Do you think mass immigration has strained the UK?

Scroll to see replies

The existence of indian troops in ww1 and 2 does not contradict anything I have said. It is you who are manipulating the truth for your own ends, to claim these soldiers died for England is disingenuous, and you know it.

No, they died for Great Britain and the King.

I also understand the presence of Indian Troops contradicts what you have said. (lol!)

Reply 61

Time Tourist

Original post by DorianGrayism

No, they died for Great Britain and the King.

I also understand the presence of Indian Troops contradicts what you have said. (lol!)

This is going to get boring. And we are about to go round in circles. You obviously think millions of indians now have the right to come here - or want them to or something - because of colonial mercenaries in ww1 and 2 - two enormously complex wars that have almost nothing to do with my original point and had little to do with physically defending this country. Do Americans have the right as well? No one claims it - though they surely have a better claim in fact. Indians were not motivated to fight in those wars because of any love for britain or patriotic feelings and you know it. And even if they were - so what? The rightful inheritors and heirs of britain its institutions and way of life would still be the british people - it's not for the whole world.

Reply 62

DorianGrayism

Original post by MrJAKEE

What about schools? Is there no strain on them via a raised population growth which immigration conjures up?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Ok...so people of the British Empire dying for the King.....I don't really understand the connection to schools.

Anyway.

There is strain due to bad Government planning.

Reply 63

DorianGrayism

Original post by Time Tourist

This is going to get boring. And we are about to go round in circles. You obviously think millions of indians now have the right to come here -.

No. Sorry.

Completely incorrect.

You wrote that Ancestors of British people fought and died for Great Britain.

I simply pointed out that Ancestors of the people of the British Empire fought for this country. ( Great Britain not England).

That does not mean that I believe that every Indian, Australian, Nepali and etc has the right to come here. That would be absurd.

Reply 64

moggis

According to The Times there is " scant evidence" to support such a claim.And I have yet to experience any of these apparent problems despite living in an area that has been transformed by immigration.However I'm sure there are some problems in certain towns.But nothing that can't be dealt with in due course.

Reply 65

Infan2a

Original post by Maid Marian

Yes, definitely strained the UK.

I'm sorry, but if I have one more person barking at me in broken English because I couldn't understand what she was trying to say, I'll be mad. :rant:

Waz wrong mush, wa gwarnin wi ya?

To answer the OP: Yeah

Reply 66

Inglisred

Awh the poll makes me so sad :frown:

I really love the UK. In terms of government and services you guys have it a lot better relative to other countries.

Reply 67

saayagain

Original post by Observatory

Most of the people coming here from the EU are trying to escape countries whose economies were wrecked by socialism.

Wrecked by capitalism mate. Not socialism. You're one of these people that would have us believe that every country can be a powerful capitalist country with hundreds of billions of GDP. If you oppose capitalism it attacks you until you submit. All these eastern european countries are free of socialism and still full of poverty. Even southern european countries are beginning to keel over. The western european countries have always been powerful. France, Germany and the UK. So capitalism wrecked their economy not socialism.

Socialism is inevitable.

Reply 68

MrJAKEE

Original post by DorianGrayism

Ok...so people of the British Empire dying for the King.....I don't really understand the connection to schools.

Anyway.

There is strain due to bad Government planning.

Nothing to do with people dying for the British Empire. Government planning wouldn't be as necessary if there weren't so many people.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 69

DorianGrayism

Original post by MrJAKEE

Nothing to do with people dying for the British Empire. Government planning wouldn't be as necessary if there weren't so many people.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Ok. Well....then I am not sure why you replied to a comment about the British Empire. It would have made more sense to reply to a previous comment about the NHS.

Anywwwaaayy..

Well, too many people comes under the purview of Government planning as well. That was the point.

Reply 70

MrJAKEE

Original post by DorianGrayism

Well I'm sincerely sorry for your anguish!

The government has an obligation to serve the people of the UK, not the whole world. It is there to care for us and represent us, and by doing so it doesn't need immigration whatsoever in aiding us all. Your point about immigration being needed to offset a more elderly population is ludicrous, you do know there are over 1million people still unemployed in the UK? There is absolutely no need for immigration, except on the jobs that require intellect that often we have a shortage off here in the UK (doctors etc). Just remember bigger doesn't necessarily mean better, a higher population growth (coming from a significant amount of immigrants) will mean more environmental conflict and a strain on services.

If you can tell me why we "NEED" immigration, perhaps I'll take your support for excessive immigration more seriously.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 71

Observatory

Original post by saayagain

Those countries are considerably richer now than they were in 1990. The mean wealth of the whole world is also much higher now than then, despite increasing population. There is absolutely no evidence that there is some fixed ratio of rich to poor countries or persons. The world has become richer as the poorer parts have abandoned socialism.

