[Shabalala]

(Original post by HighestKungFu)
I think most people are not anti-immigration but rather anti mass immigration. England is a small country on a small island with a population that is already bigger than Canada's and some other much larger countries. It cannot cope. It also doesn't help that immigrants often become segregated and communities divided. This produces fear and ignorance, the root of so much evil in the world.

This

Left wingers make out your racist if you are against immigration. This country is getting to full soon the country won't be able to support the growing population the prices of everyday living will begin to increase while the wages will stay the same. Scotland is fine as it is with a population of 6 Million, England despite being only a bit bigger has a population of 51 Million that is just ridiculous pretty soon we won't have any countryside left anymore if that trend continues. Wales is also too full aswell.

We should throw out anyone who is involved in any form of extremist/terrorist behaviour if they were not born in this country (or EU I suppose). We should also have a policy of 3 strikes and your out for Assualt/Fraud/Theft etc...

There should be a small amount of people let into the country every year say 10'000 who must be able to speak English quite well or have made plans to learn in it and must have a job within 4 months or will be thrown out.

[JackAVFC]

(Original post by xXxiKillxXx)
The guy is pro-White, so if you are White, then yes..

This.

[effofex]

(Original post by Foo.mp3)
Off the top of my head, to do something about the deteriorating social fabric in this country, restore self-discipline and social investment among different groups (including immigrants and young people):

1) I'd have everyone sit proper citizenship tests (not the current crap), and any 1st gen immigrants participate in mandatory national service (including, but not limited to, military service)

1a) People who had / whose ancestors had moved to the UK after 1945 would be compelled to leave the country if they failed citizenship tests on two attempts, or if they refused national service

1b) People who had / whose ancestors had moved to the UK prior to 1945 would be offered two options if they failed citizenship tests on two attempts:

1c) School leavers would also participate in either national service for a year (as above) or be allowed to take gap years abroad instead

• Join an educational program and participate in a community based volunteering scheme so as to immerse them in British life, and re-take citizenship tests every 6 months until they pass

• Deportation

2a) People who had / whose ancestors had moved to the UK after 1945 would be compelled to leave the country if they were found guilty of a crime punishable with prison sentence

2b) The household who had / whose ancestors had moved to the UK after 1945 would be compelled to leave the country if a member of that household was found guilty of a crime of a very serious nature

3) PSHE/sex education type lessons would be taken out of school altogether, and incorporated into (regulated) fortnightly youth groups run by young role models on Sunday evenings (akin to Sunday school, keeping the ethical education but dropping the religious slant). School holidays would include time doing Duke of Edinburgh/Scouts stuff, some of it in the community, with these groups

Most of these ideas are very impractical and could not actually be applied reliabily. For example:

1a) How are these people going to be 'forced' to leave the country? Are you just going to beg them to go live somewhere else in the EU?

1b) Where are they going to be deported to? (anywhere of their choice)? Calais? If you chose to deport them to a nation outside the EU - how are you going to get clearance from the receiving government? What if you chose Russia and the Russian authorities just say no?

1c) Who is going to pay for these 'gap years'? Why should it the cost be covered by the taxpayer and not by individuals?

2a) Again, how are you going to 'compel' people to leave the country? Is it a case of either:

* go to prison, or
* go and live freely in any other EU member state?

What happens if people who are born in Britain and whose ancestors have been exclusively born in Britain since 1945 also commit crimes, but then complain of the unfairness of it all - since they would not be permitted to just dodge a prison sentence by going to another EU member state? In fact, how would you prevent the latter from exercising their right to do so?

2b) How do you prosecute a whole household when only select individuals have committed a crime? Does guilt by association apply? Notice that murderer's entire families are not also imprisoned in the UK.

[bishbash72]

(Original post by Cannotbelieveit)
Ideal situation?

A cap of about 10,000 or 20,000 people allowed into the country each year, they must pass a Citizenship test and speak reasonable English. Also must be skilled, any un-skilled people must find a job before they are allowed to settle.

In other words, the system we had before Tony Blair cocked it all up.

[effofex]

(Original post by xXxiKillxXx)
The guy is pro-White, so if you are White, then yes..

How do you know he is 'pro-White'? What does this actually mean?

Also, lots of Nederlanders are mixed - some are even triracial.

[dgeorge]

This may be an insanely stupid question but:

Do any of you arguing actually KNOW that that there are laws governing immigration? Of the ACTUAL numbers of immigrants living in the UK?

Or exactly HOW/what channels are currently available to people wishing to immigrate?

Unfortunately I find that people know very little about what is actually on the books/enforced with regards to immigration (not limited to the UK of course) and tend to grab on to a few random statistics which do not give a true reflection of the state of immigration in the UK.

I'd suggest that before one can give an actual view on the state of immigration, instead of simply regurgitating the views of whichever side of the political spectrum you support (be it left or right wing) that you actually research for yourselves to get a clear picture of immigration in the UK

[effofex]

(Original post by JackAVFC)
This.

Your country has a free and open immigration policy for all citizens of the European Union. Not an ethnicity-based one.

[someonesomewherexx]

(Original post by Cannotbelieveit)
Because they should know the basics of the country they are going to live in.

How much do I know about History, Geography and Politics? A lot.

"Basics" does not equal "moderately difficult"..and yes you know a lot about UK's History, Geography and Politics because you were brought up here.The idea itself is not a very good filter for immigrants, anyone can learn the basics about a country, answer questions, be granted entrance and then what? does that solve any of the problems immigration poses?

