[L i b]

Meh, I don't really care. Few societies prosper without immigration.

(Original post by M^2012)
Ok, let's let nobody immigrate and just sit back as we all get old, with few children to support us, and try to live under a government unable to pay anybody sufficient pensions/invest in anything.

(Original post by pr0view)
Or we could just have Children like we have done for the past 200,000 years.

I think the idea that we can treat caring for the elderly as some sort of pyramid scheme - constantly having to increase the base at the bottom either by reproduction or immigration - is very dangerous nonsense.

(Original post by rightofcentre)
There's quite a large population of immigrants in Aberdeen. I've had the pleasure of working with a few at my last job, I openly welcome more to enjoy this city.

Immigration in Scotland, in anywhere outside parts of Glasgow and its environs, is pretty insignificant. When people talk about immigration having a social impact, they don't mean when there's a handful of immigrants, but rather when there are enough to cause a serious demographic shift or even to establish their own, unintegrated, communities.

A lot of the time though, when I see people complaining about immigrant communities failing to integrate, I wonder whether there is much left for them to integrate into. We seem to lack the social institutions of the past around which we built communities, particularly in urban areas. The failings here seem to me to be more the fault of the natives.

[JamalAhmed]

(Original post by Gangee)
He's off his rocker, we need to cut immigration - us Brits desperately need the jobs

He said next 50 years. And he is implying that between this time, there will be more jobs than the population can cover so we will need more people so these jobs are filled. Everybody here will go against anything the government says before really thinking about it (and I am not saying I like this government). But let's not talk about the future that much - the government needs to be focused on creating jobs. I believe that when the time comes, we can/should allow some immigrants.

[Libertarian_Walrus]

(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
Why exactly is immigration a bad thing again?

If your economy is in good shape and everything is going well, there is nothing wrong with immigration and there are lots of positives.

However our economy isn't doing so well at the moment, and it puts tremendous pressure on our public services.

[Yash13]

(Original post by feelingsupersonic)
Our population is ageing greatly. We need more young, economically active people or else we will struggle greatly.

This is a very valid point in terms of the worrying demographic we are experiencing, if retirement ages rise instead would that be better? -__-

We should remember that Osborne has a very supply side approach to his policies, which means this again is a very long term policy, which may be seen to have inequitable implications thus some raging comments.

[Sdiff]

If the immigrants are skilled and integrate with the local culture, immigration is a good thing. But immigrants who are unemployed and demand Sharia law = deport.

[icouldntthinkofone]

(Original post by Helliconia)
And i agree with you. We will have to have mass immigration to keep the status quo.



Not at all, even if i had i cant see the problem with that, marx is very interesting. I have, however, studied the history of, what we call today, free market capitalism, and can tell you that mass immigration was not a necessary factor in most countries economic growth.

No offence, but i dont see what the rest of your post has to do with my post. However...The UK is a waning power in terms of international influence, and has been since the end of WWII. The structure of our economy and its massive bias towards the financial sector is what will ultimately see us off the international scene, or at least be reliant on the EU behemoth. Its a shame to an extent, because as a relatively liberal country we could do some good in the world, but im not sure i really care that much tbh.

Hmmm. Its interesting how you view things - sure, I agree with the first point, and you are right in that we should use

However, we are placed in dramatically different circumstances to the past, and population will have a massive - I personally believe it will have a big positive effect on economic growth. Even if you debate this, you must accept that a country of 80m people or a country with 65m people - with the same GDP per capita's - that is going to make a large difference to our total GDP and subsequently, how respected the UK internationally.

The rest of my post is an illustration of what being a globally significant economy can allow us to do.

Regards the rest of your point - I disagree. Yes, the UK has been a waning power - actually since before WWII - indeed, I would argue since at least the 1920's. Even by the 1960s London was looked down upon really by the international elite. However, there was a large reversal in this during the 1980s - 1990s. The UK economy did very well, our military remained strong and we were seen as a titan. Until recently, we were widely considered to be part of a country of military 'greats' with what many argued the 3rd most capable military in the world (behind US and Russia) - being one of very few nations with Aircraft carriers and special forces capable of striking anywhere globally...we went from being laughed at by Europeans in the 1970s and reffered to as the 'sick man of Europe' to the most influential and powerful European country on the world stage.

Whatever we may think of our previous government, they certainly played a part in shaping the global agenda, based upon this economic strength. Look at the G8 summit in '05 where 3rd world debt was made center stage by Brown (I had a friend once congratulate me on the UK government being one of the few to meet aid targets set by previous agreements), the focus on global warming (the acts of '08 and central role in organizing Copenhagen) - not to mention the shaping of an entirely different Middle East (I doubt the US could have carried out Iraq without Britain's help...).

Unfortunately, because of the massive (and ludicrous) expansion of state spending starting 2002 (eg NHS spending '02-'03 - £65 billion, by '07-'08 £105 billion...simply unaffordable and incredibly poorly spent) the UK will probably now never regain its position as a great power. I agree that it is now, right at the top of the 'Middle Power' countries...

