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

Why do so many people have a problem with controlled immigration??? watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomclarky)
    When "controlled immigration" is your main policy, your selling point so to speak.. it means you pin the blame for the country's problems on regular people, while making a special distinction for people who look a bit different and speak a different language.

    The amount of financial inequality and political corruption amongst elite classes is disgusting. If your main worry is people moving about on a spherical rock in infinite space then your priorites are wrong
    Exactly, thank you!

    It is not racist to talk about immigration, but racists scarcely talk about anything else. The Daily Mail won't bloody shut up about it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quantex)
    I like the current open door policy with the EU. It allows me to swan off to the Alps every couple of years to get paid for serving coffee, skiing and butchering the French language.

    Also, the work ethic of many migrants sets a good example to British workers. Many of those who want to limit immigration want a protectionist utopia where you get a job simply because you are British. I prefer a competitive labour market.
    I like swanning off to New York and Dubai. Can't say I've been hit by them not being in the EU.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Your other points aside, claiming you're not racist doesn't in any way automatically make the accuser racist.



    Let's look at your own post:



    This implies that non-Whites are something undesirable, as if they are 'other' from Whites. A classic racist assumption.



    Who would? Non-whites?

    Assigning a collective viewpoint to a whole group of people is a racist thing to do.



    Assuming that only non-Whites favour multiculturalism and diversity (assuming for a moment that you and I would actually agree on what it is), is a racist assumption.

    Again, assuming that non-Whites are different, and should be treated differently, and that Whites have some kind of special right to be in the majority, are racist assumptions.



    If there are any (I haven't read any on this board, just by the by), that's not racism, that's paranoia. If a Muslim claimed all Whites were out to get Muslims, and that Muslims should fight back, that would be a different story. But even then, only that Muslim could be accused, not the whole lot.
    It's actually worrying that people like you have these views. All I read in your post was 'racist'. You can't argue a point without mentioning that word because that's the programmed response. You sound like a robot.

    Calling people 'racist' whilst claiming a homogeneous group has no right to sustain it's own identity, culture, territory and very legacy on the entire planet suggest you're not racist, but an extremist. You have admitted the English have no right to their own inheritance, their own space or self determination, which means you do not recognize the basic requirements needed for races to have freedoms and a future on their OWN terms, not other peoples, like you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I like swanning off to New York and Dubai. Can't say I've been hit by them not being in the EU.
    For those you need visas, plus they're way more expensive. It's nice to be able to randomly piss off to France for a weekend.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Catholic_)
    It's actually worrying that people like you have these views. All I read in your post was 'racist'. You can't argue a point without mentioning that word because that's the programmed response. You sound like a robot.
    Not at all. I have simply pointed out occasions where your thinking has inescapably been formed by your own presumptions of race - of who you think you are, and who you think the 'other' are. It has no place in any discussion about immigration.

    Calling people 'racist' whilst claiming a homogeneous group has no right to sustain it's own identity, culture, territory and very legacy on the entire planet suggest you're not racist, but an extremist. You have admitted the English have no right to their own inheritance, their own space or self determination, which means you do not recognize the basic requirements needed for races to have freedoms and a future on their OWN terms, not other peoples, like you.
    I reject your premise. There are no homogenous groups, of any kind. There are only people. I believe England's (actually, Britain's) people as a country have the right to regulate immigration for the peace and stability of the country, but not based on some arbitrary 'White' collective group.

    If someone wants to come into this country and they are able to contribute positively, and they happen to be black, I welcome them with open arms. If there are White, locally born people who are wasteful, ignorant and criminal, then why should they be given more chances than hard working black people? That is what you've been ignoring.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by молодой гений)
    For those you need visas, plus they're way more expensive. It's nice to be able to randomly piss off to France for a weekend.
    People from the UK have always been able to visit France or Belgium and that's when there's not even been a world war going on.

    At the moment I can travel to and work in pretty much anywhere in the world.

    A lot of the 'benefits' of the EU are happening globally. Trade tariffs are falling, capital is moved, workforces migrate.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I am not sure why people use Australia as an example of controlled immigration.

    More than a 1/5th of their population is foreign born and they have a population growth rate of 1.8%. These are both far higher than the current comparable UK demographic numbers.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    I am not sure why people use Australia as an example of controlled immigration.

