is far more manageable than the 160,000 per year yours worked out to be.

Give me a break, Dan. Your entire argument is built on fabricated lies coupled with exaggerated, scaremongering comparisons (south sudan, lol wot?).

[-:Undertaker:-]

So the beginning of that article opens with "It is increasingly difficult to give an accurate figure of the size of the Polish community in the United Kingdom", I guess we're off to a promising start (that is before I point out the domain of the website and how incredibly bias anything from it will most likely be...).

Now, let me directly quote the source of your incredibly accurate information

So, the information you're passing off as fact is actually just some guesstimate, from some random guy, from an incredibly bias site and without any sources to back it up.

The office for National Statistics seems to put that number to just over 532,000 (which has risen from just under 100,000 over a TEN YEAR gap), which is nearly 1/4 less than you would have us believe, and is in fact far more reliable than the bias and false information you've provided. Here's a graph for you...

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/resources/polishintheuk_tcm77-229906.png
source (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migration1/migration-statistics-quarterly-report/august-2011/polish-people-in-the-uk.html)

That roughly averages out to be 50,000 per year which is far more manageable than the 160,000 per year yours worked out to be.

Oh dear.

Well firstly you've caught me out on that - at the start of the thread i've stated Poles when I should have said Eastern Europe, although the bulk of my argument still stands considering how most have been from Poland. Either way - it doesn't matter what country they are from, the 800,000 since the 2004 borders opened still stands just as the pro-Polish immigration site I linked to makes a point of.

Even the Guardian and the BBC don't dispute the 800,000 figure, and they actually say 800k POLES - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/12/poles-britain-cultural-splash & http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7282923.stm


Accurate statistics are hard to come by, but it's believed 800,000 Poles moved to the UK in the years after European enlargement.

Or even...

http://metro.co.uk/2008/02/26/800-000-immigrants-seek-uk-work-permits-10145/


800,000 Eastern European immigrants have sought UK work permits

Nearly 800,000 Eastern European immigrants have applied to work in Britain since Poland and seven other ex-Soviet countries joined the European Union four years ago, new figures showed today.

The Home Office statistics did not include the self-employed – thought to include a large number of construction workers – nor those from Romania and Bulgaria, which joined the EU later.

Separate figures also showed the number of failed asylum seekers and dependants removed from Britain last year fell 26% compared with the previous 12 months, to 13,595.

There were 796,000 applicants by the end of last year from the so-called A8 countries, including Poland, of which 766,000 were approved.

The reason why many of the figures are seemingly 'low' (although i'd say hundreds of thousands every year is high) is due to the fact that as the above piece states, the figures are fudged by exceptions.


Give me a break, Dan. Your entire argument is built on fabricated and scaremongering lies coupled with exaggerated, scaremongering comparisons.

My argument is that having 800k+ people come here within a period of about 5 years is ridiculous and foolhardy. Labour even admits now (although it's not really sorry) that it's estimates of 13,000k a year were totally off and the people who warned otherwise were right.

So tell me where I have lied when I state that 800,000+ from Eastern Europe (rather than Poland, I stand corrected on that) have come in the past few years. What part of you thinks that allowing hundreds of thousands of people into this country every year is a sensible thing to do and this won't hurt services or community relations?

Your argument stinks and even the main culprits of mass immigration (Labour) don't back you anymore on this. You lose.

[Vodafone]

Oh look the Don thinks he's an expert on immigration.

Do tell us more about how mass numbers of people who come to a country that is struggling to exit the recession is an economically sustainable practice.

[Kardan]

Oh look the Don thinks he's an expert on immigration.

Do tell us more about how mass numbers of people who come to a country that is struggling to exit the recession is an economically sustainable practice.

Struggling to exit the recession?

We've not been in a recession since 2009.

[Vodafone]

Struggling to exit the recession?

We've not been in a recession since 2009.

Perhaps I should be more specific, a government struggling to stabilise its tumultuous growing debt.

[The Don]

Oh look the Don thinks he's an expert on immigration.

Do tell us more about how mass numbers of people who come to a country that is struggling to exit the recession is an economically sustainable practice.

Yeh because we're still in the recession /s

How exactly does people coming over and paying taxes in anyway harm our economy? Do yourself a favour and think for yourself rather than believe everything you read in the Daily Mail. This whole "Dey tuk er jobs" attitude is idiotic and needs to stop.

