Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Halting immigration "would cost UK £18bn in five years". Watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    OP has lots of time.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Juichiro)
    OP has lots of time.
    Says the man who posts 22x more per day than me and has racked up nearly 1000 more posts than me in 1/5 the time.

    You: Join Date 08-07-2012
    Total Posts 1,499
    Posts Per Day 5.50

    Me: Join Date 24-05-2007
    Total Posts 523
    Posts Per Day 0.24

    I believe the correct terminology here would be "ZING!".

    And is that the sum total of your point? Cool, glad to see you don't dispute any of the facts I presented, then.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by digitaltoast)
    [*]1. Chair: Barbara Roche - former MP for Hornsey and Wood Green.
    1. Ask Barbara Roche what her views are on immigration to Israel.

    2. If you want a proper report on the economic impact of immigration see the Select Committee Economic Affairs report. The overall benefits are in fact negligible.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Without going into detailed research, my thoughts are that migration does increase the overall GDP of the country, and in specific jobs/sectors, has reduced or cured recruitment difficulties (I used to work for a bus company and there were terrible staff shortages in some depots, now much reduced with Polish and other non-British drivers).

    My first response to any discussion is however, that whatever the policy is on migration, it should be properly managed and enforced, and no-one should be kept waiting even for months for a decision on whether they can enter or remain in this country.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chi019)
    1. Ask Barbara Roche what her views are on immigration to Israel.

    2. If you want a proper report on the economic impact of immigration see the Select Committee Economic Affairs report. The overall benefits are in fact negligible.
    It made me sick to the bone to watch Jack Straw arguing with Nick Griffin on Question Time. (I am aware that Mr. Griffin may not be the ideal candidate that will unite British people). I was repulsed and
    Insulted by the fact that someone who came to this country a generation ago was completely patronising the views on ethnic and cultural change of someone whose roots in this country go back at least 500 years.

    I was further appalled at how divided we are in that the majority fail to see this.

    I am further appalled and shocked by the constant hypocrisy of the group of people your mention (which Jack Straw is in) in the respect. But I had better not get specific people people tend to go nuts. And this group refuse any inward reflection and have trained every one else to refuse any inward reflection for this group, only finger pointing towards someone who points this out.

    This is exactly the kind of thing that led to the tensions behind the 2 world wars; people refusing to deal with things in a rational, measured and calm way, and instead allowing a power keg to form which they just react to.

    Education just seems to be about suppression of truths. The media here now just talks utter rubbish. Don't you think that collectively as people we need to do better and be more honest, and at least listen to people, try and take in things that we find difficult, and not hate people who state facts I.e. shoot the messenger because we don't like the message.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    To summarise your argument, you want immigration to:

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    ...have them produce children increasing the birth rate, labour force and potential economic output.

    I'm not concerned with overpopulation in the UK..
    A small increase in economic output of, say £1 billion a year, by having an immigration rate that exceeds the emigration rate is pointless when compared with the downside.

    The pro net-migration lobby is racist, climate change denying, colonialist and anti-environmentalist. The arguments for each of these are presented below.

    All you can offer as justification for stuffing the country full of people is at best a very dubious £1 billion a year. Why are you in favour of population growth when there is so little benefit and such a huge downside?

    Why does the racist pro net-migration lobby always get treated as if they are holy when they are deliberately destructive?


    Anti-environmentalism

    Increasing the population of England by 10 million will literally obliterate 5% of England's surface area (at eighth acre per person). This will mainly obliterate agricultural land so agricultural land will have to expand into woodland, wetland etc. Only 10% of England is woodland, less than 5% wetland etc. 10 million more people will eradicate all lowland wild areas except those in protected reserves.

    Colonialism

    Each new member of the British population uses about 5 hectares (c. 10 acres) of overseas land to sustain their standard of life. 10 million more people will use twice the area of the UK overseas. Immigration moves people from parts of the world where they might be using 3 hectares per head, mostly in their own countries, to the UK where they will use 5 hectares a head overseas. This is colonisation without colonies, we are directly competing with overseas populations for food and resources.

    Racism

    I live in Croydon, the British ethnic minorities in Croydon are experiencing dreadful unemployment because white Eastern Europeans, usually highly qualified, are taking their jobs. Local hospitals and care homes used to have black porters, auxillaries and nurses, they are now often white. It is the same in the councils. Immigration is racist.

    Climate change denying

    If commodity prices continue their upward spiral a population that is 90% dependent on overseas produce will become impoverished and even starve. Food prices will rocket if predictions for climate change come true.

    Notes:

    People have both a direct physical footprint and an ecological footprint and the English are stomping around with huge feet!

    The direct footprint of a person in England is about an eighth of an acre, this is their part of the house, garden, workspace, amount of road to serve them etc. A million people literally obliterate about 200 square miles of land. Increasing the population to 75 million will obliterate 2500 square miles. That is about 5% of the area of England - it is England where this population increase will occur.