I also find your point re the financial sector odd. Paris, Frankfurt etc all desperately want to be London. The current anti banking environment in the UK is sheer madness. They contribute 14% of all UK tax revenue and while I may not particularly like the current financial system, the UK ain't gonna change it...neither is the EU - both are frankly, too irrelevant.

We have many banks who will do ludicrously well in future years due to their Asian and emerging markets exposure. These will grow and provide even greater revenues than they do now. As the global financial services center, in a growing world economy with ever more cash and opportunities, as countries like India, Malaysia, China etc become wealthier, the UK has huge ops to benefit, and will do so mainly via the city of london...

[@Sam]

Uncontrolled immigration post-WWII led to the initial levels of racial violence and segregation where unskilled migrants were forced into lower class areas with limited prospects. What is effectively happening is exactly the same and yes it will probably work itself out but in the middle there are going to be large numbers of unskilled individuals continuing to expand their number as breeding is effectively the only successful thing they can do.

The logical option is to take this uneducated individuals and entertain to them the idea of taking up the lower paid jobs thus reducing the need for unskilled migrants, who are the primary source of trouble, and leaving primary immigration to the educated career paths where they can be of value and will more than likely integrate more easily. The issue is that converting the lower echoes of society who are, in the majority, content with their lives on benefits. Hard decisions, such as cutting benefits gradually, would have to be made.

The problem being here is that to do so the government would have to make considerable investments in training programs which are not only productive but are adapted to attract them to actually attend. Secondly you have to deal with the vast issues of criminality in these areas which can only really be addressed if you can keep the ring leaders off the streets which involves again another investment in promoting longer prison sentences with idea to make such sentences more productive by including some form of training within them so that they do not quickly slot back into criminality as soon as they are released as is rather common now. Specifically here targeting would have to be made at the younger prisoners, those who are on their first offence, and who are unlikely to be in so deep that they would resist such conversions.

You then obviously have to have jobs available to them appropriate to their skill level. Things such as cleaning and construction are there but outside influences from industrial firms would probably be required which is again another challenge as these British workers would have to accept wages that these companies are willing to pay to open the factories in Britain and not in, for example, East Asia which could again involve government investment by subsidising such wages.

[DaneCook]

(Original post by Helliconia)
Yes i know, just thought id reply because i knew the answer, sorry.



Who's complaining? Immigrants arent employed over british people because they are 'better', its because they are willing to accept lower rates of pay, and thus employers can get away with paying as low wages as they possibly can.

You do realise that technically, there cannot be a 'lower' wage than the legal minimum wage? If natives aren't willing to accept their legislatively set minimum wage, how is that the fault of immigrants? The lower rates of pay argument has no fiscal basis, rather the problems are social, I.e. An overinflated sense of self-worth on the part of individuals.

[rightofcentre]

(Original post by tufc)
You're talking exclusively about the economic impact. My point is that such a social impact is not worth any economic benefit.

Again , I have no problem there either. Other cultures enrich Britain and criminality amongst immigrants is often exaggerated.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my Galaxy Nexus

[tufc]

(Original post by rightofcentre)
Again , I have no problem there either. Other cultures enrich Britain and criminality amongst immigrants is often exaggerated.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my Galaxy Nexus

If you honestly think that other cultures enrich Britain, you need to live in London for a year. Cultural enrichment is far outstripped by social alienation and lack of community drive.

[Jareth]

I hate the term multiculturalism it's just a word they use to get people to accept mass immigration. I think the average Brit would say we've had enough to last a life time but the thought of more frightens me especially when this is coming from a Tory who aren't exactly the most pro-immigration party. We have been displaced enough as it is and it's not just Britain but the rest of Europe too. I went to Oslo two years ago and couldn't believe how much had changed. They call this progress? looks more like genocide from where I'm sitting.

I'm sure immigration does benefit the economy but it isn't worth the price.

[callan]

(Original post by Will Lucky)
Yeah, forcing the population to have children sounds like a great idea, be sure to tell me how that works out.

There is a way that doesn't require force, It's called incentives.

The Chinese do it to stop population growth, so why can't we do it to increase the population? Instead you don't offer a disincentive for not having children, so they aren't forced to.

[Bronze Thistle]

The key is by maintaining our population by encouraging Britons to have more children.

Not slowly turning us brown with third world immigrants.

[Rakas21]

(Original post by Bronze Thistle)
The key is by maintaining our population by encouraging Britons to have more children.

Not slowly turning us brown with third world immigrants.

Technically the average birthrate is around 2.25 right now (though it has varied between 2.3 and 1.8 over time) which i think is a fairly sustainable rate.

In regards to third world immigrants i do agree with limiting these despite my previous points.

