The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

I believe in totally free movement of people in advanced economies, and restricted econmic migration between other states. Refugees should be taken in, at a reasonable level - whatever that means.
I don't support immigration.
Reply 3
Thud
For socialists, the only possible policy is opposition to all laws restricting immigration and asylum. We should be as free to move from China to Britain as from Lowestoft to London. Plus all workers, irrespective of their origin, need maximum legal and union protection. Some people worry about numbers. However, first the numbers go up and down depending on the level of employment.

Second, and more important, a focus on numbers is a way to hide the human truths of migration and ill-treatment. As Tony Woodley of the TGWU commented on Morecambe Bay, "This is not a migration issue. It is above all an exploitation issue." Down with the borders, and the governments who defend them.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=678


That simply isn't a practical view at all, which given that it is a communist one, is logical.

If people were free to move to any country they wished, the wealthier parts of the world (including resource and environmental wealth) would be grossly overpopulated.

I fully understand you want to promote worker's rights and combat "exploitation" (a word mind you I simply dont know the meaning of - would you mind defining it?) but to do so at ANY price is clearly problematic.

The fact remains that your policy would have disasterous consequences for the planet and its people.
Reply 4
I believe that immigration is perfectly ok on the face of it. However the cultural impact of it has to be taken into account, and a country should consider the cultural and normative system it wishes to promote or maintain when deciding who to let in.
Reply 5
I personaly agree with a certain level of capped immigration, to fill vacancies in skilled labour, along the lines of the system they have in australia. However, even though it is economicaly advantageous to allow immigrants in to fill unskilled work, keeping inflation low etc, the social problems this causes via an increase in immigrant communities, coupled with the difficulties it presents to the unskilled working class in our own nation, is unacceptable, it is this i belive coupled whith a breakdown in the institution of the family which has caused the "broken" society we live in today.
Open borders but no incentives to move other than to provide rule of law and to protect already owned property. That way, only productive individuals can flourish in a meritocratic society.
Reply 7
Fairly open borders within reason, reasonable checks should also be carried out into the background of immigrants. It is all well and good saying people should be allowed to move as they please, but some don't have the most savoury reasons for that movement. I think it is well within the rights of this country and its people to know that the people entering it are not war criminals, or members of a criminal organisation etc.
Reply 8
Anybody should be allowed to move anywhere. The only time that we should even consider turning down an application is when the individual has a criminal record or it is otherwise suspected that they are entering the country in order to commit an offence.
Reply 9
Essentially open borders, perhaps with some barriers initially to prevent massive global movements of population.

We will end up a lot poorer, but to be frank, we deserve it.

Anyway, I'm not even sure that's true. We need more people, lots more. And despite what the BNP et al would suggest, we're not anywhere near 'full'.

Lawz-
I believe that immigration is perfectly ok on the face of it. However the cultural impact of it has to be taken into account, and a country should consider the cultural and normative system it wishes to promote or maintain when deciding who to let in.


I don't think a government should ever consider culture. It's not within its remit, just like religion or race.
There should be freedom of movement within the European Union. That's a fundamental pillar of the then once European Community and should be still upheld today.

Immigration from other countries should be capped. Introduce eVisa and Points system i.e. like that from Australia.

However, more secured borders for illegal immigrants.
Reply 11
Lib North
I don't think a government should ever consider culture. It's not within its remit, just like religion or race.


Of course it is. Cultural cohesion is very much part of racial and social tensions, of crime, or deprivation, of general resentment and of the economic system. The government is there to determine who can and who cant come in, and in doing so they should consider all the factors that will dictate whether or not it will be of benefit to the country. It is very much within their remit.

The notion that we shouldnt consider whether the culture and normative systems of these people are of benefit or detriment to the country is one I cannot get on board with.
Lawz-
Of course it is. Cultural cohesion is very much part of racial and social tensions, of crime, or deprivation, of general resentment and of the economic system. The government is there to determine who can and who cant come in, and in doing so they should consider all the factors that will dictate whether or not it will be of benefit to the country. It is very much within their remit.

The notion that we shouldnt consider whether the culture and normative systems of these people are of benefit or detriment to the country is one I cannot get on board with.


