Turn on thread page Beta

All you need to know about immigration in Britain today watch

Announcements
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Immigrants run this country, without them Britain would be in the pits, most immigrants (non-illegal ones) are higly skilled and only improve the country. Even if you somehow stop more and more immigration (which will never happen because of Labour), people abroad who had settled here years ago have grandchildren (3rd generation living in the nation here) and they will keep breeding and breeding, so you will never be short of non-British people and you can't kick them out if they were born in this country.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    To all brits,

    from the horses mouth - thats your future unless you do something NOW.

    (Original post by cruciform)
    Immigrants run this country, without them Britain would be in the pits. Even if you somehow stop more and more immigration (which will never happen because of Labour), people abroad who had settled here years ago have grandchildren (3rd generation living in the nation here) and they will keep breeding and breeding, so you will never be short of non-British people and you can't kick them out if they were born in this country.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cruciform)
    Immigrants run this country, without them Britain would be in the pits, most immigrants (non-illegal ones) are higly skilled and only improve the country. Even if you somehow stop more and more immigration (which will never happen because of Labour), people abroad who had settled here years ago have grandchildren (3rd generation living in the nation here) and they will keep breeding and breeding, so you will never be short of non-British people and you can't kick them out if they were born in this country.

    Yes, and?
    Are you genuinely bothered by where your neighbours come from?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...erence-britain

    Here's another article about it. The level of immigration we get is completely unjustifiable. If it continues we face horrible consequences -

    "This population rise, brought about by rising immigration, will strain our infrastructures - our housing and water supplies - and bring very little advantage to the nation," said Dyson, who will address the conference. "Nor do I think these extra people will be able to help in looking after our older people."

    "There are far too many people living in Britain already," he said. "Once our population passed the 20 million level around 1850, it became too numerous. That is the figure at which we could no longer sustain our population from our own resources. We are now three times over the limit and heading for more. We have long passed the line of sustainability. As for the planet, its maximum sustainable population is no more than 3 billion, I would say."

    The article goes on to talk about the wider population disaster the world faces - "many climatologists believe that by (2050) life on the planet will already have become dangerously unpleasant. Temperature rises will have started to have devastating impacts on farmland, water supplies and sea levels. Humans - increasing both in numbers and dependence on food from devastated landscapes - will then come under increased pressure. The end result will be apocalyptic, said Lovelock. By the end of the century, the world's population will suffer calamitous declines until numbers are reduced to around 1 billion or less. "By 2100, pestilence, war and famine will have dealt with the majority of humans," he said."

    but of course, it's not politically correct to even mention that population growth could cause any problems :rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joluk)
    100% agree with the article. I think its time people wake up and realise the irreversible damage Immigration does to the country. I don't want Britain to become like the Netherlands..

    Look at Japan, Immigration there is effectively 0, only a small amount of working permits are granted and they have the second highest GDP in the world.

    Remarks that our country would collapse if we halted or capped the level of immigration are quite clearly, ludicrous.

    Neglible and often disputed economic gains, with a ton of social problems that need to have money pumped into them, and potential racial timebombs years down the line. I just don't think its worth it.
    Exactly. Precisely. Spot-*******-on! Get rid of them for the love of god..at least impose stricter controls. What is out small, overcrowded island coming to?!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    i think those who are here illegally and those who cant speak english shud **** off from wer ever the hell they came from, dirty immmigrants!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lotsofsnails)
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...erence-britain

    Here's another article about it. The level of immigration we get is completely unjustifiable. If it continues we face horrible consequences -

    "This population rise, brought about by rising immigration, will strain our infrastructures - our housing and water supplies - and bring very little advantage to the nation," said Dyson, who will address the conference. "Nor do I think these extra people will be able to help in looking after our older people."

    "There are far too many people living in Britain already," he said. "Once our population passed the 20 million level around 1850, it became too numerous. That is the figure at which we could no longer sustain our population from our own resources. We are now three times over the limit and heading for more. We have long passed the line of sustainability. As for the planet, its maximum sustainable population is no more than 3 billion, I would say."

    The article goes on to talk about the wider population disaster the world faces - "many climatologists believe that by (2050) life on the planet will already have become dangerously unpleasant. Temperature rises will have started to have devastating impacts on farmland, water supplies and sea levels. Humans - increasing both in numbers and dependence on food from devastated landscapes - will then come under increased pressure. The end result will be apocalyptic, said Lovelock. By the end of the century, the world's population will suffer calamitous declines until numbers are reduced to around 1 billion or less. "By 2100, pestilence, war and famine will have dealt with the majority of humans," he said."

    but of course, it's not politically correct to even mention that population growth could cause any problems :rolleyes:
    What a crock o ****. Scientists don't believe that by 2050 life on the planet will become dangerously unpleasant. We are not running at 3 times our capacity to feed ourselves. And our bloody population has been steady at 60 million for the last 30 years and shows no sign of changing. Not only that but we're the fattest *******s in Europe and we lose out only to the US in just how fat we are? Are these people even from the same planet as science. Or do they just believe in making unlinked proclamations. I mean you do that on here and you get ***** slapped, but somehow it's fine for any old idiot to stand up and say any old crap and people will believe it because it's in t' paper. Seriously wtf?