[HighestKungFu]

(Original post by tieyourmotherdown)
Whilst I get the argument that the UK has a relatively high population density, I don't really see this as an argument against immigration. First of all the fact that the UK is an island is entirely irrelevant. It's not like the country is ever going to get so full to the point where people will start falling into the North Sea, and it's not like when France gets too full people will just start spilling over into Germany or Switzerland .

Secondly the UK's population could double and our population density would be very high, yes, but not devastatingly so. Even in that scenario, which is completely ridiculous anyway and will never happen, our population density would be comparable to that of Lebanon, or South Korea.

Basically what I'm saying is that whilst the immigration debate doesn't interest me hugely, and I can see the arguments about divided communities (not that I think stopping immigration is necessarily a long term solution), the arguments about population density are a bit naff .

Lol I'm not saying that people will be falling into the North Sea because the country is so full. What I mean is that our current infrastructure will not be able to cope and we will be forced to expand into the countryside producing more pollution and wrecking wildlife habitats. The NHS is already highly pressed and this will get worse. The transport network in London for example is already rediculously overcrowded as well, and we really do not want it to end up like Tokyo where people are squeezed onto trains like they are inanimate objects being squeezed into the boot of a car.

What will be affected most of all is quality of life. Larger populations eventually mean that the only way to accomodate people is to build up into the sky as opposed to across the land (like in many Asian countries). Less and less people will be able to buy homes and will be forced into small flats, particularly young people. Quiet towns will be a thing of the past and traffic on roads will become increasingly worse.

It can be really hellish having too many people living in a small country, that was my point.

[JackAVFC]

(Original post by effofex)
Your country has a free and open immigration policy for all citizens of the European Union. Not an ethnicity-based one.

I was being asked the ideal situation for me not the current situation.

[Notethis]

IQ test
Maybe something like China's One Child Policy

[cgraham15]

Citizenship tests are essential, as are English tests, etc. Reasonable qualifications are also essential, as is a clean criminal record. Australia has the right idea with their strict rules.
Apart from that, immigration is good. However a variety of immigrants is better, i.e. its not good to have only, idk, Indian immigrants, its good to have immigrants from india, pakistan, mexico, etc. Like New York! If you go there then you can find every culture imaginable. But yeah, people need to know how to speak english, have good qualifications, and good knowledge about the country they want to adapt to. Oh, assimilation is needed as well.

[effofex]

(Original post by JackAVFC)
I was being asked the ideal situation for me not the current situation.

In your ideal situation it would still be very difficult to get conclusive proof of ethnicity - for example, in the Netherlands reliable records have only really been in place since 1811 (when there was a Napoleonic diktat meaning people had to have 'conventional surnames' and no longer use patronymic surnames - e.g. Pieter Anderzoon, son of Anders Edwinzoon, son of Edwin Matthijzoon, etc.). Since the Dutch had a trading empire in the 17th/18th/19th centuries that was very multiethnic (V.O.C. - Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie), it was very common for employees to be reproducing with people from other hubs in their trading network. But the actual ethnicity of all these people was often not recorded by the VOC, and even in the cases when it was, the records often do not survive today.

[effofex]

(Original post by cgraham15)
Citizenship tests are essential, as are English tests, etc. Reasonable qualifications are also essential, as is a clean criminal record. Australia has the right idea with their strict rules.
Apart from that, immigration is good. However a variety of immigrants is better, i.e. its not good to have only, idk, Indian immigrants, its good to have immigrants from india, pakistan, mexico, etc. Like New York! If you go there then you can find every culture imaginable. But yeah, people need to know how to speak english, have good qualifications, and good knowledge about the country they want to adapt to. Oh, assimilation is needed as well.

It's similar in London.

[ITGIRL]

Simple ban all immigration into England and allow unlimited amount of people into scotland! Problem solved!
No one wants to go to scotland :P

[cgraham15]

(Original post by ITGIRL)
Simple ban all immigration into England and allow unlimited amount of people into scotland! Problem solved!
No one wants to go to scotland :P

who wans to go to England? I've been, its an overcrowded motorway smog bubble.

[effofex]

(Original post by dgeorge)
This may be an insanely stupid question but:

Do any of you arguing actually KNOW that that there are laws governing immigration? Of the ACTUAL numbers of immigrants living in the UK?

Or exactly HOW/what channels are currently available to people wishing to immigrate?

Unfortunately I find that people know very little about what is actually on the books/enforced with regards to immigration (not limited to the UK of course) and tend to grab on to a few random statistics which do not give a true reflection of the state of immigration in the UK.

I'd suggest that before one can give an actual view on the state of immigration, instead of simply regurgitating the views of whichever side of the political spectrum you support (be it left or right wing) that you actually research for yourselves to get a clear picture of immigration in the UK

Most people will not be aware of the exact laws, since most peopl are not mobile like expatriates. They do not need to manage the paperwork relating to relocation, tax exposures, visa renewals,.

[effofex]

(Original post by cgraham15)
who wans to go to England? I've been, its an overcrowded motorway smog bubble.

There is more flux in the labour market in England. Also, many industries are very centralized in/around London.

[xXxiKillxXx]

(Original post by effofex)
How do you know he is 'pro-White'? What does this actually mean?

Also, lots of Nederlanders are mixed - some are even triracial.

He is a White nationalist, he supports a monoracial society made up of White people only, regardless of whether they are Polish, Dutch etc, as long as they are White. So someone like Clarence Seedorf would not be allowed to live in his ideal society even though Seedorf claims to be Dutch.

[Willum Infanta]

(Original post by StephanieOzuo)
Whats wrong with the immigrants cpming from Nigeria and Pakistan etc?

They're just the countries that the majority of immigrants tend to come from, I'd also add Romania and India to that list of countries too