Jump to content

Immigration


jake

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

Interesting OP and certainly well-intentioned. But it contains assumptions: which in several cases, are extremely flawed.

 

Massive numbers of migrants from Central America to the US, or North Africa and the Middle East to Europe, aren't migrating for economic reasons or "to escape poverty". They're doing so to escape war, terrorism, death squads and drug cartels. Central America is the most dangerous region in the world - by a long, long way. Yet while Americans sit and panic about MT-13 and other gangs, they apparently expect ordinary people from Honduras, El Salvador or Mexico to have their lives overwhelmed by these gangs.

 

Similarly, Libya wasn't half the mess it now is until we showed up, bombed the place to bits, then ****ed off: leaving the place to be overrun by terrorists. Like Syria has been too. Yet while Brits sit and panic about terrorists, we apparently expect ordinary people from these areas to have their lives overwhelmed by them. It's bizarre. 

 

I don't think any of us can know what it's truly like to live in a wartorn or failed state, to be persecuted and tortured by government death squads or drug cartels, unless we've actually experienced it. Our desire instead to take the most cynical view imaginable - "they want money for nothing! They want our generous benefits!" - actually says far more about us than it does about them. Not least because our benefit system is incredibly ungenerous.

 

The journeys which many of these migrants, refugees and asylum seekers make is fraught with peril. They are extorted by traffickers, women are raped en masse, and many don't make it at all. It is beyond my comprehension how people assume this is some easy choice; it's one of the hardest choices any family can ever make, and it's almost always made because they have no other option.

 

As for immigration and the UK: the problem with the British economy is chronic lack of productivity. That's not because British workers are 'lazy'; productivity doesn't work like that. It requires constant investment in the most efficient technologies; a view of the long term. But that's not what Britain does. We use sticking plaster solutions instead: meaning we recruit 10 low skilled, low paid workers instead of investing in the plants and machinery which could do all that work instead.

 

We've long had the most flexible markets in Europe. We give workers less protection than anyone else in Europe too. All of that is because our entire approach is short-term. That's what Thatcherism essentially amounts to - and it means that if we don't have immigration, lots of it, we're goosed.

Yes my OP was flawed .

I should as usual have worded it better.

Uncontrolled as in freedom of movement.

Initially the govt told us 20,000 would arrive from Poland .

It was closer to 1 million.

 

Before I'm accused of xenophobia in my experience through work and neighbours have had only positivity.

This has had a knock on effect though that wasn't planned for.

Housing being a particular.

Private rents increase and mostly it affects lower income groups .

 

I have to wholeheartedly agree with you on the other side of migration.

 

I posted a link on the first page.

It's agrees with you as well.

Our desire to fuel the arms trade has created conflict .

Libya like Syria although not perfect in comparison to surrounding countries were stable.

Not now after we have destabilized them through US foreign policy.

 

It would be nice but fanciful think8ng on my part if foreign policy wasn't formed on US hegemony.

Because that is the reason we face much of these migrations.

 

In general though just allowing in waves of people has seen a rise in far right .

 

It has to be discussed without throwing about the innuendo of racist.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • shaun.lawson

    11

  • Boris

    8

  • jake

    7

  • JackLadd

    7

1 hour ago, Harry Potter said:

Its not helping the situation, so you are saying its not, bit nieve if you think that but we know that you actually do.

 

 

I'm saying that the NHS is overloaded anyway and that immigration doesn't affect that massively, nor is immigration the root problem of NHS overloading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

davemclaren
2 hours ago, Boris said:

 

I'm saying that the NHS is overloaded anyway and that immigration doesn't affect that massively, nor is immigration the root problem of NHS overloading.

The NHS is reliant on immigrants at all levels as far as I can see. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

The NHS is reliant on immigrants at all levels as far as I can see. 

 

It will be interesting to see the effect on the NHS should there be an exodus of foreign workers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends where your immigrants are coming from. A million skilled immigrants from developed countries wouldnt be a bad thing for the country, whereas a million immigrants from Eritrea and Sudan etc that can barely read and write , will need housing provided by the State , benefits payed out by the state is not going to benefit any country .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JimKongUno said:

It depends where your immigrants are coming from. A million skilled immigrants from developed countries wouldnt be a bad thing for the country, whereas a million immigrants from Eritrea and Sudan etc that can barely read and write , will need housing provided by the State , benefits payed out by the state is not going to benefit any country .