Reply 72

DorianGrayism

Original post by MrJAKEE

What does that 1 million unemployed people have to do with the elderly?

Does that make them younger? No, it is an irrelevant point.

How about you start again and explain how having an increasingly Elderly population will help this country.

Reply 73

MrJAKEE

Original post by DorianGrayism

First off all, you have completely blanked all of my points (a sign of self-defeat) so I'm just going laugh from here on in.

You are insinuating that due to a more elderly population, it is going to become a big strain on services because there are not going to be enough workers to fit the demand.

That is what you were claiming. 1million people being unemployed here in the UK today shows there are people who could do the jobs, immigration is completely unnecessary, seeing as a large slice of these jobs (which will be in demand) are ones that can and could be done by people of low-skills.

Now, onto your point about an "elderly population". While in economic terms yes it would possibly hinder the economy but just because the stats say "the economy is growing slowly" doesn't necessarily mean things are bad. Everything in economics is relative. Low economic growth for low population growth is not a bad thing. Not to mention that it would most likely increase social cohesion between people (something which this country has lost a lot over the past decade).

So I'll ask again, why do we NEED immigration?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 74

DorianGrayism

Original post by MrJAKEE

No. I didn't say that.

1) As the population becomes older and more people retire, you are going to need more young people to take their place in the tax base

2) The elderly population are often in hospital and rely upon social services far more. Therefore, more workers are needed. Unfortunately, many of these are low paid and skilled jobs that only immigrants will do.

The reality is that the 1 million unemployed do not have the skills to fill such a void.

It really has nothing to do with Economic growth and etc.

Reply 75

saayagain

Original post by Observatory

Decontextualization is a common trait among capitalist enthusiasts.

Compared to the increase in wealth of the rich countries, the poor countries increases in wealth are irrelevant. The rich countries remain rich. The poor countries remain poor. Capitalism does this. Socialism tries to fix this.

What's the point of the world becoming richer if the only the rich (and rich countries) benefit? This is the dumbest argument you capitalists present.

Reply 76

SHallowvale

Original post by Time Tourist

I think you did...

So importing the third world into communities whose way of life has largely been the same since the industrial revolution has no disruptive effect, is that way you are saying?

Please quote where I said those things. I'm fairly certain that I never said any of that (yet, for some reason, you seem to have the idea that I did).

As for third world immigrants I have said nothing positive or negative about them. Besides it's irrelevant. You're still ignoring the original questions I asked you: ''What was the social fabric of the country, how has immigration destroyed it and why is that a bad thing?''

Reply 77

SHallowvale

Original post by DorianGrayism

I wouldn't bother. Time Tourist is no stranger to straw men.

Reply 78

Time Tourist

Original post by SHallowvale

It was the way of life that existed in this country prior to mass immigration, particularly the working class way of life - if you want me to explain traditional English working class culture to you in a couple of paragraphs I think you just have an ulterior motive, but there are plenty of fine books on it if you are really interested (and clearly those books have a subject matter). How has immigration destroyed and disrupted it? Well clearly importing millions of people into this country who do not respect the way of life of the English people, and in many ways are hostile and suspicious towards it is going to be disruptive - not to mention the many ethnic ghettos that have sprung up in the last few decades that have forced English people out of certain traditional working class areas... if you can't see that then I can't help you. Why is it a bad thing? Well it's bad for the people whose communities have been entirely disrupted and transformed and who have been marginalised, and I would argue bad for the country as a whole.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 79

MrJAKEE

Original post by DorianGrayism

The problem with your first point is that you are talking about the future, we are going to need. We do not currently need. An equally good way of reducing the need for tax receipts is to reduce unemployment benefits by reducing the number of unemployed. Also the elderly are working more and more and many do not need the state to intervene in their lives and provide services (care etc).

Yes more workers are needed to keep up the standard of care the NHS wants to uphold. However to say that key areas of the NHS (like cleaning and caring) cannot be done by the unemployed I think we can both agree on is untrue, anyone can be a cleaner (and a carer) with the right amount of training.

I would also like to point out your last point, saying that "unfortunately many of these are low paid and skilled jobs that only immigrants will do". Skilled, not really, just require more labour perhaps than other "preferable" jobs. I would have to say that in this country we have a terrible paranoia of doing jobs that are "below us". Surely the solution, is to encourage people to work for any job (an increase in wages on these jobs could prove to be useful in this), and possibly cutting benefits for those who turn down such feeble jobs.

Personally I would work in any sort of job so long as it pays, the general attitude people have today over lower class jobs quite frankly is pitiful and disturbing.

Posted from TSR Mobile