    More than a 1/5th of their population is foreign born and they have a population growth rate of 1.8%. These are both far higher than the current comparable UK demographic numbers.
    Considerably higher proportion is foreign born if you only count the aborigines as 'native'
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I reject your premise. There are no homogenous groups, of any kind. There are only people. I believe England's (actually, Britain's) people as a country have the right to regulate immigration for the peace and stability of the country, but not based on some arbitrary 'White' collective group.

    If someone wants to come into this country and they are able to contribute positively, and they happen to be black, I welcome them with open arms. If there are White, locally born people who are wasteful, ignorant and criminal, then why should they be given more chances than hard working black people? That is what you've been ignoring.
    Thank you.
    ^^^^^^^^^^
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    I am not sure why people use Australia as an example of controlled immigration.

    More than a 1/5th of their population is foreign born and they have a population growth rate of 1.8%. These are both far higher than the current comparable UK demographic numbers.
    Probably because good old Nige said it once
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    We do have controlled migration.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    I see so many people being anti-UKIP, calling them "racist" when their policy is exactly the same as Australia's immigration system- only admit those who can benefit society. Do the Australians get called racist? Nope, so why are UKIP???

    Tell me what is wrong with being in charge of who we admit to this country? In fact, I think any body who argues against being in control of your own immigration must have an IQ of 2!
    It's not the actual filtration of immigration that is the controversial thing; it is how we will categorise people into 'useful' or 'not useful'.

    For example: People with qualifications would probably be welcomed in to the country, while we also expect to allow in people that need help, such as those that have fled from war, etc, because to not do so would be 'unethical'. So where does this lead the people in between?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Not a problem per se; it's just that nearly always, the motivations of people behind the policy are racist.

    For example.

    The following posts are racist:
    Are you proposing immigrants from Germany and Romania are identical? If not, I am correct with my post......

    (Original post by billydisco)
    Why would an immigrant from Romania be exactly the same as one from Germany when they are different countries with totally different cultures?
    Could you please answer this?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davalla)
    while we also expect to allow in people that need help, such as those that have fled from war, etc, because to not do so would be 'unethical'. So where does this lead the people in between?
    You don't travel halfway round the ****ing world to claim asylum in the benefits-capital UK- you travel to the next safest country.....
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    We do have controlled migration.
    What is the point writing an idiotic post like this? EU immigration is not controlled and I know that you know this- hence such an idiotic reply.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quantex)
    I like the current open door policy with the EU. It allows me to swan off to the Alps every couple of years to get paid for serving coffee, skiing and butchering the French language.

    Also, the work ethic of many migrants sets a good example to British workers. Many of those who want to limit immigration want a protectionist utopia where you get a job simply because you are British. I prefer a competitive labour market.
    And who do you think pays the billions required to increase public services? The girl serving at costa coffee earning £7 an hour? :rolleyes:

    More people = more houses required (or more expensive houses) = more countryside being built on
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Are you proposing immigrants from Germany and Romania are identical? If not, I am correct with my post......

    Could you please answer this?
    I'm saying that you can't blanket-describe people like that. There a quite skilled and useful people in Germany, and there are corrupt criminals in Romania. Likewise, there are criminals in Germany and upstanding, productive and skilled people in Romania. Regardless of whether they are Romanian or German, I want the best to come to this country and the undeserving to be kept out.

    I'd rather not assume that an entire people can be dismissed in such a stupid way.

    So no, you are not correct with your post.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    What is the point writing an idiotic post like this? EU immigration is not controlled and I know that you know this- hence such an idiotic reply.
    EU immigration is subject to a different level of control. It isn't as if they (EU citizens) have an unrestricted right to wonder in and stay. There are conditions to be met and if they don't meet them, we can send them back.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I'm saying that you can't blanket-describe people like that.
    Yes you can- whether its nice or not is another matter.


    (Original post by gladders)
    There a quite skilled and useful people in Germany, and there are corrupt criminals in Romania. Likewise, there are criminals in Germany and upstanding, productive and skilled people in Romania. Regardless of whether they are Romanian or German, I want the best to come to this country and the undeserving to be kept out.

    I'd rather not assume that an entire people can be dismissed in such a stupid way.
    Is the number of skilled people (and criminals) in Germany and Romania identical?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    EU immigration is subject to a different level of control. It isn't as if they (EU citizens) have an unrestricted right to wonder in and stay. There are conditions to be met and if they don't meet them, we can send them back.
    So what, we just enjoyed having 30 Romanian homeless camping in Hyde Park for 5 years?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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