 

Are you referring to immigrants or refugees?  Immigrants have to go through a merit-based selection process, so you're unlikely to get a million of the unskilled people you described.  Immigrants should not need any government assistance if the selection process is working properly

 

Refugees are a different kettle of fish.  They are people who arrive in your country, fleeing from war or other threats, so it's a humanitarian issue.  They, indeed, might have limited skills and might never be in a position to contribute to the country in a positive manner.  There is a separate process for coping with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got no problem with anyone who wants to come over here to work, we need them.  But uncontrolled immigration with no background checks? What do you think would happen? The Brexit vote was (arguably) about immigration. It brings out the worst in people. Moderate change over time prevents knee jerk reactions and takes the wind out the sails of right wing scumbags.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry Potter
7 hours ago, Boris said:

 

I'm saying that the NHS is overloaded anyway and that immigration doesn't affect that massively, nor is immigration the root problem of NHS overloading.

Fair reply Boris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sir Vladimir of Romanov
8 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Are you referring to immigrants or refugees?  Immigrants have to go through a merit-based selection process, so you're unlikely to get a million of the unskilled people you described.  Immigrants should not need any government assistance if the selection process is working properly

 

Refugees are a different kettle of fish.  They are people who arrive in your country, fleeing from war or other threats, so it's a humanitarian issue.  They, indeed, might have limited skills and might never be in a position to contribute to the country in a positive manner.  There is a separate process for coping with them.

 

Surely if someone is fleeing war or other threats once they have exited that country they would stop. Why continue through x countries to here? 

Edited by Sir Vladimir of Romanov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sir Vladimir of Romanov said:

 

Surely if someone is fleeing war or other threats once they have exited that country they would stop. Why continue through x countries to here? 

 

That's right.  in that situation, at what point do they stop being refugees and become wannabee immigrants?  It's a thorny issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
2 hours ago, Sir Vladimir of Romanov said:

 

Surely if someone is fleeing war or other threats once they have exited that country they would stop. Why continue through x countries to here? 

 

In the case of refugees from North Africa, Libya is not safe, Egypt is not safe. There's no safety until they reach Europe - yet expecting Italy to then house all of them is plainly ridiculous. 

 

In the case of refugees from the Middle East, Jordan and Lebanon have done their very best, but are overwhelmed to an extent we can't even imagine. There's little more either country can do. That leaves Turkey - which isn't at all safe for many minority groups - or again, Europe. And given we were the ones who ****ed up Iraq and ****ed up Libya and are helping **** up Yemen with our weapons, there's a moral onus on us too. 

 

In the case of refugees from Central America: refugees are fleeing failed states, whose failure is a direct result of US drug policy. The war on drugs, combined with selfish Westerners consuming them, is what causes so much violence and death throughout the region... and Mexico is so unsafe that the US State Department has warned against travelling to many Mexican states. 

 

More generally: some refugees see the US or UK as their salvation because both countries have been enormously successful at projecting a very positive image around the world. We're both seen, increasingly wrongly, as the home of freedom; we've both been open to immigrants of all ethnicities for a long long time.

 

If I were a refugee, I wouldn't just be trying to get to a safe place. I'd be trying to get somewhere I hoped I wouldn't be discriminated against or hated; where I had family or friends (in the UK's case, that's mostly because of the Empire)... and above all, where I could communicate. English is the world's most popular language; language is the number one reason both immigrants and refugees try to come to English-speaking countries. It's not for our "generous benefits", it's not for free healthcare; it's because they can speak the lingo.

 

Now, if we stop projecting our soft power around the world, if we start telling the truth about ourselves, if we stop boasting about how wonderful Britain is, then fine. But we don't. We do the opposite. And by gum, do we not like the consequences.

Edited by shaun.lawson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
2 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

That's right.  in that situation, at what point do they stop being refugees and become wannabee immigrants?  It's a thorny issue.

 

After the Nazis were defeated, Europe, in theory at least, was safe for the Jewish people. So were all those who travelled from Europe to Israel "economic migrants"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

After the Nazis were defeated, Europe, in theory at least, was safe for the Jewish people. So were all those who travelled from Europe to Israel "economic migrants"?

 

Thats a poser Shaun, I would suspect in many cases it would have been once bitten twice shy, the decision was possibly who can we trust, probably other Jews would be the answer, so lets go to Israel where we are not really immigrants we are going to the home of our people, with our people so we should be safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Comedian

The folk who are most in favour of mass immigration are the folk least likely to be affected by it. 

