Iain Duncan Smith - "Staying in EU increases terror risk"

Currently Britain's policy is that if you want to be an economic immigrant then you must earn over 35k/year and if you are an asylum seeker you had better already have a visa to enter the country which in practice means very few people can claim asylum.

Currently Germany's policy is to increase its population by about 1% each year via the asylum system with totally unselected young men from third world countries that are mostly Islamic. The two immigrant pools are going to be very different; they probably have very little overlap in terms of background. If that continues for twenty five years then Britain and Germany, which in 1990 were very similar countries, would not be in 2040. At that point a visa requirement might make sense.

1) Yes, Germany is more generous towards refugees, because Germany has (had) a very liberal Asylum system due to the experience of German jews seeking asylum outside Germany ... those who had not enough money were simply sent back and ... anyone knows what happened to them.

2) As a lot of Pro-Brexiters cite the Common Wealth as alternative, What will you do with Pakistan and Bangladesh?

3) Getting asylum and German citizenship are two different things. Asylum in Germany is not the honey-milk-dream, anyone thinks it is. The assumption, that every refugee is automatically a new citizen is a bit weired ... the laws making that possible simply do not exist.

The path to naturalisation has essentially been closed to everyone with less than a middle class salary, with some caveats.

No, I did not. Please use your reading comprehension. Not policing borders and passport free zone are two different things. As you might have read in some countries you can be controlled anywhere anytime and NO EU LAW says something against it.

We do some immigration work and it isn't, it truly isn't.

The point is that there is that a lot of immigrants making a very substantial life commitment to the UK and they organise their lives in order to qualify,

For example, they marry people who will secure them an immigration status. These are not sham marriages any more than Elizabeth Benet's marriage to Mr Darcy was a sham, but if Darcy was penniless the marriage wouldn't have happened.

A passport free zone is not policing borders within the zone.

That is a moral argument for doing what Germany is doing and does not change the consequences for Germany.


Commonwealth immigrants no longer have any automatic advantage in immigrating and obtaining citizenship (other than that they are more likely to already speak English). The path to naturalisation has essentially been closed to everyone with less than a middle class salary, with some caveats.


I think in practice the difference is one only of time. I do not see Germany deporting hundreds of thousands of people. It seems more likely that eventually the people already taken in will move over more people in the future as their families join them.

Bear in mind that Germany said the same thing about the Turkish Gastarbeiter - an exceptionally hardline stance for a Western country - but the end result has been modification of German citizenship laws to give them an easy path to citizenship.

Nope, as you need to have a passport to be allowed to be in the zone. Again: To less police forces and no plans isn't the same as no passports. No passports does only apply to EU citizens.

Bear in mind: the Turkish Gastarbeiters actually had joby in Germany, did work in Germany and thus denying them to stay, would have been really illogic.

I was referring to the proposal of Pro-Leavers to strengthen the ties with the Commenwealth, which then would also mean, to have again more immigration from there. It is also easier for them to go to the UK, as they already had their education being conducted in English and those countries are not only full of poor people not qualfying for immigration, but also of people who do qualify.

Bear in mind: the Turkish Gastarbeiters actually had joby in Germany, did work in Germany and thus denying them to stay, would have been really illogic.

I was referring to the proposal of Pro-Leavers to strengthen the ties with the Commenwealth, which then would also mean, to have again more immigration from there. It is also easier for them to go to the UK, as they already had their education being conducted in English and those countries are not only full of poor people not qualfying for immigration, but also of people who do qualify.

The point the Interpol boss was making is that terrorists would have been intercepted at borders within the zone and unable to wander over an entire continent at will.

They were brought in explicitly on condition that they would have no path to citizenship. Eventually pressure grew to naturalise them. That is precisely my point: whatever is said now, in reality I expect that near the whole asylum influx to date will eventually be naturalised.

Germany is bringing in a huge new underclass. Britain, at least in principle, is bringing in only skilled workers, who will be independent net taxpayers. This will lead to a significant divergence in culture and probably also living standards between the two countries.

There are a huge number of EU Nationals working in the UK:


http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/february-2016/statistical-bulletin.html#tab-3--Employment-by-nationality-and-country-of-birth--not-seasonally-adjusted-

....
Without free movement, there will be less. EU workers also work in "lower skilled jobs" (again I am referring to what the Pro-Leavers already see as low skilled), because the UK cannot provide with enough people skilled in those lower jobs.

True, but part of the reason why the UK is able to due that is ironically due to EU Law. E.g. France have also stated, that the UK will have to control its borders by itself, whether the UK will be still allowed to sent refugees back will be also on stake, etc. ... The UK can only do this, because other countries do the dirty work for them, take on the consequences. The refugees are there, on has to deal with it. And it is not, that the UK never e.g. walked into Iraq, or?
Up to now, the British culture is more diverse than in Germany, so Germany still has to reach to the point, where the UK is already. Most Muslims(especially from foreign UK colonies) I know, prefer living in the UK.

In all economies the presence of low paid, low skilled workers stifles the drive towards productivity and higher pay.

Is it really in the interests of the UK population that any investment in jobs has a 50% chance of drawing in workers from outside the UK? The rapid increase in population has been supporting property rental prices, which supports house prices which deprives you and me of a place to own and makes us poor.

I know that you are looking at this problem from the "EU perspective" but unless each country can govern its own affairs and nurture its own populations you are just opening the door to rampant corporate exploitation.

Why do you hate poor British people so much?

But not totally different to the situation when the Gastarbeiter were first introduced.

I don't agree that this is some kind of natural disaster. These people could have been refused at the border, as they are by the UK, but they were not. Germany made that choice, and is opposed to measures by the border states to close the Schengen external border. That there are moral arguments for having taken that course of action, I do not deny. That does not mean that it was the only or necessarily the best course to have taken, or that other countries could not do things differently.

Saying that the UK can control its border because of EU law is absurd. The UK can control its border because of its special exemptions to EU law.

I don't hate poor British. I just see, that e.g. poor Germans seem to have more chances, so I highly doubt, that it is because of the EU. The UK lacks apprenticeships and forces everyone into universities, hence the British youth becomes less competitive. (And maybe some of the politicians are a bit too far away from reality, though this counts of course not only for the UK. Nevertheless I have absolutely not trust that most of the UK politicians will suddenly begin to care about the poor, once being out of the EU. They just use the EU as a scapegoat to differ from their own failure.)

I just think, that one European country is sadly to small to compete against India or China, hence we are forced to work together, if we want to play a role in the future.

It is totally different, because at that time Germany lacked workers and needed those Gastarbeiter. Now we are talking about refugees (the real ones) and basically illegal immigrants. And how you want to refuse people at the border? Oh, I forgot, just let another country deal with them or let them drown in the sea. (I am not a Merkel supporter, but your alternative of just closing the border is utopian.)

No it is not absurd (border control), even some of the Tories make that point. Just take Calais and the right to sent refugees back to the countries, where they arrived first. Without the EU, the UK can no more rely on those. The number of refugees and migrants will hence increase.