    I'd love to see some bloody science from these idiots for once.

    It's a fact that with modern farming techniques that China could sustain a population of 6 billion on its own. What is problematic is that Europe's populations are stagnating. But countries unable to feed themselves are growing. The thing is people seem to think growth will continue unabated but the more modern a country get's the closer to 0 the population growth becomes. So please try and think about what you are saying yo rtards.

    Statistics from the United Nations show that, on average, every year more than 174,000 people will be added to the numbers in the UK and that this trend will continue for the next four decades.
    :laugh:

    What they forget conveniently to mention is that ~174,000 people are deleted from the UK population mostly immigrants returning home. Honestly I'm tired of hearing this hatred inspired nonsense from morons.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JMonkey)
    And our bloody population has been steady at 60 million for the last 30 years and shows no sign of changing.
    Not really... It was 56 million in 1980 and in the past 7 years alone its gone up 2.15 million, that's roughly 300,000 per year (Most of that being migrants). Although i think current trends will slow down a fair bit.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joluk)
    Not really... It was 56 million in 1980 and in the past 7 years alone its gone up 2.15 million, that's roughly 300,000 per year (Most of that being migrants). Although i think current trends will slow down a fair bit.
    https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../print/uk.html

    white (of which English 83.6%, Scottish 8.6%, Welsh 4.9%, Northern Irish 2.9%) 92.1%, black 2%, Indian 1.8%, Pakistani 1.3%, mixed 1.2%, other 1.6% (2001 census)

    Ethnicity.

    population growth as of 2009. 0.279%.

    Net migration: .2% or 2 for every 1000 people.

    Care to explain to me how that **** they are basically making up there works exactly?

    56,000,000-60,000,000 in 30 years are you kidding me? Most of that immigrants at .2% are these people on drugs? Idiots and you people lap up a good idiot dialogue, especially when it's in the tabloids. I do genuinely feel sorry for people who accept this nonsense at face value they obviously are gullible enough to support this crapfest.

    Now given those figures a play people and see what you come up with. I can't honestly understand where they get this **** from, which is hardly surprising as they have no sources, or citations to any sort of credible source.

    Oh and most of that rise which are immigrants rather than births are Polish immigrants, most of which have now returned home. There was a thread on this recently you should check it out. It was called how much of the UK are indigenous.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JMonkey)
    https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../print/uk.html

    white (of which English 83.6%, Scottish 8.6%, Welsh 4.9%, Northern Irish 2.9%) 92.1%, black 2%, Indian 1.8%, Pakistani 1.3%, mixed 1.2%, other 1.6% (2001 census)

    Ethnicity.

    population growth as of 2009. 0.279%.

    Net migration: .2% or 2 for every 1000 people.

    Care to explain to me how that **** they are basically making up there works exactly?

    56,000,000-60,000,000 in 30 years are you kidding me? Most of that immigrants at .2% are these people on drugs? Idiots and you people lap up a good idiot dialogue, especially when it's in the tabloids. I do genuinely feel sorry for people who accept this nonsense at face value they obviously are gullible enough to support this crapfest.

    Now given those figures a play people and see what you come up with. I can't honestly understand where they get this **** from, which is hardly surprising as they have no sources, or citations to any sort of credible source.

    Oh and most of that rise which are immigrants rather than births are Polish immigrants, most of which have now returned home. There was a thread on this recently you should check it out. It was called how much of the UK are indigenous.
    I think its widely accepted the population was around 56 million in 1980...? Maybe i'm confusing what you're saying though.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ifs_new...00/7336616.stm

    Try looking at UK government statistics rather than American ones, the population in 2001 was 58,789,194, in 2009 according to your CIA world factbook its 61,113,205. That's 2.324011 million in 8 years or so. Its not huge but its still a worrying trend.

    As for most of the population increase being immigrants, of course that's true....
    Even the guardian agrees with me for god sake!