 

Those diverse boatloads of doctors and surgeons crossing the Med to many are incompatible dross here to take the piss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

After the Nazis were defeated, Europe, in theory at least, was safe for the Jewish people. So were all those who travelled from Europe to Israel "economic migrants"?

 

Throughout history, humans have been on the move.  Almost every person on the planet is an emigrant or is descended from one.  There are countless reason for this human diaspora.  Economics is merely one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
48 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Throughout history, humans have been on the move.  Almost every person on the planet is an emigrant or is descended from one.  There are countless reason for this human diaspora.  Economics is merely one of them.

 

Excellent answer. 

 

11206095_10152951773872583_4620367713969

 

11350862_10152959151152583_4669358917066

 

11953025_10152948069067583_9123479910017

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
3 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Throughout history, humans have been on the move.  Almost every person on the planet is an emigrant or is descended from one.  There are countless reason for this human diaspora.  Economics is merely one of them.

The "everyone is an immigrant" argument is PC nonsense. In what sense are African Americans in the USA  immigrants?Their ancestors were not immigrants. They certainly aren't. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
3 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Excellent answer. 

 

11206095_10152951773872583_4620367713969

 

11350862_10152959151152583_4669358917066

 

11953025_10152948069067583_9123479910017

Unless you actually believe every country in the world should accept every person in the world as someone entitled to live in any country they choose, this is sentimental nonsense.

Unfortunately it seems to be nonsense that is becoming widely accepted if not essential  if you want to avoid being categorised as racist.

 

Edited by Francis Albert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
2 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

The "everyone is an immigrant" argument is PC nonsense. In what sense are African Americans in the USA  immigrants?Their ancestors were not immigrants. They certainly aren't. 

 

 

No, their ancestors weren't immigrants. Their ancestors were slaves. Where did slaves come from, Francis?

 

More or less everyone in the country I live in is descended from immigrants: mostly Spanish and Italian, but also German, French, English, Scottish, Portuguese. It's one of many reasons this country is so open to immigrants - because the people are honest enough to know how ridiculous they'd look if they weren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

Unless you actually believe every country in the world should accept every person in the world as someone entitled to live in any country they choose, this is sentimental nonsense.

Unfortunately it seems to be nonsense that is becoming widely accepted if not essential  if you want to avoid being categorised as racist.

 

 

Do you believe countries should simply close their borders instead? Because that, for the record, is where I think this is ultimately heading. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The White Cockade
3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

The "everyone is an immigrant" argument is PC nonsense. In what sense are African Americans in the USA  immigrants?Their ancestors were not immigrants. They certainly aren't. 

 

all white people in the USA are immigrants or dependants of immigrants

all of the black people also although in their case mostly their ancestors were taken there against their will and enslaved

 

and the horrible right wing Australians who want to keep all non white non Christian immigrants out unless they

adopt "proper Australian values" is obscenely ironic considreing what their immigrant ancestors did to the

indigineous Aboriginal people when they emigrated there

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the new Italian approach (similar to Aussie one).  If I was Italian I wouldn't want these economic migrant Africans washing up on my shore. What the hell do they think Western Europe owes them? Tow them back to Libya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Findlay
5 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

I agree with the new Italian approach (similar to Aussie one).  If I was Italian I wouldn't want these economic migrant Africans washing up on my shore. What the hell do they think Western Europe owes them? Tow them back to Libya.

Trolling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Trolling?

 

Nope. Tow them back and is what I'd do - and then confiscate or sink their boat once they're ashore.

Edited by JackLadd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

The "everyone is an immigrant" argument is PC nonsense. In what sense are African Americans in the USA  immigrants?Their ancestors were not immigrants. They certainly aren't. 

 

You misquoted me.  Read my post again.  I said ALMOST  everyone is an immigrant, or is descended from one.  And that is a fact, not PC nonsense.

 

Humans did not evolve on Australia, or New Zealand, or Tierra del Fuego, or North America, or anywhere else you care to mention (with the exception of East Africa).  They moved there.  If you track the roots of those people back far enough, you will find that they all originated in the area that today we call Kenya.  You should get your DNA analysed.  I did and, yes, my ancestors came from East Africa.  So did yours.

 

The African Americans you mentioned were kidnapped mainly from West Africa, not Kenya.  

 

But I doubt if human history was on jake's mind when he started this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The White Cockade said:

all white people in the USA are immigrants or dependants of immigrants

all of the black people also although in their case mostly their ancestors were taken there against their will and enslaved

 

and the horrible right wing Australians who want to keep all non white non Christian immigrants out unless they

adopt "proper Australian values" is obscenely ironic considreing what their immigrant ancestors did to the

indigineous Aboriginal people when they emigrated there

 

 

I agree .

