Do you think mass immigration has strained the UK?

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, 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 I would argue bad for the country as a whole.

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).

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.

I completely agree with this. Disunity in this country is a big problem and I feel places where English is taught as a second language, people treat British people with scorn, is a particular worry for the fabric our country was built upon.


Posted from TSR Mobile

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.

The PRC and India have grown faster than any Western country over the past 30 years. The two together contain over 2 billion people and the majority of the poor population of the world. Your view that there has been no change in distribution of wealth since 1990 in the same year the PRC overtook the USA as the world's largest economy - the first time any country has done so since about 1890 - is simply baffling.

Russell Brand, take a bow!!!! And, bless that woman in the crowd!!! :') And yes, Nigel, he DID answer your question, with a big fat NO. If you happen to think that there's a shortage of services and deficiencies in infrastructure. Build them. Create jobs in the service sector. That'll also stimulate the economy. A Keynesian response to an economic crisis is to spend more, and utilize deficit spending to stimulate the economy, but in the expectation that once the deficit spending is completed, that it then leads to increased tax revenues and eventually balanced budgets. Also, these improvements have to be made sooner or later anyway...and now is as good as anytime to do so, to 'prime the pump' to ensure a viable economic future. Bad planning has led to shortages...not immigrants.



Immigrants are not a burden to society....when politicians are more of a burden, and a hindrance to the development of these facets of society. Immigrants are net contributors to society...and to the coffers of the British Government. You know...it's amazing how many people are sucked into the fiction that UKIP represent the lower classes. A donkey represents the views of the lower classes better than UKIP does....who are in it just for their friends in the city. Nigel may not have said disparaging remarks to the disabled and to the NHS, but members of his party have, and he's allowed them to remain in the party. If people vote for them...then they better like the Thatcherism-on-steroids that they are going to get.

Instead of refuting my original point you go to a different and more irrelevant point.

Relative to the increase in the riches wealth, the increase in the poor peoples wealth is negligible. Half of the Chinese are poor. More than half of Indians are poor.

Capitalism needs and produces inequality. Socialism aims to eradicate inequality.

lol...look. My original point was people coming here are poor and from countries that are poor. These countries as you have said have abandoned socialism yet still have mass emigration. This means capitalism doesn't help poor people at all. That's all. They come here to live a better life as they say, instead of fighting for economic and political revolution in their home country.

Whereas in 1990, 99% of them were poor.


At the expense of reducing living standards for everyone. Worse, it usually fails to reduce inequality as well.


You are right that mass immigration is basically due to living standard gradients. You are wrong that socialism improves living standards. You have pointed out that there are some non-socialist countries that are not as rich as others; you have not at all substantiated the argument that they would be richer if they adopted socialism. I do not think you are able to substantiate this argument, since many of them, as I have pointed out, did adopt socialism and were both poorer and had lower growth during than time than now. Socialism was a defensible idea around 1920 or 1930; today, it is discredited beyond hope of rescue.

You could have made a somewhat different argument: socialism was very effective at reducing mass immigration to wealthy countries, since impoverished socialist states tended to build militarised frontiers and kill emigres. It was much harder for a Pole to come to the UK in 1989 than it is today, even though Poland was much poorer then both in absolute terms and relative to the UK. Is that progress?

This guy said it.
And if you want to blame it on immigration why on EU immigration and not non-EU immigration which is much larger?

1) These are small immaterial increases relative to the UK
2) Examples of socialism i.e the soviet union are not what I am referring to
3) Capitalism promotes inequality and hence migration

Capitalism isn't about ensuring people live decent lives. Socialism is at the fundamental level. Whichever way you perceive the notion of socialism is your issue, not mine.

I know what Capitalism is. You know what Capitalism is. So you can defend Capitalism's ability to make one country rich whilst it makes/keeps other countries around it poor. lol

Poles can come her because of the EU's stupid free movement policy which helps capitalist by preventing social revolutions in countries like Poland, Romania and Bulgaria.

After the fuss made over Nigel Farage and his comments thaty immigration has contributed to road congestion (which I agree with and have seen myself), do you think that mass immigration has strained UK services and apsect of UK life e.g. NHS, transport, schools, housing or have we coped?

Those damn banks, filling hospital beds and schools!!

no mate the banks/government caused a recession now they need someone to blame so they blame it on immigration.. people are just victims of propaganda.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Regardless what you think capitalism or socialism is or is about, instituting socialist governments and violent socialist revolutions have not resulted in increased material prosperity; quite the opposite. As more countries have adopted free markets, we have not seen a widening of gaps between rich and poor countries; quite the opposite. These are simply empirical observations and not theoretical deductions based on my ideology.

Furthermore socialist opposition to immigration seems incoherent to me even in socialism's own terms. You are complaining about poor people from poor countries being able to increase their incomes at the expense of comparatively rich people in Britain. Assuming it's true that immigration reduces British wages (and the evidence is that it is not), this is a progressive policy of income redistribution and one a socialist should support.

The wealth gap is relatively the same. Provide evidence to prove it isn't.

Yes you cannot comprehend what I am saying because you are not a critical thinker. I do not want poor people to come here instead of fighting for changes in their country which will benefit everyone.

It will force social revolution which challenges capitalism! We in Britain should close the borders completely and take the revolution to Romania, Bulgaria etc...Form state capitalist economies in a huge union of countries that work together to improve the life of people within and without the union. The EU in its original conception was supposed to do this but as the world is capitalist they opted for competition within the union which as you can see is destructive.

Mass immigration is a sign of increasing inequality or no change in inequality. That's why African migrants risk their lives to get to Italy in the way that they do. Tell them about GDP increasing lol

Between 1990 and 2007 the US GDP per capita dropped from 4.5x the world average GDP per capita to 4.1x, despite the fact that almost all population growth in that time occurred in poor countries.

http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/maddison-project/home.htm

You have refused to engage with the key criticism which is that socialism does not make countries richer.

In other words you want to rebuild the Berlin Wall and point the machine guns in the other direction.