[Vodafone]

Yeh because we're still in the recession /s

How exactly does people coming over and paying taxes in anyway harm our economy? Do yourself a favour and think for yourself rather than believe everything you read in the Daily Mail. This whole "Dey tuk er jobs" attitude is idiotic and needs to stop.

I don't even read the Dailymail, but your assumptions are cute. As outlined previously, the subject was not skilled immigrants, but those who undercut the minimum wage. Surely you have the know-how to understand that. What happened when mass ammounts of unmeasured immigration were permitted back in the early 2000s? There was an infrastructure crisis. Seriously it doesn't require too much logic.

[The Don]

I don't even read the Dailymail, but your assumptions are cute. As outlined previously, the subject was not skilled immigrants, but those who undercut the minimum wage. Surely you have the know-how to understand that. What happened when mass ammounts of unmeasured immigration were permitted back in the early 2000s? There was an infrastructure crisis. Seriously it doesn't require too much logic.

That's funny since this study which focussed on immigrants from the early 2000's and their impact upon public services, both in terms of contributions made through tax and the costs associated with providing them access to welfare and services found that immigrants from the EEA (European Economic Area) paid 34% more in tax than they took out. (http://www.cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/CDP_22_13.pdf) Chucking in buzzwords doesn't make your argument anymore valid. If you were to somehow form a coherent rebuttal then this debate would seem less ambiguous.

[Vodafone]

That's funny since this study which focussed on immigrants from the early 2000's and their impact upon public services, both in terms of contributions made through tax and the costs associated with providing them access to welfare and services found that immigrants from the EEA (European Economic Area) paid 34% more in tax than they took out. (http://www.cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/CDP_22_13.pdf) Chucking in buzzwords doesn't make your argument anymore valid. If you were to somehow form a coherent rebuttal then this debate would seem less ambiguous.

I've actually seen that. Don't know what your point is. :s I think Britain is overcrowded as is, deal with it. Since I'm going to have to unfortunately get serious about this, and since I'm pretty sure that study didn't note the increased cost to run public services with the increased population.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/436538/Britain-is-overcrowded-and-we-want-Government-to-cut-immigration-says-public-majority
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/376333/Overcrowded-UK-can-t-take-another-tide-of-immigrants
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10158678/Immigrants-create-overcrowding-and-fuel-tensions-report-finds.html
Telegraph extract:
Researchers found they are more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety and mental illness, while immigrants in general were more likely to suffer from tuberculosis, HIV and and Hepatitis B.
"This suggests the treatment costs for certain conditions and diseases may be disproportionately attributable to immigrants," the report says.
Migrants also have more children than people in Britain, creating "additional demands for midwifery, maternity and health visiting services".
Their poor levels of English meant that GP appointments took "appreciably longer", leading to longer waiting times for other patients and increasing costs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8857551/For-overcrowded-England-there-is-no-turning-back.html
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/12/overcrowding-uk-crowdsourcing
http://www.itv.com/news/2013-01-03/is-britain-overcrowded/

[The Don]

I've actually seen that. Don't know what your point is. :s I think Britain is overcrowded as is, deal with it.

Ah, "Deal with it", fantastic debating skills right there.

My point is to debunk your previously sarcastic message which said "Do tell us more about how mass numbers of people who come to a country that is struggling to exit the recession is an economically sustainable practice." I've just provided proof (my previous message) which shows that those aforementioned immigrants actually provided more to the economy than they took out.

If you have previously seen that study, why would you claim that immigration from the early 2000's was not economically sustainable, when the study you've supposedly read proves otherwise?

[Vodafone]

Did you really just ignore everything I posted. Like, your post was last edited three minutes after my last edit. There's no excuse. (Considering I posted quite a number of sources that back my opinion)

The Queen is taking this issue seriously. Why aren't you? Too politically correct are you?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/queens-speech/10043395/Queens-Speech-Immigration-laws-to-deter-foreigners-who-will-not-contribute-to-UK.html

[The Don]

Did you really just ignore everything I posted. Like, your post was last edited three minutes after my last edit. There's no excuse. (Considering I posted quite a number of sources that back my opinion)

The Queen is taking this issue seriously. Why aren't you? Too politically correct are you?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/queens-speech/10043395/Queens-Speech-Immigration-laws-to-deter-foreigners-who-will-not-contribute-to-UK.html

You edited your post 1 minute before my original post, I hadn't seen it until i had already updated mine. I quoted the entirety of your initial post, quickly googling "immigration bad news" doesn't really add any weight to your argument since you can't actually provide a reason yourself for why it's bad. You initially said it was bad for the economy (which i refuted), what are you arguing now?