White Christians did colonise these countries.

 

Do you believe that white people should repay what their ancestors did?

 

After the genocide they committed against aboriginal tribes and the Natives of the whole American continent is indefensible.

 

To be honest it's not a good argument to use the tale of immigrants who slaughtered and enslave continents as an argument for immigration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

No, their ancestors weren't immigrants. Their ancestors were slaves. Where did slaves come from, Francis?

 

More or less everyone in the country I live in is descended from immigrants: mostly Spanish and Italian, but also German, French, English, Scottish, Portuguese. It's one of many reasons this country is so open to immigrants - because the people are honest enough to know how ridiculous they'd look if they weren't.

Interestingly  the country you live in was ethnically cleansed if everyone is descended by Europeans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jake said:

I agree .

White Christians did colonise these countries.

 

Do you believe that white people should repay what their ancestors did?

 

After the genocide they committed against aboriginal tribes and the Natives of the whole American continent is indefensible.

 

To be honest it's not a good argument to use the tale of immigrants who slaughtered and enslave continents as an argument for immigration.

 

The Romans colonised Britain and the Normans did the same in 1066. Vikings also ravaged the coasts taking slaves and booty along with Barbary slavers and other no goods. We've all got sob stories if you want to go back far enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
6 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Do you believe countries should simply close their borders instead? Because that, for the record, is where I think this is ultimately heading. 

Do you believe complete freedom of movement of the world's population and closed borders are the only two options, as you imply? And what do you mean by closed borders? Borders are by definition to some degree closed. Even in the heyday of emigration to the US not everyone who got to Ellis Island made it further. Sloganising like "no human is illegal" is infantile nonsense. If there is any restriction on immigration then inevitably there will be illegal immigrants and calling then "undocumented" doesn't change that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The White Cockade
1 hour ago, jake said:

Interestingly  the country you live in was ethnically cleansed if everyone is descended by Europeans.

The Spanish and Portugese ethnically cleansed a lot of South America

Like the British in Australia

and the Germans attempted to do in Namibia

and obviously lots of other examples

but in this country it's the raving right wing Empire lovers that are most vocal about keeping immigrants out

which I was just pointing out is fairly ironic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
2 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

You misquoted me.  Read my post again.  I said ALMOST  everyone is an immigrant, or is descended from one.  And that is a fact, not PC nonsense.

 

Humans did not evolve on Australia, or New Zealand, or Tierra del Fuego, or North America, or anywhere else you care to mention (with the exception of East Africa).  They moved there.  If you track the roots of those people back far enough, you will find that they all originated in the area that today we call Kenya.  You should get your DNA analysed.  I did and, yes, my ancestors came from East Africa.  So did yours.

 

The African Americans you mentioned were kidnapped mainly from West Africa, not Kenya.  

 

But I doubt if human history was on jake's mind when he started this thread.

How is the fact that humans first emerged in Kenya relevant to the issue of migration of people in the world today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2018 at 11:05, Ray Gin said:

We're all descended from immigrants in the UK.

 

Those beaker folk though.  :seething:

 

 

Brilliant! :gok: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
2 hours ago, jake said:

Interestingly  the country you live in was ethnically cleansed if everyone is descended by Europeans.

 

It was, Jake. Uruguay is the only country in Latin America to have slaughtered all its indigenous people. Almost 200 years on, there's a collective guilt about it which I swear plays a big part in the melancholy and passivity which are almost universal characteristics among Uruguayans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
31 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

How is the fact that humans first emerged in Kenya relevant to the issue of migration of people in the world today?

 

Because the attitude towards immigrants so, so often is: "We hate you. You don't belong here. **** off back where you came from".

 

An attitude which, strangely, didn't stop us colonising and wrecking half the planet; doesn't stop British or First World expats moving around like a matter of entitlement; and which, as Stewart Lee expertly set out in the video above, has always been there. Human beings are tribal; human beings don't like and are scared of 'the other'. Why? Insecurity and ignorance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
48 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Borders are by definition to some degree closed. 

 

Have a read of this. Then tell me this isn't what's happening step by step, bit by bit - not least because the waves of migration are going to get greater and greater as climate change and natural disasters bite.

 

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170418-how-western-civilisation-could-collapse?ocid=ww.social.link.facebook

 

As far as Western liberal democracy goes, we've probably already seen the best of times. Its erosion is accelerating all the time.

