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

Immigration: Pro/Against and why? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Immigratin-For of Against
    For
    14
    77.78%
    Against
    4
    22.22%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SubZero~)
    Underemployment can be two things; 1) where people are working fewer hours than they wish 2) workers accepting jobs that do not utilise their skills fully/at all.

    So if we take the second point and the current unemployment rate (5.0%~), we can say that there are not enough job opportunities for many people such as immigrants when it comes to high paying ones. Thus, they may have to settle for lower skilled jobs and fill in where they can. I'm sure if they could, they would go for these jobs that require higher skill.
    Then therefore they are taking any job just for the sake of it (to essentially pay their way in the UK).... so they're monopolising the blue-collar market.... which in turn means entry level jobs like factory work etc becomes unavailable, so people like school leavers, people with little qualificatons, excetera, can't get those jobs because the migrants take them!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by futureishistory)
    Revenue is vanity, profit is sanity.

    I presume migrants don't age? Do they remain 'young and skilled' forever? What do we do when they aren't 'young and skilled'? Import more migrants to pay the pensions of those migrants who are no longer 'young and skilled'? What do we do when those migrants age? Import more? I love that life has become so simple: just import!
    Import is actually the only option available right now. Longer term the other is for Brits to start having enough kids to support an aging population(the Baby Boomers).

    Germany's aging population problem is even worse than ours. Why do you think Merkel is such a fan of idea no.1?

    If the country can't shag its way out of a problem then there's really no hope.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    Import is actually the only option available right now. Longer term the other is for Brits to start having enough kids to support an aging population(the Baby Boomers).

    Germany's aging population problem is even worse than ours. Why do you think Merkel is such a fan of idea no.1?

    If the country can't shag its way out of a problem then there's really no hope.
    Come to where I live, plenty of babies being born here. :sly:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danny the Geezer)
    Come to where I live, plenty of babies being born here. :sly:
    Mate I think people either have no kids or about ****in 10 of 'em tbh.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    Mate I think people either have no kids or about ****in 10 of 'em tbh.
    Many socio-economic reasons behind it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Immigration can be beneficial to society, unfortunately the way it's being implemented is a detriment. Since the mass Afro-Carribean migration our immigration policy has been utterly insane. People don't have a right to live here, we should be as choosey as possible.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Immigration should be easy merely involving background checks with regards to their criminal histories; beyond this there should largely be an open door policy; free exchange of people promotes cross cultural integration, provides exchange of ideas and benefits the economy for same reason people being able to move from Cardiff to London with ease benefits the economy. As for your concerns:-
    1. Housing shortage exists because existing regulations and government do not build enough houses, and because we still have this mentality everyone needs to own a house with private land - build large and modern vertical homes in outskirts of the cities and move culture more towards buying/ leasing flats rather than houses; land is a limited resource, its insane we're using a significant portion to house 3-4 people.
    2. That again has to do with lack of investment; real term funding in NHS for instance has increased by average of 4% since 1950s. Population has increased by 25.5%. . Even ignoring foreign born population (7,993,480 in 2011 vs 2,118,600 in 1951) that's population increase of 13.7%. Even if we had 0 immigrants, NHS would have to deal with 13.7% more people with 4% increased funding. Obviously there's going to be a shortage.
    3. World changes, tough ****.
    4. Immigrants are ~13% of UK population and ~13% of prison population, so no.
    5. What about it?
    6. UK nationals are not entitled to jobs, they compete in same market for jobs as immigrant population with same minimum wage - whoever is most qualified gets the job as it should be.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danny the Geezer)
    Many socio-economic reasons behind it.
    Sensationalist I know, but not entirely untrue either.

    On a serous note the low birth rate means that we aren't replenishing the population sufficiently and have to make up for it.

    http://news.sky.com/story/britain-de...-rate-10334878
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by futureishistory)
    3. There's no moral difference between opposing mass immigration at 330,000 per year and opposing it at 10,000,000 per year
    Seriously?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    Immigration should be easy merely involving background checks with regards to their criminal histories; beyond this there should largely be an open door policy

    No, it would become way to hard to vet people what with illegals and all that who are already pouring in. Why an open-door policy? We have no legal, financial or moral obligation to take any of these people. We're a small island and already we're over-crowded.