I too can copy and paste news articles from sources to meet my agenda, it doesn't require any skill.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10131876/The-truth-about-immigration-its-good-for-Britain.html
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/11/05/uk-britain-migrants-idUKBRE9A40MD20131105
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/04/uk-immigration-_n_4212431.html
http://news.sky.com/story/1164087/immigrants-contribute-25bn-tax-boost-to-uk
http://theconversation.com/revealed-immigrants-put-34-more-into-public-finances-than-they-take-out-19845

[Vodafone]

Then good day? I think immigration only temporarily solves the problem and eventually just adds to the cost. Based on my views and values, if you can't handle that some of us value food security (and self sufficiency) and able services, than so be it.

[The Don]

Then good day? I think immigration only temporarily solves the problem and eventually just adds to the cost. Based on my views and values, if you can't handle that some of us value food security (and self sufficiency) and able services, than so be it.

Temporarily solves what problem? what are you even talking about? I'm trying my best to respond to you, but nothing you're saying makes sense.

[Vodafone]

If you really care that much about your argument, PM me. I posted in English, not my problem if you don't understand.

[The Don]

If you really care that much about your argument, PM me. I posted in English, not my problem if you don't understand.

This is the debates section, I don't care enough to PM you about it, however if you post an opinion in a DISCUSSION thread, in the DEBATES forum, then you are going to unfortunately have your opinion questioned and your thoughts challenged. Posting "immigration is bad because its expensive!!!!" isn't an adequate debate, neither is providing sources which you clearly haven't read (since, from those articles you linked at the bottom of page 3, you obviously failed to read that some of them were actually in favour of immigration, but were focussing on stopping benefits). If you don't want to debate, don't post sarcastic comments on subjects you clearly don't care enough about to discuss properly.

[Vodafone]

noun
a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote:

At least follow the definition of a 'debate' before you continue your charade. I have proposed my arguments, and supported my views with evidence. You might not be able to understand 'sustainability', or 'food security' or 'land management', so I have decided to terminate the 'debate' with you.

[The Don]

noun
a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote:

At least follow the definition of a 'debate' before you continue your charade.

You've literally just said "If you really care that much about your argument, PM me. I posted in English, not my problem if you don't understand.", Perhaps you should follow your own advice?


I have proposed my arguments, and supported my views with evidence.

The only coherent argument you've put forth was that immigration had a negative toll on the economy, I then refuted this with proof, which you had apparently seen (don't know why you would argue against it then?).

The rest of your argument is, as directly quoted "I think immigration only temporarily solves the problem and eventually just adds to the cost. Based on my views and values, if you can't handle that some of us value food security (and self sufficiency) and able services, then so be it." which bears no relevance to anything that was previously said, you've literally strung together a few buzz words without explaining how immigration negatively affects them.


You might not be able to understand 'sustainability', or 'food security' or 'land management'
Of course I understand these concepts, I just don't understand how they are relevant when you've literally never mentioned them in this thread up until these past 3 posts, and you haven't cared to elaborate on them.


so I have decided to terminate the 'debate' with you.
Again, I don't think you understand how debating works...

No worries though, in the future refrain from making petty comments when you clearly don't know enough about something to defend your view on it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You initially said it was bad for the economy (which i refuted)

You ain't refuted anything just as you lost with the figures argument over how many have come to the UK. You'll have to try harder, here -

The economic arguments that The Don is putting forward are the typical arguments put forward in favour of mass immigration - that because x amount of people = y amount of GDP, therefore immigration is a good thing. It's total rubbish. GDP naturally increases with GDP, hence why nations like China and India are so high in terms of GDP despite most of the population being poor. We could, if we wanted, allow 30m people in from Africa and we would overtake France and Germany in terms of GDP but we would all be much poorer due to services being stretched between more people on low wages.

It's GDP per capita that matters. And what effect does immigration have on that? Firstly, it deprives the permanent workforce of the UK from learning key skills (see youth unemployment) as they are being displaced my migrant workers in the job market. Secondly, much of the money that Eastern European workers is sent back to Eastern Europe rather than spent here: a transfer of wealth to another country. Thirdly, it impacts GDP per capita (the true measure of a nations wealth) in that it depresses wages at the lower end of the job market even when inflation is rising, meaning that those without good educational skills are having their wages compressed and are becoming poorer as inflation increases. Is it any wonder why Labour is now scrambling over this issue as it's dawning on them the damage they have inflicted on their traditional working class base?