Edited by shaun.lawson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sir Vladimir of Romanov
18 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

In the case of refugees from North Africa, Libya is not safe, Egypt is not safe. There's no safety until they reach Europe - yet expecting Italy to then house all of them is plainly ridiculous. 

So you would agree that each country should be able to say we can't take anymore? 

 

18 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

In the case of refugees from the Middle East, Jordan and Lebanon have done their very best, but are overwhelmed to an extent we can't even imagine. There's little more either country can do. That leaves Turkey - which isn't at all safe for many minority groups - or again, Europe. And given we were the ones who ****ed up Iraq and ****ed up Libya and are helping **** up Yemen with our weapons, there's a moral onus on us too. 

 

This is politics mate, morals are not required. 

 

18 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

In the case of refugees from Central America: refugees are fleeing failed states, whose failure is a direct result of US drug policy. The war on drugs, combined with selfish Westerners consuming them, is what causes so much violence and death throughout the region... and Mexico is so unsafe that the US State Department has warned against travelling to many Mexican states. 

 

More generally: some refugees see the US or UK as their salvation because both countries have been enormously successful at projecting a very positive image around the world. We're both seen, increasingly wrongly, as the home of freedom; we've both been open to immigrants of all ethnicities for a long long time.

 

If I were a refugee, I wouldn't just be trying to get to a safe place. I'd be trying to get somewhere I hoped I wouldn't be discriminated against or hated; where I had family or friends (in the UK's case, that's mostly because of the Empire)... and above all, where I could communicate. English is the world's most popular language; language is the number one reason both immigrants and refugees try to come to English-speaking countries. It's not for our "generous benefits", it's not for free healthcare; it's because they can speak the lingo.

 

Now, if we stop projecting our soft power around the world, if we start telling the truth about ourselves, if we stop boasting about how wonderful Britain is, then fine. But we don't. We do the opposite. And by gum, do we not like the consequences.

 

Quite perhaps, but I don't think speaking English will be a deciding factor. Mostly because they must know they do so very poorly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Comedian

Maybe North African migrants or refugees could head south to safety for once? Or is every African country a dangerous shithole which is all our fault?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, The Comedian said:

Maybe North African migrants or refugees could head south to safety for once? Or is every African country a dangerous shithole which is all our fault?

 

 

 

North African gangs are ferrying them and crewing the boats,  they're coming from West and central Africa. And no their relative poverty is not our fault. Their s-hole countries  are s-holes because they made them that way, even with huge debt write offs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The White Cockade
40 minutes ago, The Comedian said:

Maybe North African migrants or refugees could head south to safety for once? Or is every African country a dangerous shithole which is all our fault?

 

 

Every African country apart from Ethiopia was colonised and yes the way they were left after independence meant most of them 

were not in a great state as for may years they were ruled and often brutalised by the Europeans

However Africa is almost completely tribal and in a lot of countries it is the tribalism that makes them  such dangerous

places to live

Whereas pre colonisation the "tribes" mostly lived and controlled their own areas the random boundaries created by the Europeans

meant that when they left the problems of tribalism were increased as they no longer controlled their own areas 

Very few African countries have taken to Democratic Government and most are riven by corruption, despotism and as I said tribalism

Whether this is a result of Europeans Colonisation and it's effect on the Africans or whether Democracy is an alien concept to Africa that

tribalism makes impossible is a point that could be argued but there are very few stable countries on the continent

You can safely say that Colonisation has been disastrous for most Africans

I think South Africa has the most African immigration both legal and illegal and people might argue that is because of it being run by

Europeans for the longest and the most modern and industrialised African country but Democracy is also imploding there

Who knows the answer to it all?

Certainly not me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the mains contributors is sky high birthrate and ironically western aid is a driver for that. The Libyan fiasco is the tip of an iceberg heading Europe's way in the coming decades and centuries unless that changes. Weak liberal governments are not going to be equipped to deal with it. 

Edited by JackLadd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

One of the mains contributors is sky high birthrate and ironically western aid is a driver for that. The Libyan fiasco is the tip of an iceberg heading Europe's way in the coming decades and centuries unless that changes. Weak liberal governments are not going to be equipped to deal with it. 

 

The only thing more devoid of taste than a word salad is an extremist word salad.

 

Western aid doesn't increase birth rates in the developing world.  Investment - western or otherwise - decreases birth rates, because birth rates decline in line with economic advancement.