    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    ; free exchange of people promotes cross cultural integration, provides exchange of ideas and benefits the economy for same reason people being able to move from Cardiff to London with ease benefits the economy. As for your concerns:-
    There's nothing much the average Pole can offer to us really, ideas wise. They're not exactly renowned academics and scholars! Also cross culture integration en masse has failed and will continue to fail the more cultures, languages and religions that are added to the melting pot

    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    1. Housing shortage exists because existing regulations and government do not build enough houses, and because we still have this mentality everyone needs to own a house with private land - build large and modern vertical homes in outskirts of the cities and move culture more towards buying/ leasing flats rather than houses; land is a limited resource, its insane we're using a significant portion to house 3-4 people.
    No, I can assure you a social housing shortage exists because we are obligated to house these people over British people - (that includes the homeless, ex-servicemen etc etc) It's ok if we build more private housing that will happen naturally anyway because supply and demand. With urban expansion there comes more problems, so we build in smaller towns and not cities then where?? Greenbelt land? Immigrants and refugees, from my own observations of living in areas with a large social housing population, are becoming increasingly more and more prevelant (why do we not just give these houses to the British? ) Because the council and governmet are too soft and pander to the needs of migrants more than their own countrymen

    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    6. UK nationals are not entitled to jobs, they compete in same market for jobs as immigrant population with same minimum wage - whoever is most qualified gets the job as it should be.
    IMO they are because it's a principle of fairness, if you were born and bred in a country you should, quite simply have first refusal on it's resources, jobs and housing. I am disadvantaged in the UK....can I move to Barbados and get a job and a beach-side mansion???
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danny the Geezer)
    Then therefore they are taking any job just for the sake of it (to essentially pay their way in the UK).... so they're monopolising the blue-collar market.... which in turn means entry level jobs like factory work etc becomes unavailable, so people like school leavers, people with little qualificatons, excetera, can't get those jobs because the migrants take them!
    LOL? It's not like they have a choice. Most immigrants don't tend to be very wealthy and so come here to make a better living for themselves. It's only natural that they'll take what they can get? :rofl:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Seriously?
    Yes. If it's immoral opposing unlimited immigration at 100,000 net per year I don't suddenly see how it can become moral when unlimited immigration reaches 10,000,000 net per year. It's a practical difference, not a moral one. If you argue in favour of the former then you argue in favour of the latter.

    It's open borders. The moral question is: do you believe in open borders? However, more often than not the moral argument is drawn down to: 'do you believe we should limit immigration?' It's an invalid argument, largely because we can't limit immigration.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SubZero~)
    LOL? It's not like they have a choice.
    They do have a choice, they can either stay where they live or come to the UK, no one Is kidnapping them at gunpoint and bundling them on a ferry.

    (Original post by SubZero~)
    Most immigrants don't tend to be very wealthy and so come here to make a better living for themselves.
    Not strictly true, a lot Polish migrants can be considered middle-class in their home country, and a lot of Africans I come in contact with when working certainly don't seem poor!

    (Original post by SubZero~)
    It's only natural that they'll take what they can get? :rofl:
    No, because if we all did that there'd be anarchy. The sort of story that grinds the gears of the Brits and makes them have more animosity toward foreigners is Mohammed with 9 children coming into the country, getting 40k a year in handouts, no intention to work, lives in a £1m mansion.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Danny the Geezer)
    Personally I am against.

    -Housing shortage as well as bringing down the house prices of areas with large migrant populations

    -Strain on other public services such as hospitals, schools, public transport

    -UK becoming increasingly more alien to UK nationals- Too many langauges, cultures etc A melting pot becomes a tinderbox.

    -Potentially more crime- petty theft, major theft, rape etc

    -Disease

    - Lack of jobs for UK nationals.
    Isnt this all rather simplistic?
    Dont you want to deal with the rest of the world?
    Dont you think some immigrants add to the economy or arent you bothered about that?
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by futureishistory)
    Yes. If it's immoral opposing unlimited immigration at 100,000 net per year I don't suddenly see how it can become moral when unlimited immigration reaches 10,000,000 net per year. It's a practical difference, not a moral one. If you argue in favour of the former then you argue in favour of the latter.

    It's open borders. The moral question is: do you believe in open borders? However, more often than not the moral argument is drawn down to: 'do you believe we should limit immigration?' It's an invalid argument, largely because we can't limit immigration.
    I don't understand why you seem to think that practicality and morality are mutually exclusive, because they're not. If something would be ruinous in practice then it stands to reason that it is also immoral.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Isnt this all rather simplistic?
    Dont you want to deal with the rest of the world?
    Dont you think some immigrants add to the economy or arent you bothered about that?
    Yes deal with the world problems sure (but don't have this idealogical view that you can somehow save the world and all it's inhabitants, like some people). I have my own problems, I deal with them, then with people of my own, then finally I'll get round to being Moses and leading us all to glory. I don't give to charities like Oxfam and Red Cross etc for that reason it's kinda "not my problem" as it's on the other side of the world, I help the RSPCA because I love animals, NSPCC because child abuse is something I relate to.... sick of having Charity people stop me in the street and asking for a donation which when I won't see how it will be spent.

    Yeah migrants do add to the economy never have I denied that. However they take as much as they give to public services.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danny the Geezer)
    No, it would become way to hard to vet people what with illegals and all that who are already pouring in. Why an open-door policy? We have no legal, financial or moral obligation to take any of these people. We're a small island and already we're over-crowded.



