The Student Room Group

The West needs to be more open to migrants

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
Original post by Algorithm69
Professionals and skilled labour yes, low-skilled and uneducated scumbags, no.


Do you not support the free market in labour and labour mobility?

Your profile said that you are a "libertarian".
Reply 41
Original post by Selkarn
This article fails in that it does not address core issues such as quality of life. It says statements such as "better for the economy" but doesn't state what measure of better that is.

I'm a believer that GDP per capita (aka the income of each person) is the crucial indicator of how "good" an economy is. The current UK GDP per capita is $35,000. If a person immigrates to the UK, but contributes less than $35,000 to the economy, GDP per capita will fall. Only a fraction of immigrants will contribute more than $35,000 to the economy - thus large scale immigration will cause a massive drop in the quality of life for the UK.

Indeed, Canada has the same GDP as India - the only difference is the number of people who live there. India then patently has a massively lower quality of life than Canada, due to the difference in population - and indeed, this is true in reality.


Immigrants earn more per hour than British people, on average.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf

What implications does this have on your Daily Mail bigotry?
Rich immigrants + professionals = win.
Reply 43
Original post by Algorithm69
Professionals and skilled labour yes, low-skilled and uneducated scumbags, no.


Why would anyone ever neg rep this? :s-smilie:
Reply 44
Original post by MonkeyMan2009
look it up..... america promised japan protection which meant japan spent zilch on military expenditure when other countries rebuilding after ww2 had so alocate masses of their budget on defence.... the decisive factor why japan in a relatively short space of time developed a strong economy and world leader in electronics and automobile industry.

yes, the UK, needed to rebuild the country after ww2.... immigration was allowed from the commonwealth so that wasn't really issue as there no restrictions on movement and work. I think this stopped in the early 60s...


Your logic is flawed.

1. Japan spends a healthy, but low, amount of its budget to maintain capable 'Self-Defence Forces', it certainly isn't 'zilch' - it spends more than Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

2. Does Britain's military spending not support the British defence industry?

3. The US spends more than either Japan or Britain on its military and it is richer than both in terms of income per head. Your thesis is nullified.
Original post by No Future
Rich immigrants + professionals = win.


:facepalm:
Original post by Hipster
Your logic is flawed.

1. Japan spends a healthy, but low, amount of its budget to maintain capable 'Self-Defence Forces', it certainly isn't 'zilch' - it spends more than Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

2. Does Britain's military spending not support the British defence industry?

3. The US spends more than either Japan or Britain on its military and it is richer than both in terms of income per head. Your thesis is nullified.


stop applying "logic" and "thesis" to every post!

I'm not talking about spending today, but rather my discussion with teh other poster was about post ww2 and the rebuilding of nations and how japan rebuilt and developed its nation/economy and become leaders in the electronic/automobile industry.....
read before applying your "logic" and "thesis" :rolleyes:
Original post by Pax Amerifauna
Yeah, because Japan and South Korea are just suffering something fierce from the lack of immigration and homogeneity that is keeping their economies and.... oh wait.

EDIT: As an American, I just want to say it sounds like our refugees/ your asylum seekers really seem to be the ones who're not at all pulling their weight and even dragging us down. At times there certainly are miracle groups like the lost boys of South Sudan (free! yay!), but they seem to be few and far between.


I spent a bit of time in Japan, and have a fair amount of experience with the place. Often, people look to Japan as a 'model' of how an introverted society can still be a world leader.

They fail to see several things- Firstly, Japan faces a huge crisis to come in its population crisis, and rising youth unemployment- indeed, the fact that many university grads in Japan are finding it difficult to find jobs is because by nature they have little foriegn experience. Im not too sure on korea, but Japan's economic stagnation combined with its culture of introversion has had a negative effect on it as a whole- it will find that it may need to encourage more immigration and emigration in order to provide the innovation and labour it needs to sustain itself. In fact, japan has started doing this by looking intro providing international scholarships etc.

secondly, japan and korea didnt have a colonial past- many migrants who come to the UK and europe are from former colonies. In many cases, the language of the colony remains, ie. in India or Nigeria, English is common, and in Algeria and Morrocco, it is likely you will hear more French than Arabic. So history is a very is important.

But finally, the whole notion that ethnically homogenous states are good, is not really there. As individual units, migrants are valuable in that they can provide the means of innovation, cultural expertise and skills that Britain lacks. In fact, controlling migration further may prove disasterous in the long run, simply because these valuable folk will end up going elsewhere, particularly to the new superpowers. The article mentions places like India, Singapore and China.

The immigration issue has been blown up severely by the tabloid press, painting them all either as welfare scroungers (a fallacy) or job stealers. The stark reality is that as we increasingly become more globalised, immigration will happen and nations need to adapt, otherwise it will be those protectionist governments, that will, as they have always done, fail.
Reply 48
Theres more to the well-being of society than economic prosperity.
Highly skilled migrants (Doctors, Engineers, Scientists etc etc) Yes I totally agree.