Watching the Sunday Politics i believe the ratio of immigration in 2010 was roughly..

80000 UK nationals (emigrants returning or those with one foreign parent moving here)
200,000 EU immigration - i am opposed to limiting this as most EU nationals are educated and willing to work
300,000 non-EU immigration - This should be restricted to student visas, those with PHD's or those who can prove they have in excess of £100k in assets so that they do not require welfare

[bmqib]

(Original post by pr0view)
Get durex to prick holes in condoms.

You do realise that condoms with holes will allow semen to pass into the vaginal/anal orifices rendering them useless? Why would Durex do such a thing?

[Ano1]

(Original post by Will Lucky)
Yeah, forcing the population to have children sounds like a great idea, be sure to tell me how that works out.

forcing?

Seriously, what is wrong with TSR?

[Phantom_X]

(Original post by lesley keith)
..........to help improve the "economy."

Do they think the English. Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people are still dumb enough to fall for this excuse? I am surprised he didn't add "we need more doctors" and "to do they jobs the British won't do."

So current predictions would be England would be minority White by 2066, yet DESPITE knowing this "politicians" such as Osborne are continuing to insist we need MORE immigration.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...g-7939667.html

At least Miliband said Blair got it wrong on EU IMMIGRATION.........oh wait Millipede....i just realized........what about the NON EU IMMIGRATION

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...gration-labour

Immigration tends to be a net good- particularly outside the EU for various reasons;

I read an interview with the New York mayor, Bloomberg, about why New York is still a thriving area despite the state of the American economy as a whole- and he rightly noted how immigrants, who often give up everything in terms of family, lifestyle etc, are often hard working because they understand the nature of their sacrifice. As such, immigrants are incentivised by their will to improve their own lives and that of their children- and usually through hard work.

Non-EU immigration is good for several reasons; First, because it shows that Britain is still a good place to be- for ascertaining property rights, for being protected by a solid rule of law that consolidates these property rights, and also because its a good place to start business and work. I currently live in Hong Kong, which has a fairly liberal immigration policy- and as such it is a continued booming economy, which quite high standards of living and a thriving economy. Compare that to some eastern-european nations that have protectionist policies, or like Japan, which has not only a huge national debt, but also a troubled work structure for future generations (who, amazingly, are also moving to hong kong increasingly). Indians, Chinese, Brazilians, Hong Kongers and more are not only keen to start companies, but they also have an array of experiences which will allow them to thrive in places like Britain and the United States. I mean, just have a look at Silicon Valley in the US, and how it has harnessed immigration by selecting top engineers and computer scientists to make their companies thrive and be more innovative. Indeed, even some CEO's in our own Silicon roundabout are saying that this would be beneficial.

You might ask, 'whats wrong with british workers' and the reality is that they don't have the same incentives as foreign workers; they have families here, they are comfortable and they expect the standards of living without appreciating the work needed to actually attain them in the first place. It's not that they are undisciplined, its just that when you are comfortable in one place for too long, its easy to let the innovation and the incentives diminish- thats a basic fact of labour economics.

The issue is not that 'immigrants take jobs' etc. The actual issue is that in Britain, a structure exists where commerce is unable to thrive, and as such, companies find it difficult and expensive to train domestic labour and retain them- its easier to outsource or to cherrypick from the best of abroad. Hence why commercial tax reductions for SME's are probably a good way to go to try fix this problem. otherwise, not only will you see more immigrants here, but youll also see the best of british workers being outsourced abroad to places like the states (one of my friends already has a job in california at google) or in Asia.

[Phantom_X]

(Original post by Jareth)
I hate the term multiculturalism it's just a word they use to get people to accept mass immigration. I think the average Brit would say we've had enough to last a life time but the thought of more frightens me especially when this is coming from a Tory who aren't exactly the most pro-immigration party. We have been displaced enough as it is and it's not just Britain but the rest of Europe too. I went to Oslo two years ago and couldn't believe how much had changed. They call this progress? looks more like genocide from where I'm sitting.

I'm sure immigration does benefit the economy but it isn't worth the price.

well, tell me how it all works out when the welfare state collapses, the NHS dies because noone can afford it, there are diminishing numbers of jobs because you can't get experts and innovators in to create them, and potential investors decide to invest in more liberal places in Asia or other BRIC nations, ok?

But im sure the sustainence of the white race is much more important than you know, the future.

[Phantom_X]

(Original post by bmqib)
Yup, just be selective about who you allow in. Kick out the non contributing immigrants if you have to.

define 'contributing' ?

contributing in the degree of national service? What about if they start a company that hires 1000 people, but also pays less tax than an average british person, would they also be liable to be kicked out?

[Skip_Snip]

(Original post by NB_ide)
Higher population is a GOOD thing. There is a lot of land being wasted as countryside at the moment and studies have shown that the UK alone could home 500 million people comfortably. Stop being so selfish.

Countryside isn't a waste, it's lovely