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

[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/2...grants-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.