African families with 9 kids, Then no GTFO back home.
Reply 50
Original post by almasy
Hm lets see.

a load of them are on the dole - we lose money
they get paid less - less income tax from jobs they steal we lose money
a lot of them don't even pay tax - we lose even more money
each of them working is another of us on the dole as they steal our jobs - we lose money.
a lot are here to send money back to their families - no VAT on what that is spent on we lose money.
each of us forced into the dole isn't paying tax - we lose money

So, they give us no actual profit, but theirs lots of deficit, exactly how is that not costing us?


Oh dear. I asked for facts not a bunch of unintelligent ramble that is nothing but only the negative aspects and just shows how ignorant you are.

Original post by Studentus-anonymous

FYI resorting to silly name calling means you don't have a position. If you can't argue against someone else's points, then be a man and concede defeat.


Hmm.. lets see.
I look at the facts.
Whereas he says a bunch of negative points, unintelligent, with obvious ignorant and stereotypical views and yet i'm the one who should concede defeat? Me thinks you need to read it all again :smile: Bless.


Original post by PendulumBoB
A report a few years ago from the house of lords determined that immigration had not lead to much in the way of economic benefits, contrary to new-labour's mantra and actually in terms of the higher level of crime had been detrimental to this nation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1085759/Economic-benefits-mass-immigration-close-zero--Lords-told.html

Or if you don't like the Mail

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1583500/Limit-immigration-warns-House-of-Lords.html



And as you searched for that i'm sure you saw a good number of articles from varying papers that agreed with the figure. When an article does not provide any new figures and frankly a lot of the 'this is why it is wrong' is going to be subjective criticism, as well as the fact they also state it still benefits us, it doesn't exactly add much to the discussion.

Lets also go back to my first post.
'Immigration as a whole is benefical for the economy. This is true. The idea of immigration is beneficial.
It still gives us money. Which it does, whether it be 6 billion (for that year of course) according to many papers, or not as according to many other papers it is uncertain.
Original post by MonkeyMan2009
:facepalm:

problem?
Original post by Pax Amerifauna
Yeah, and the USSR and Maoist China didn't exist.

What are you saying?


Hmm? Wouldn't the Post WWII years have freed up large numbers of former GIs to man these jobs and start families? The US didn't change our immigration policy till the mid 60's when our economy began to tank, did the UK really start importing unskilled workers right after WWII?

Yes and btw we don't have GIs, we're not American.


bold
Original post by Chucky
i love how the idiots at the top are like (the torys are a disgrace) seriously they have done nothing yet! If you think immigration is being tightly controlled seriously open your eyes and look at all the council flats in london... the London riots, the amount of foreign people who are relying on tax payers all day for the rest of their lives while still having about 50 kids.


Non white =/= immigant
Original post by almasy
Hm lets see.

a load of them are on the dole - we lose money
they get paid less - less income tax from jobs they steal we lose money
a lot of them don't even pay tax - we lose even more money
each of them working is another of us on the dole as they steal our jobs - we lose money.
a lot are here to send money back to their families - no VAT on what that is spent on we lose money.
each of us forced into the dole isn't paying tax - we lose money

So, they give us no actual profit, but theirs lots of deficit, exactly how is that not costing us?


Thanks for your post, I needed a laugh
Nobody has mentioned the biggest problem with net immigration - our infrastructure and land resources won't support it for much longer. Great Britain is a long, narrow island in which new road and rail routes cannot easliy be developed. Land prices are already spiralling out of reach of the existing inhabitants (especially the young), and the roads are already a mess and will soon be a gridlocked mess.
Original post by Hipster
The dialectical synthesis of thesis and antithesis is the building block of the modern world.


all good and well, but this means jack when you don't read something before presenting your "antithesis"! :rolleyes:
Original post by Good bloke
Nobody has mentioned the biggest problem with net immigration - our infrastructure and land resources won't support it for much longer. Great Britain is a long, narrow island in which new road and rail routes cannot easliy be developed. Land prices are already spiralling out of reach of the existing inhabitants (especially the young), and the roads are already a mess and will soon be a gridlocked mess.


yes, we are a small island, filling to the brink. If we don't control immigration, our small island will topple over into the sea! :rolleyes:
Original post by MonkeyMan2009
yes, we are a small island, filling to the brink. If we don't control immigration, our small island will topple over into the sea! :rolleyes:


Yeah I always think that. If immigration rises and emigration decreases where will we put everyone?
Reply 59
This whole "we need skilled labour only" argument is quite possibly the most hilarious fallacy being banded about at the moment.

Quick Reply

Latest