But all this isn't even the key argument against mass uncontrolled immigration. The main argument for controlling our borders is that we allow integration for existing migrants to take place so that Britain is held together as a single nation state with a single monoculture - ie, preventing the rise of multiculturalism where people live seperately in cultural ghettos. That isn't good for any nation, people don't like it and as Enoch Powell said all those years ago - it is like watching a nation busily heaping up it's own funeral pyre. The riots in Stockholm in Sweden and those in France a few years ago are just the beginning if we continue to allow an open door which leads to the formation of cultural ghettos.

The other arguments of course are the fact that local services are put under immense strain as migrant patterns of movement mean that they often all arrive in one area suddenly, meaning the local hospitals/housing/police/schools etc are all put under great strain. Is this a sensible thing to have happening? of course not. Then there's the issue of crime of course, which Romanian nationals in particular are closely tied to (the same for other groups of nationals from other non-EU countries).

Nobody denies immigration can be good for us. But it's got to be controlled in that we only allow a certain number of people in so that the migrants coming can fully integrate and become a part of this country, so that local services can cope with additional people in a certain area, so that our own youth are not displaced and that our poorest don't have their wages depressed. If you have the skills, no criminal conviction and we need you - then sure, you ought to be allowed in. But an unmanaged policy of throwing the doors open? It's criminal and people have frankly had enough hence why the three main parties are now apologising and running about like headless chickens over the issue.

Now is anything I have said there unreasonable? I think not, it's common bloody sense.

[The Don]

I haven't lost anything, I didn't have chance to reply but the numbers were still wrong, the 800,000 was how many had APPLIED for it, not how many had actually moved here. I'm also at a loss to how you can use the "Oh but executives fudge numbers excuse whenever I provide statistics and then use statistics yourself from a newspaper which, last time I checked, was far less reliable than the source I provided. I'll reply in full later though when I've woken up properly l, I just wanted to put an end to your ridiculously idea that you had somehow won.


You ain't refuted anything just as you lost with the figures argument over how many have come to the UK. You'll have to try harder, here -

The economic arguments that The Don is putting forward are the typical arguments put forward in favour of mass immigration - that because x amount of people = y amount of GDP, therefore immigration is a good thing. It's total rubbish. GDP naturally increases with GDP, hence why nations like China and India are so high in terms of GDP despite most of the population being poor. We could, if we wanted, allow 30m people in from Africa and we would overtake France and Germany in terms of GDP but we would all be much poorer due to services being stretched between more people on low wages.

It's GDP per capita that matters. And what effect does immigration have on that? Firstly, it deprives the permanent workforce of the UK from learning key skills (see youth unemployment) as they are being displaced my migrant workers in the job market. Secondly, much of the money that Eastern European workers is sent back to Eastern Europe rather than spent here: a transfer of wealth to another country. Thirdly, it impacts GDP per capita (the true measure of a nations wealth) in that it depresses wages at the lower end of the job market even when inflation is rising, meaning that those without good educational skills are having their wages compressed and are becoming poorer as inflation increases. Is it any wonder why Labour is now scrambling over this issue as it's dawning on them the damage they have inflicted on their traditional working class base?

But all this isn't even the key argument against mass uncontrolled immigration. The main argument for controlling our borders is that we allow integration for existing migrants to take place so that Britain is held together as a single nation state with a single monoculture - ie, preventing the rise of multiculturalism where people live seperately in cultural ghettos. That isn't good for any nation, people don't like it and as Enoch Powell said all those years ago - it is like watching a nation busily heaping up it's own funeral pyre. The riots in Stockholm in Sweden and those in France a few years ago are just the beginning if we continue to allow an open door which leads to the formation of cultural ghettos.

The other arguments of course are the fact that local services are put under immense strain as migrant patterns of movement mean that they often all arrive in one area suddenly, meaning the local hospitals/housing/police/schools etc are all put under great strain. Is this a sensible thing to have happening? of course not. Then there's the issue of crime of course, which Romanian nationals in particular are closely tied to (the same for other groups of nationals from other non-EU countries).

Nobody denies immigration can be good for us. But it's got to be controlled in that we only allow a certain number of people in so that the migrants coming can fully integrate and become a part of this country, so that local services can cope with additional people in a certain area, so that our own youth are not displaced and that our poorest don't have their wages depressed. If you have the skills, no criminal conviction and we need you - then sure, you ought to be allowed in. But an unmanaged policy of throwing the doors open? It's criminal and people have frankly had enough hence why the three main parties are now apologising and running about like headless chickens over the issue.