    A minimal ecological footprint for a person is 2 hectares of land. This is the area needed to supply water, food, industrial products etc. to a single person. The UK is 24 million hectares which means that each English person, even with excellent ecological management, would currently be using 3 hectares of overseas land to survive. In fact we are using much more than this because the ecological management is not excellent.
    The ecological footprint of each person in the UK is about 5 hectares, we have already used up all the land in the UK so each new person uses 5 hectares overseas.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Good job on that, er, dissertation!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Toothfairy123)
    It made me sick to the bone to watch Jack Straw arguing with Nick Griffin on Question Time. (I am aware that Mr. Griffin may not be the ideal candidate that will unite British people). I was repulsed and
    Insulted by the fact that someone who came to this country a generation ago was completely patronising the views on ethnic and cultural change of someone whose roots in this country go back at least 500 years.

    I was further appalled at how divided we are in that the majority fail to see this.

    I am further appalled and shocked by the constant hypocrisy of the group of people your mention (which Jack Straw is in) in the respect. But I had better not get specific people people tend to go nuts. And this group refuse any inward reflection and have trained every one else to refuse any inward reflection for this group, only finger pointing towards someone who points this out.

    This is exactly the kind of thing that led to the tensions behind the 2 world wars; people refusing to deal with things in a rational, measured and calm way, and instead allowing a power keg to form which they just react to.

    Education just seems to be about suppression of truths. The media here now just talks utter rubbish. Don't you think that collectively as people we need to do better and be more honest, and at least listen to people, try and take in things that we find difficult, and not hate people who state facts I.e. shoot the messenger because we don't like the message.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So opinions should carry more weight depending on where the holder's ancestors were from? Interesting. How far back do you go then?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    A small increase in economic output of, say £1 billion a year, by having an immigration rate that exceeds the emigration rate is pointless when compared with the downside.

    The pro net-migration lobby is racist, climate change denying, colonialist and anti-environmentalist. The arguments for each of these are presented below.

    All you can offer as justification for stuffing the country full of people is at best a very dubious £1 billion a year. Why are you in favour of population growth when there is so little benefit and such a huge downside?

    Why does the racist pro net-migration lobby always get treated as if they are holy when they are deliberately destructive?
    The costs and the benefits of immigration are proportional to the number of migrants coming. The annual benefit is small because the number of people we're talking about is small, relative to our population size - and that means that the costs, such as they are, are also small.

    You talk about an increase in population of 10m, which as a back-of-the-envelope calculation would increase population by about 15%. Let's assume that GDP is proportional to population; then, migration would boost GDP by about £245bn. GDP by about 15%. Annually. Not small change. (The actual increase in GDP would be more than this, because migrants are disproportionately likely to be working-age).

    Anti-environmentalism

    Increasing the population of England by 10 million will literally obliterate 5% of England's surface area (at eighth acre per person). This will mainly obliterate agricultural land so agricultural land will have to expand into woodland, wetland etc. Only 10% of England is woodland, less than 5% wetland etc. 10 million more people will eradicate all lowland wild areas except those in protected reserves.
    This seems spurious to me, for a couple of reasons. Let's imagine that all of the new migrants live in cities. You'd expect to see urban areas expanding, yes, but also the density of existing urban areas would increase. About 10% of the UK is currently urbanised, and about 50m Britons currently live in cities, so we'd need to build on less than 2% of British land in order to accomodate the new immigrants.

    It would hardly destroy the country.

    Moreover, this kind of debate is inherently spurious. Of course woodland is valuable, but how valuable is the marginal field? Do you think the deforestation of Europe in the Medieval period is a good idea? Should we return London to nature?

    Colonialism

    Each new member of the British population uses about 5 hectares (c. 10 acres) of overseas land to sustain their standard of life. 10 million more people will use twice the area of the UK overseas. Immigration moves people from parts of the world where they might be using 3 hectares per head, mostly in their own countries, to the UK where they will use 5 hectares a head overseas. This is colonisation without colonies, we are directly competing with overseas populations for food and resources.
    I don't really understand this argument. We're oppressing poor foreigners by... allowing them to move to our country in search of a better life?

    If foreign populations move here, how exactly is that going to increase competition for global food resources? There are the same number of people.

    People only use fewer resources in poor countries because, you guessed it, they're poor. What you're really saying is that we should keep people in foreign countries impoverished in order to protect the environment. And if you're really worried about your carbon footprint, you are of course welcome to move to Kashmir and become a goat herder.

    Racism

    I live in Croydon, the British ethnic minorities in Croydon are experiencing dreadful unemployment because white Eastern Europeans, usually highly qualified, are taking their jobs. Local hospitals and care homes used to have black porters, auxillaries and nurses, they are now often white. It is the same in the councils. Immigration is racist.
    This is a new one.

    Imagine the 1960s version of this argument, where black people are taking white jobs. By your logic, that would be racist.

    I don't know why the colour of people's skin should be important to these kind of considerations.

    Climate change denying

    If commodity prices continue their upward spiral a population that is 90% dependent on overseas produce will become impoverished and even starve. Food prices will rocket if predictions for climate change come true.
    This is pretty absurd.