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ublicservices1

    'Overview: Net immigration has added 1.5 million people to the population over the last 10 years. Two-thirds of them have come from the continents of Asia and Africa. In 2006 the total UK population was 60.6m. If net immigration continues at its current rate, as the government actuary's department calculates, the total population in 2031 will be 70m, and by 2081 it will be 85m'

    Its also a well known fact that immigrant communities have higher fertility figures, although i suppose that wouldn't count as they are now British citizens.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joluk)
    I think its widely accepted the population was around 56 million in 1980...? Maybe i'm confusing what you're saying though.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ifs_new...00/7336616.stm

    Try looking at UK government statistics rather than American ones, the population in 2001 was 58,789,194, in 2009 according to your CIA world factbook its 61,113,205. That's 2.324011 million in 8 years or so. Its not huge but its still a worrying trend.

    As for most of the population increase being immigrants, of course that's true....
    Even the guardian agrees with me for god sake!

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...ublicservices1

    'Overview: Net immigration has added 1.5 million people to the population over the last 10 years. Two-thirds of them have come from the continents of Asia and Africa. In 2006 the total UK population was 60.6m. If net immigration continues at its current rate, as the government actuary's department calculates, the total population in 2031 will be 70m, and by 2081 it will be 85m'

    Its also a well known fact that immigrant communities have higher fertility figures, although i suppose that wouldn't count as they are now British citizens.
    You're quibbling over me overestimating the growth.

    And yet you've failed to make any point whatsoever about the meat of what I said? What's your point? Communities fertility figures drop after integration into society. That's the only thing that's worth answering and when the community is only a few % of the total population I can't really see where this massive increase in numbers is going to come from. You also managed to ignore the fact that many of these people have returned to their own countries. And that net migration is a two way process. Thus the .2 per thousand figure. Which is small fry. It's all very well saying 2 million have come in, but when most of those are Polish immigrants the vast majority of which who will leave within 5 years, who cares? They were providing valuable labour, to areas where there were skills shortages.

    So what is your point. Can you mathematically see how this nonsense works? Care to make a projection based on actual statistics. I doubt it, just like all the other jokers they're spinning statistics and pulling stuff out of their arse.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JMonkey)
    And yet you've failed to make any point whatsoever about the meat of what I said? What's your point? Communities fertility figures drop after integration into society. That's the only thing that's worth answering and when the community is only a few % of the total population I can't really see where this massive increase in numbers is going to come from. You also managed to ignore the fact that many of these people have returned to their own countries. And that net migration is a two way process. Thus the .2 per thousand figure. Which is small fry. It's all very well saying 2 million have come in, but when most of those are Polish immigrants the vast majority of which who will leave within 5 years, who cares? They were providing valuable labour, to areas where there were skills shortages.
    The guardian article states the immigrants population that have stayed, and not returned home. Its net migration so by its nature it takes into account those immigrants returning home.

    The point is:
    1. The UKs population is rising fairly fast (0.27-0.29) growth rate
    2. Average Net Migration to the UK every year (for the last 8 years or so) is around 200,000
    3. The population is rising by 300,000 (for the last 8 years or so or so every year.)
    4. Ergo 2/3 of the population rise is due to immigrants.

    I didn't even say it was a bad thing, just stating the facts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joluk)
    The guardian article states the immigrants population that have stayed, and not returned home. Its net migration so by its nature it takes into account those immigrants returning home.

    The point is:
    1. The UKs population is rising fairly fast (0.27-0.29) growth rate
    2. Average Net Migration to the UK every year (for the last 8 years or so) is around 200,000
    3. The population is rising by 300,000 (for the last 8 years or so or so every year.)
    4. Ergo 2/3 of the population rise is due to immigrants.

    I didn't even say it was a bad thing, just stating the facts.
    Oh dear. Yes but genius, what it doesn't take account of is for example the majority of the people who come here will return to their country of origin eventually. That's why they take the immigration over 40 years instead of 5 minutes.

    Again where does this cause a problem and in what way? You imply this is going to cause problems, but you don't say what? As if you've assumed that these rises are exponential or aren't subject to complex migrational dynamics, or are valid at all. This is the problem with this bilge, diversity just doesn't vary in the way they make out. Nor does it even cause the problems they make out. Unless you don't like people who aren't white. In the last 60 years population has gone from 1% to 7% non ethnic British and mixed race. who the hell cares? And does anyone really think it's going to be 60% by 2060? It's just laughable nonsense. Show me a proper study that suggests the level of migrants over a prolonged period and I'll take note. Trouble is if you do that, then the figures don't look as scary. Honestly newspapers are not good sources for demographics, particularly ones that are on one political extreme or the other.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redhanded)
    If we value freedom in this country, should we exclusivise entry to the country and deny that freedom to others?
    Yes.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see why people are complaining about immigration, particularly intra-EU movements of labour.