Now is anything I have said there unreasonable? I think not, it's common bloody sense.

[Aiden]

Well, I guess they have too. I don't think they should though. I'm not all into politics and what not but O'm sure Britain has its own problems and doesn't need another countries people clogging up the system for health care, police force and prisons.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I haven't lost anything, I didn't have chance to reply but the numbers were still wrong, the 800,000 was how many had APPLIED for it, not how many had actually moved here. I'm also at a loss to how you can use the "Oh but executives fudge numbers excuse whenever I provide statistics and then use statistics yourself from a newspaper which, last time I checked, was far less reliable than the source I provided. I'll reply in full later though when I've woken up properly l, I just wanted to put an end to your ridiculously idea that you had somehow won.

The links I provided didn't say applied for from what I recall, it says who have moved here. Immigration running at 400,000+ a year is ridiculous and should be stopped - for reasons such as integration, jobs, services and economics. Simple.

I had to laugh at this poll the Guardian published tonight though, have a look -

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/29/bulgaria-romania-migrants-uk-poll


Romanians and Bulgarians coming to the UK on New Year's Day will be welcomed by more than two-thirds of Britons if they integrate and work hard, a new poll suggests ahead of restrictions on them being lifted.

In spite of a surge of anti-immigrant rhetoric from leading politicians, British people are happy to accept migrants from the east of Europe who learn English, get a job, pay taxes and become part of their local community.

As many as 68% of those asked said they would be happy for migrants to come on those terms. That sentiment was particularly strong among people aged between 35 and 44, with 72% supporting their right to come to live and work in the UK.

That's such a warped polling question that it's a laughing stock. That'd be like commissioning a poll and asking 'Do you support our continued membership of the EU if it leads to every Briton becoming £10,000 better off? yes/no' or 'The General Election is being held in 2014 with Nigel Farage promising free puppies and £5,000 for each family. Who do you intend to vote for? Labour/Tory/UKIP/LDem or Other?'

Just wanted to get this in here before somebody tried using it to smack me over the head with. Actually, scratch all that -


The British Future Report doesn't contain any reference to support the Guardian headline. A search of the document fails to show any figure of 72% welcoming migrants or even a question from pollsters to that effect?

What's going on here Daniel?

The introduction to the Report does say:

This extension of free movement, and especially its timing, are certainly not popular – though a minority of one in six actively welcome it.

Guardian pro-mass immigration spin. Thought so.

[lRhyss]

They'll just take our jobs and ruin the economy more. Idec what people say, my view.

[Kardan]

They'll just take our jobs and ruin the economy more. Idec what people say, my view.

Please explain your views on how immigrants ruin the economy.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Please explain your views on how immigrants ruin the economy.

By depressing wages for the lowest paid in our society thus making it more financially sensible for them to just claim benefits rather than work.

Mass immigration: good for the wealthy with cheap nannies and waiters + corporations for cheap labour, bad for low-paid workers.

[Kardan]

By depressing wages for the lowest paid in our society thus making it more financially sensible for them to just claim benefits rather than work.

Mass immigration: good for the wealthy with cheap nannies and waiters + corporations for cheap labour, bad for low-paid workers.

Didn't realise I quoted you :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

Didn't realise I quoted you :P

But you and others keep asking the same questions and keep being given the same answers, yet seemingly still want the borders with Romania and Bulgaria opened and immigration continued at the same rates - suggesting to me that you actually acknowledge those affects but don't care.

If you along with others came out and said you weren't in favour of open borders like we have now then at least we'd know where you stand - then the details could be debated over and picked over. But you won't clarify where you stand on the issue.

I and others say very clearly where we stand - that the borders shouldn't be left open like they are now. Agree or disagree that's at least a solid answer being given for a variety of reasons. Where do you stand on it?

[The Don]

The lowest they can legally work for is the minimum wage, which british people can work for if they want? It's not like they can legally work for ridiculously low sums which would give them an advantage so isn't that really a moot point? If people see it more appealing to claim benefits than work, that's a problem with the benefits system and that mentality, not immigration.


By depressing wages for the lowest paid in our society thus making it more financially sensible for them to just claim benefits rather than work.