 

The "Libyan fiasco" is a non sequitur, because the Libyan birth rate is not as high as others and has declined rapidly in recent years.

 

Weak liberal governments?  What, the kind that don't cheerlead eejits who type in clichés all the time?  :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

magic roundabout

On the NHS remember that it's not free to non EU immigrants or in fact ex pats. Several years ago the NHS surcharge was introduced for non EU immigrants at £500 per 2.5 years (This is doubling to £1000 later this year). This still has to be paid even if the person is working and paying tax/national insurance in the UK. It only stops when the reach ILR status. So in fact they are probably paying more than UK citizens. 

 

Any Expats who have left the UK to a non EU country and return for NHS treatment are meant to be billed. However, its difficult for the NHS to manage this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

The only thing more devoid of taste than a word salad is an extremist word salad.

 

Western aid doesn't increase birth rates in the developing world.  Investment - western or otherwise - decreases birth rates, because birth rates decline in line with economic advancement.

 

The "Libyan fiasco" is a non sequitur, because the Libyan birth rate is not as high as others and has declined rapidly in recent years.

 

Weak liberal governments?  What, the kind that don't cheerlead eejits who type in clichés all the time?  :rofl:

 

Once again, Libyans are not crossing the Med except as boat pilots where they hide among the black migrants until they can sneak back to Libya. And as for birthrates declining with economic development. India - population doubled in 30 years as it's gdp has rocketed 10 times. That's your argument shattered into bits there. And Italy booted out weak liberals, guess what.. they ain't accepting the African filled boats. Malta must be a bad place also - told them to bolt.

Edited by JackLadd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Comedian said:

Maybe North African migrants or refugees could head south to safety for once? Or is every African country a dangerous shithole which is all our fault?

 

 

 

For once? South Africa has far more immigrants from other African countries than the UK does. (over 1 million between 2011-2015.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

 

Once again, Libyans are not crossing the Med except as boat pilots where they hide among the black migrants until they can sneak back to Libya. And as for birthrates declining with economic development. India - population doubled in 30 years as it's gdp has rocketed 10 times. That's your argument shattered into bits there. And Italy booted out weak liberals, guess what.. they ain't accepting the African filled boats. Malta must be a bad place also - told them to bolt.

 

 

India's population has increased because its death rate has fallen - in particular, its infant mortality rate - and its life expectancy has risen.

 

India's birth rate has fallen - consistently - as its economy has grown. 

 

See that bit I highlighted in bold?  When you can google basic data, and then figure out how to read it and do sums that are pretty basic to see what's going on, you can comment on my argument.  Until then, you just aren't qualified to offer a view, and what you say is no more and no less than an ill-informed rant.

Edited by Ulysses
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ulysses said:

 

 

India's population has increased because its death rate has fallen - in particular, its infant mortality rate - and its life expectancy has risen.

 

India's birth rate has fallen - consistently - as its economy has grown. 

 

See that bit I highlighted in bold?  When you can google basic data, and then figure out how to read it and do sums that are pretty basic to see what's going on, you can comment on my argument.  Until then, you just aren't qualified to offer a view, and what you say is no more and no less than an ill-informed rant.

 

That is called having your cake and eating it. The fact is the Indian population doubled in 30 years during massive economic growth, so child mortality reduction is just another reason economic development boosts populations that are already sky rocketing. Thanks for winning the argument again for me. Any more pearls?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

 

That is called having your cake and eating it. The fact is the Indian population doubled in 30 years during massive economic growth, so child mortality reduction is just another reason economic development boosts populations that are already sky rocketing. Thanks for winning the argument again for me. Any more pearls?

 

You said that aid increase birth rates.  It doesn't.  Aid might even reduce them.  Investment and economic development certainly do reduce them.

 

That doesn't mean you were right.  It means you were the other thing - wrong.

 

It appears that you can't tell the difference between birth rates and populations.  That's fair enough, but there's no reason why people like me who do understand the difference should indulge you in your lack of awareness.

 

Go learn.  Go figure.  :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Comedian
5 hours ago, Ray Gin said:

 

For once? South Africa has far more immigrants from other African countries than the UK does. (over 1 million between 2011-2015.)

 

Although I didn't quote it it was in relation to Shauns earlier comment that refugees from North Africa are only safe upon reaching Europe. 

 

I'm glad to know they have another option within their own continent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maroonlegions

Some people really need to take a step back and look at history, especially in America.

 

Image may contain: 1 person, text
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Related image
 
 
 
Image may contain: 6 people
 
The real land owners. 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...