So it would be okay to penalise an individual because "British culture" decides it doesn't like the way that person lives his/her life?
Reply 13
I wonder whether most of the (middle class) people on here would be all for unlimited or fairly relaxed immigration if those people coming over were entering the same labour markets as they will be entering soon.
Reply 14
cottonmouth
So it would be okay to penalise an individual because "British culture" decides it doesn't like the way that person lives his/her life?


"penalise"?

Characterise it how you like, but in short, the British government (outside of the issue of assylum seekers [though that is a far tougher subject than people suggest]) should be looking out for the interests of the British people and should look further than the myopic economic interests of the country.

There is a need to consider the societal impact of immigration when determining what the policy should be, including the cultural and normative impact particular groups coming in will have.

Imagine an absurd example to illustrate my point:

a country has a civil war, this country has an age of consent of 4 and actively encourages men to sleep with 5 year old girls. The country is a former colony, and has a population of over 100 million. 60 million people flee the war and wish to come to the UK. We allow them in.

Leaving aside the issue of economics (assume for the example they are all an economic plus) what then if they all vote in a government that legalises pedarism? Would that not be to the detriment of the current population? To our current values?

To entirely ignore letting in say, large groups of people who have no respect for our basic beliefs is a recipe for trouble, and will harm the lives of the present populace.
Fusion
I wonder whether most of the (middle class) people on here would be all for unlimited or fairly relaxed immigration if those people coming over were entering the same labour markets as they will be entering soon.


I wonder to. And as a middle-class boy( hate to use that phrase, but i suppose it is true in the sense of the definition- i don't DEFINE MYSELF as middle-class), i can say that i'd be fine with it. If there was someone better than me at the job i want to do, they'd get it fair and square.

All of the unfair practices involved in paying immigrants less are illegal anyway. We should scrutinise companie's and they way they pay their staff, rather than direct our anger and the accepting immigrants.
Reply 16
Fusion
I wonder whether most of the (middle class) people on here would be all for unlimited or fairly relaxed immigration if those people coming over were entering the same labour markets as they will be entering soon.


No - clearly they wouldnt. However to expect logic and principle from people getting the poor end fo the situation is a bit much. It doesn't discredit the argument in favour of it, it simply demonstrates the fallability self-interest.
Lawz-
"penalise"?

Characterise it how you like, but in short, the British government (outside of the issue of assylum seekers [though that is a far tougher subject than people suggest]) should be looking out for the interests of the British people and should look further than the myopic economic interests of the country.

There is a need to consider the societal impact of immigration when determining what the policy should be, including the cultural and normative impact particular groups coming in will have.

Imagine an absurd example to illustrate my point:

a country has a civil war, this country has an age of consent of 4 and actively encourages men to sleep with 5 year old girls. The country is a former colony, and has a population of over 100 million. 60 million people flee the war and wish to come to the UK. We allow them in.

Leaving aside the issue of economics (assume for the example they are all an economic plus) what then if they all vote in a government that legalises pedarism? Would that not be to the detriment of the current population? To our current values?

To entirely ignore letting in say, large groups of people who have no respect for our basic beliefs is a recipe for trouble, and will harm the lives of the present populace.


Of course it would, in otherworldly exampls like that. But there isn't any need to go to extremes when being practical and realistic about who we let in.
Reply 18
cottonmouth
Of course it would, in otherworldly exampls like that. But there isn't any need to go to extremes when being practical and realistic about who we let in.


I was simply demonstrating the point.

If you want a more realistic example, I believe that letting in large numbers of people who have no respect for liberalism is of great detriment to this country.

I believe that letting in large numbers of people who are anti-homosexual, or who are not in favour of equal rights for women, is detrimental to the present population.

These things are relevant to the welfare of the UK and thus should be considered by the government.
Lawz-
I was simply demonstrating the point.

If you want a more realistic example, I believe that letting in large numbers of people who have no respect for liberalism is of great detriment to this country.

I believe that letting in large numbers of people who are anti-homosexual, or who are not in favour of equal rights for women, is detrimental to the present population.

These things are relevant to the welfare of the UK and thus should be considered by the government.


Well let's see if those types of people are capable of altering the law, and if they are, i'll rethink my position.