    There's nothing much the average Pole can offer to us really, ideas wise. They're not exactly renowned academics and scholars! Also cross culture integration en masse has failed and will continue to fail the more cultures, languages and religions that are added to the melting pot



    No, I can assure you a social housing shortage exists because we are obligated to house these people over British people - (that includes the homeless, ex-servicemen etc etc) It's ok if we build more private housing that will happen naturally anyway because supply and demand. With urban expansion there comes more problems, so we build in smaller towns and not cities then where?? Greenbelt land? Immigrants and refugees, from my own observations of living in areas with a large social housing population, are becoming increasingly more and more prevelant (why do we not just give these houses to the British? ) Because the council and governmet are too soft and pander to the needs of migrants more than their own countrymen



    IMO they are because it's a principle of fairness, if you were born and bred in a country you should, quite simply have first refusal on it's resources, jobs and housing. I am disadvantaged in the UK....can I move to Barbados and get a job and a beach-side mansion???
    1. How will it be more difficult; if anything people with serious criminal background will be easier to stop because we're focusing on that rather than other stuff.
    We don't have an obligation, it's merely beneficial for us and issue of 'too much people' is self solving; implement contributory benefit system with exceptions for stuff like disability benefit, you now have immigrants who are either better qualified for the job thus will live here being more productive than if job was given to native individual, or they can't afford to live here and they won't come or come and leave promptly.

    2. How do you know what an individual migrant can offer without requiring them to undergo a significant and rather inconvenient testing process which will cause most qualified and demanded people to self select out because why'd they go through that trouble? You can't have just x type of immigrants.
    And integration hasn't failed, for instance it was people living in areas with most migrants who are pro-immigration or apathetic as shown by referendum, by contrary people living in areas with minimal immigrant population were likely to vote to leave - which was primarily driven by immigration.

    3. Source that councils are required to house immigrants over others? Because I'm quite certain there's a set criteria which applies to everyone - families with children get housed first, intentionally homeless don't get housed, people with some one else to go to don't get a highest priority etc. Problem is we don't have enough social housing, solution is to build more - don't just rely on private investment, government can build more houses and use those as social houses.
    The problem with private companies building outside city limits is regulation, and lack of transport infrastructure. There are routes where you can't go from place A to B after 5pm on public transport; how can you expect development there. Its upto government to build more public transport infrastructure and loosen regulations while building houses themselves too. Yes reduce greenbelts, we've national parks to keep natures, and we're unlikely to run out of space because of vertical houses - instead of 3 people in 85 sq meters (average house sizes), we can go up and have 30, or 40, or more.

    4. Why? It is free market for jobs, get better and you'll get it. As for Barbados, I'm not aware of Barbados's immigration policies but yes you should be allowed to, assuming you can compete with all other applicants for that job, and that beach house - Barbedos and company benefits by having most productive member doing that job, you benefit by having a beach house.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Danny the Geezer)
    Yes deal with the world problems sure (but don't have this idealogical view that you can somehow save the world and all it's inhabitants, like some people). I have my own problems, I deal with them, then with people of my own, then finally I'll get round to being Moses and leading us all to glory. I don't give to charities like Oxfam and Red Cross etc for that reason it's kinda "not my problem" as it's on the other side of the world, I help the RSPCA because I love animals, NSPCC because child abuse is something I relate to.... sick of having Charity people stop me in the street and asking for a donation which when I won't see how it will be spent.

    Yeah migrants do add to the economy never have I denied that. However they take as much as they give to public services.
    I was referring to interacting with the rest of the world. If you stop immigration here, then ofc oither counries will prevent immigration to their countries. You beome an Island of little Englanders.

    You really dont appear to have thought this through at all.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    I was referring to interacting with the rest of the world. If you stop immigration here, then ofc oither counries will prevent immigration to their countries. You beome an Island of little Englanders.

    You really dont appear to have thought this through at all.
    No I'm thinking this through rather lucidly actually! :lol:

    If you stop immigration here (I say monitor and regulate = it rather than stop it completely) then other countries will have to take the onus like we have done for the best part of a hundred years. I'm looking (as an example) the UAE, Bahrain, Saudi- larger countries to us, closer to Syria (e.g) and of a similar cultural make-up. But no because the "benefits" (pardon the pun) of coming to the UK are more lucrative. And given our history of taking in foreigners over the generations we'll never be this "Utopian" vision of an island of Little Englanders....
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Danny the Geezer)
    No I'm thinking this through rather lucidly actually! :lol:

    If you stop immigration here (I say monitor and regulate = it rather than stop it completely) then other countries will have to take the onus like we have done for the best part of a hundred years. I'm looking (as an example) the UAE, Bahrain, Saudi- larger countries to us, closer to Syria (e.g) and of a similar cultural make-up. But no because the "benefits" (pardon the pun) of coming to the UK are more lucrative. And given our history of taking in foreigners over the generations we'll never be this "Utopian" vision of an island of Little Englanders....
    So youve changes you mind now and you will allow immigration.

    Thats why you are being simplistic.

    No replies till later as am off to do other things,
 
 
 
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: August 23, 2016
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
  • 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.