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

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

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nathanielle)
    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.
    That is a moral argument for doing what Germany is doing and does not change the consequences for Germany.

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

    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.
    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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    The path to naturalisation has essentially been closed to everyone with less than a middle class salary, with some caveats.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nathanielle)
    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.
    A passport free zone is not policing borders within the zone.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    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.
    I concede there are caveats.

    Another is that there is some grandfathering-in. The full effect of the changes will not be realised for a several years.

    However in general rich men importing brides is not a huge problem, because rich men have choice and their choice of bride will tend to share their values, aptitude, and interests. Not always, but often enough on average.

    What had been concerning was the tendency of poor men to sell British citizenship on the Pakistani marriage market.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    A passport free zone is not policing borders within the zone.
    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nathanielle)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nathanielle)
    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.
    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.

    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.
    I think you have misunderstood my position.

    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.

    My point is not that all immigration is harmful. Differential immigration of highly capable people into the UK and largely incapable people in Germany is what would cause the divergence.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nathanielle)
    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.
    There are a huge number of EU Nationals working in the UK:


    http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/la...ally-adjusted-
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Any idiots who reckon open borders is safer than controlled borders needs to be medically examined
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    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.
    Yeah, because refugees only take the roads with border control, they don't get the idea to use the woods at nights ... Even the totally cruel border around the DDR could not hinder people from fleeing!
    Concerning terrorism: Huge amount of them come from rich enough families, well-situated with lots of options, already naturalized for years, ... so not the people who would be hindered by stricter immigration laws.

    (Original post by Observatory)
    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.
    Yes, there were, but it made more sense to naturalise them, because they were already integrated. They had jobs, often spoke German due to having worked with Germans, etc. ... totally different situation to now.

    (Original post by Observatory)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by newpersonage)
    There are a huge number of EU Nationals working in the UK:


    http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/la...ally-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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nathanielle)
    ....
    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.
    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?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nathanielle)
    Yes, there were, but it made more sense to naturalise them, because they were already integrated. They had jobs, often spoke German due to having worked with Germans, etc. ... totally different situation to now.
    But not totally different to the situation when the Gastarbeiter were first introduced.

    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.
    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    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?
    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.

    (Original post by Observatory)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nathanielle)
    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.
    I was not talking about economics. I was talking about being governed from middle Europe. At least when a government understands the history and circumstances of the people it governs we have some chance of meeting their needs but when over 90% of EU MEPs are not from the UK and the UK only has 8.5% of the vote in the EU Council there is little chance of getting any real understanding.

    Of course, the mobile middle class MEPs will understand mobile middle class "Remain" voters.

    On the economic front, Germany is not doing great, they were, but not now:



    Here is a list of the richest countries per capita in the world:

    1 Luxembourg 103,187
    2 Switzerland 82,178
    3 Qatar 78,829
    4 Norway 76,266
    5 United States 55,904
    6 Singapore 53,224
    7 Australia 51,642
    8 Denmark 51,424
    9 Iceland 51,068
    10 San Marino 49,139
    11 Sweden 48,966
    12 Ireland 48,940
    13 Netherlands 44,333
    14 United Kingdom 44,118

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...%29_per_capita

    (Germany is 18th in the list)

    What do you notice? Most apart from the USA and UK are small countries with little influence.
    The countries in bold type are the EFTA members (West European countries that are NOT in the EU.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nathanielle)
    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.)
    Ultimately yes, laws must be enforced by military means, ultimately by use of deadly force. That's not something unique to immigration laws. If I do not pay my taxes, and then attack the bailiffs sent to seize my property, and then attack the police sent to arrest me for doing so, etc., then the government will use deadly force to apply its tax laws to me, even over a totally trivial sum. There is no moral outrage about this, certainly not from the left.

    Of course what would happen if immigration laws were enforced that way is not that huge numbers of people would die, but rather very few people would come. Similarly, I pay my taxes, even though I don't agree with the moral justification for them. I would rather not pay them, but it's not worth dying over.

    What has happened here is that people in governments, who oppose immigration laws, have used executive privilege to choose not to enforce them. If they didn't oppose those laws, chose to enforce them, and did so rigorously, then the problem would vanish, just as there is effectively no asylum crisis in the UK. Even the numbers in the Calais "jungle" are trivial - trivial because most correctly judge that Calais isn't a very effective route to UK citizenship.

    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.
    The EU does not oblige France to permit Britain to have a de-facto frontier on the French side of the chunnel. That is an inter-governmental agreement.

    Some have suggested that, if Britain were to leave the EU, the French government would repudiate that inter-governmental agreement in an attempt to punish the UK. It may well do so. However, that would not remove Britain's ability to control its border, since Britain simply refuse entry to Eurostar trains if the French government did not control who was on board them or accept the return of rejected passengers. In effect the French could make the chunnel inoperable, but could not force Britain to accept persons without valid entry documents. The French could also do this right now; it isn't related to EU membership.

    If on the other hand Britain were fully in the EU, Britain would be a Schengen member and would not have a frontier on either side of the chunnel.
 
 
 
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: February 26, 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
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
  • 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

    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.