    Firstly, global food prices already take into account the possibility of climate change. If food prices go up, where people live and what they produce will also adjust. If it's easier for people to migrate, it eases that adjustment.

    More fundamentally dependent on overseas produce because it doesn't make economic sense to grow food here. It makes economic sense to produce stuff in London and trade it for Russian grain, just like it would make sense in a closed economy to produce stuff in London and trade it for grain from Oxfordshire.

    But if you were really serious about global warming, you'd realise that the more rich and educated people there are, the more scientists we have and the more resources are available to devote to dealing with climate change. If people move to the UK, they're much more likely to make the next solar breakthrough than if they had stayed in Nigeria.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Magda1502)
    So opinions should carry more weight depending on where the holder's ancestors were from? Interesting. How far back do you go then?
    Not necessarily but lets put it this way. If I walked into a room where a bunch of people were say, I would not come in and start bossing them about, telling them where they had to move and what to do. That's just basic respect.

    You don't have to say how far you go back. One just needs to use a bit of common sense and its that which is lacking when people try to use arguments like "so which side on an international time zone would you be on when you're in the middle".

    Most of the worlds problems are caused by one groups lack of respect for another, often blocks of people manipulated to think they are right and refuse to talk or debate and be prepared to kill before they talk cause wars. And the way Mr. Straw talked was to be so smug as to completely write off many people's concerns.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    It would be stupid to halt immigration completely but possibly limit it slightly so that the UK can get it's housing crises partially solved and to let unemployment to be lower.

    Maybe also a more vigorous assessment that they'll be financially able to support themselves.....
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very impressive but..you might have a little too much spare time
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by infairverona)
    Very impressive but..you might have a little too much spare time
    ... says the person who posts 10.8 times as frequently as me...

    And your point is?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by digitaltoast)
    ... says the person who posts 10.8 times as frequently as me...

    And your point is?
    I just can't imagine ever bothering to put that much effort into a post, it must have taken you hours to find all that information. I post a lot but usually like 1/2 sentences which doesn't take long. It wasn't an insult, as I said it's impressive that you found all that information.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by infairverona)
    It wasn't an insult, as I said it's impressive that you found all that information.
    OK, thanks, I didn't mean to sound harsh.

    The way I see it, if I'm going to post, I might as well make it worthwhile/interesting/informative. This is "The Student Room" after all!

    I try to be the opposite of people who post "cool story, bro!".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Toothfairy123)
    Not necessarily but lets put it this way. If I walked into a room where a bunch of people were say, I would not come in and start bossing them about, telling them where they had to move and what to do. That's just basic respect.

    You don't have to say how far you go back. One just needs to use a bit of common sense and its that which is lacking when people try to use arguments like "so which side on an international time zone would you be on when you're in the middle".

    Most of the worlds problems are caused by one groups lack of respect for another, often blocks of people manipulated to think they are right and refuse to talk or debate and be prepared to kill before they talk cause wars. And the way Mr. Straw talked was to be so smug as to completely write off many people's concerns.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Jack Straw was born here, so even the coherent parts of your post make no sense.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I am really finding it hard to understand why there are so many people who want to massively increase the population of England for no benefit for the people who are already here. Of course millions of extra people are going to take away agricultural land, of course they will be hard to feed if commodity prices soar, of course highly qualified Eastern Europeans take away jobs from Black British in Croydon.

    Lets be blunt, the simple truth is that those who favour endless population growth are racists who don't care about their environment or their fellow man.

    Dapparatchik, I am not saying "stop immigration", I am saying that immigration should not exceed emigration, there should be no endless population growth. Even if my figures were halved, if we only lost half of the lowland wild land, if we only consumed 100,000 square miles of extra resouces from outside the UK, if Black British unemployment were only double the rate for the rest of the population I would still maintain that filling the country with an extra 10 million people is a bad idea.

    In fact my figures are not wrong and are probably optimistic. However, Dapparatchik confidently asserts that 10m population increase is a "back of the envelope calculation", that each person in England only obliterates a sixteenth of an acre, that because you don't understand the idea of an ecological footprint ecological footprints do not matter, that making up to 50% of black British men unemployed does not matter and is not racist and that migration is wonderful because it allows us to escape climate change.

    A 10.9 m population rise is the Office of National Statistics projection for 2035, the ONS "Regional Trends 43" Data for Urban areas that exclude agricultural use is that each person obliterates a seventh of an acre, the ecological footprint of a person in England is 5 hectares - this is the amount of extra foreign land each new net-migrant exploits in foreign countries, utter unconcern about black unemployment is indeed racism and, if the Royal Society predictions for a 4 degree temperature rise by 2100 are correct, there will be nowhere to run from climate change.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We need an ethnic based immigration policy
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Magda1502)
    Jack Straw was born here, so even the coherent parts of your post make no sense.
    Jack Straw is a communist Jew who promotes race mixing.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by digitaltoast)
    ... says the person who posts 10.8 times as frequently as me...

    And your point is?
    For the sake of ending this little train.

    You have too much time.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 29, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.