    A skilled polish manual worker comes in, works for 5 years, pays a load of taxes, goes home.

    There's virtually no costs for the government involved. They didn't need to pay for his education, they won't need to pay for his pensions. You should be thanking them!

    (Original post by lotsofsnails)
    "This population rise, brought about by rising immigration, will strain our infrastructures - our housing and water supplies - and bring very little advantage to the nation," said Dyson, who will address the conference. "Nor do I think these extra people will be able to help in looking after our older people."
    Whatever he's saying is a load of toss.

    Strain on infrastructures? What, like there's suddenly a need to build new roads because a bunch of Romanian people on their bicycles come in?

    Housing and water supplies. Oh dear. There's a thousands of houses standing empty in the area I'm in (Selly Oak, Birmingham). I'm also pretty sure water is the last thing this country will run out of.

    How does paying a lot of tax not help with looking after the elderly? The immigrants paying the bloody pensions of the said old people, and as I said above, they're not going to be a drain on the pensions system because they'll be going home after a couple of years.

    Justifying xenophobia on some climate-talk is just silly. The same people will still be consuming water, food, etc. and creating CO2 emmissions just the same no matter if they're in Romania or England. Global warming by its very nature isn't dependent on which country the emmissions are made in. If you pollute in England or Romania won't make a difference in the long term, with regard to global warming. Hence the word "global". Yes, there is overpopulation in the world, but British immigration policy is not going to have any effect on it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Funny how the socialist scum quickly change their tune once the old myth of 'economic benefit' is over. Why exactly would anyone willingly support something which by every measure is damaging and a detriment to Britain?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    Funny how the socialist scum quickly change their tune once the old myth of 'economic benefit' is over. Why exactly would anyone willingly support something which by every measure is damaging and a detriment to Britain?
    Congratulations on failing to read the thread and not noting the apparent benefits of immigration, which are undeniably much greater than the perceived inconvenience of living next to someone with a strange accent and different skin colour.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HJV)
    I don't see why people are complaining about immigration, particularly intra-EU movements of labour.

    A skilled polish manual worker comes in, works for 5 years, pays a load of taxes, goes home.

    There's virtually no costs for the government involved. They didn't need to pay for his education, they won't need to pay for his pensions. You should be thanking them!
    Oh, yes. Here we go again - the Polish - a nation of artisans and geniuses that are going to save us from ourselves and fix all our plumbing problems.:rolleyes: Quite honestly, HTF do you know whether they are skilled or not? Many of them are employed picking strawberries FFS. How skilled do you need to do that? As for their famed "skilled tradesmen", what do you know about it?

    And what do you mean, "there's no costs for the government"? What about the costs of a standing army of unemployed British workers?

    It's all very well you talking about them paying "loads of taxes" - hey that's great. But a British worker doing the same job would also pay "loads of taxes". He'd also spend his take home salary in the British economy and not send it back home to another country.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Oh, yes. Here we go again - the Polish - a nation of artisans and geniuses that are going to save us from ourselves and fix all our plumbing problems.:rolleyes: Quite honestly, HTF do you know whether they are skilled or not? Many of them are employed picking strawberries FFS. How skilled do you need to do that? As for their famed "skilled tradesmen", what do you know about it?

    And what do you mean, "there's no costs for the government"? What about the costs of a standing army of unemployed British workers?

    It's all very well you talking about them paying "loads of taxes" - hey that's great. But a British worker doing the same job would also pay "loads of taxes". He'd also spend his take home salary in the British economy and not send it back home to another country.
    Well clearly if your so-called "standing army of unemployed British workers" was capable and qualified (and willing) to do the jobs that the immigrants are doing, they would be hired there.

    Do note that your British worker will also be claiming 20 odd years of pensions, something which the Romanian guy won't be doing. An immigrant's tax contributions in relation to what he takes from the government's budget are undeniably greater.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HJV)
    Well clearly if your so-called "standing army of unemployed British workers" was capable and qualified (and willing) to do the jobs that the immigrants are doing, they would be hired there.

    Do note that your British worker will also be claiming 20 odd years of pensions, something which the Romanian guy won't be doing. An immigrant's tax contributions in relation to what he takes from the government's budget are undeniably greater.
    Well, if they were prepared to leave their wives and children and live with six other men in a rented bedsit next to a building site a la "Auf Wiedersehn Pet" they could probably compete and get a job. Or perhaps if the cost of living in the UK suddenly reduced to levels seen in the Ukraine then perhaps a British bricklayer could afford to work for five quid an hour.

    I agree that the Romanian guy won't get a pension. But So what? The British guy, (who was unemployed remember) will still get his pension. So what's the real benefit here?
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
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.