Mass immigration: good for the wealthy with cheap nannies and waiters + corporations for cheap labour, bad for low-paid workers.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The lowest they can legally work for is the minimum wage, which british people can work for if they want? It's not like they can legally work for ridiculously low sums which would give them an advantage so isn't that really a moot point? If people see it more appealing to claim benefits than work, that's a problem with the benefits system and that mentality, not immigration.

Well firstly often companies with these migrants will hire migrant workers exactly because they are willing, unlike their British counterparts, to ignore the minimum wage and work 'off the books' - which saves the company a lot of money. This has been the case for illegal immigrants too if you watch UK Border Force where they've busted companies for employing hoardes of illegal immigrants who will work for under the minimum wage.

At the same time, how can British people be expected to work on the minimum wage and compete with Polish and other Eastern European workers? As stated before, many of these workers are single men who sleep rough/many to a house and send all of their money back home - they do not have mortgages to pay, cars to fuel, families to feed or any of the obligations that British people struggle to pay with. Not only that, but £5 an hour buys you a lot more in Poland than it does in Britain hence why the Poles are willing to work for that wage and British people are not.

If immigration was controlled, especially in this area, then wage rates would have risen in line with inflation over the past decade which would have made the work more appealing and actually worth doing to Britons. It hasn't because the wage rates have been aritificially depressed by importing hundreds of thousands of migrants to fill the jobs for pittance. The answer isn't a rise in the minimum wage either (which i'm against anyway) - the answer it to allow the market to correct itself among the domestic market instead of distorting it with this sneaky way of depressing wages for the lowest paid in this country.

It's not on and even Labour now realise it - the party which depends on the votes of the lowest paid.

[Kardan]

But you and others keep asking the same questions and keep being given the same answers, yet seemingly still want the borders with Romania and Bulgaria opened and immigration continued at the same rates - suggesting to me that you actually acknowledge those affects but don't care.

If you along with others came out and said you weren't in favour of open borders like we have now then at least we'd know where you stand - then the details could be debated over and picked over. But you won't clarify where you stand on the issue.

I and others say very clearly where we stand - that the borders shouldn't be left open like they are now. Agree or disagree that's at least a solid answer being given for a variety of reasons. Where do you stand on it?

You already know where I stand, that the borders should be opened for Romanians and Bulgarians. What I don't agree with is that people of the EU may enter the country without their criminal record being taken into consideration. So the borders should be open, but tougher restrictions should be implemented. I disagree with a full on closure of borders.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You already know where I stand, that the borders should be opened for Romanians and Bulgarians. What I don't agree with is that people of the EU may enter the country without their criminal record being taken into consideration. So the borders should be open, but tougher restrictions should be implemented. I disagree with a full on closure of borders.

But nobody is arguing to 'close the borders' - all we're arguing for is that workers should only be allowed into this country with the handing out of work visas (like the rest of the world) so that we only get workers who we need rather than workers who are coming in and taking the jobs of the lowest paid. If a reasonable job cannot be filled by the domestic workers then fine, let workers apply from other countries - nobody has a problem with that. As for the criminal part, you don't grasp EU Law and Freedom of Movement then - under EU Law and this entire system, we are unable to stop those with a criminal record coming in as they have the same rights as you and I do in entering this country as we're EU nationals.

And as I say time and time again, that's why with all of this it's in or out of the EU. Either we control our borders (out) or we don't (in).

So the questions are....

- Why be against a work visa/permit & settlement system like most other countries have?
- Do you agree we should leave the EU to reclaim those powers over who can or cannot enter this country?

[Reality]

So the questions are....

- Why be against a work visa/permit & settlement system like most other countries have?
- Do you agree we should leave the EU to reclaim those powers over who can or cannot enter this country?

I think the point made about work visa/permit has actually changed my opinion on this.
The second point made about should we leave the EU.
I think if we left the EU we would be a strong country at first, then we would start to struggle as some of our importers may decide to stop delivering it to the UK.

I don't know but who know if this is going to be a good idea or not... we can find out in a month or so after the boarders open in 2 days!

[Thomas.]

I dont see why we should put up with them. They should stay in there own country. They will only steal the jobs and the homes.

[Yawn]

they usually end up doing the jobs no1 wants to do anyway
there r jobs for any1 if they r willing to go and do it, there r plenty to go around. u'll find the immigrants r far more hardworking which benefits the employers. and they r far less fussy when its to finding a job so no they r not TAKING OUR JOBS like i said they do the jobs the british dont want to do in many cases.

[lemons]

I can't wait to meet them :)