Turn on thread page Beta

Should we grant amnesty to illegal immigrants in the UK? watch

  • View Poll Results: Should we grant amnesty to illegal immigrants in the UK?
    Yes
    15
    27.27%
    No
    38
    69.09%
    No comment/Don't know
    2
    3.64%

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    What would be the point of such a union if there weren't such advantages?
    I asked first - why should we reject a Turk and accept a Romanian?

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    We should provide free healthcare to the world? The State has a responsibility to its citizens, not the world.

    It's not circular at all - the British State has a responsibility to its citizens, not to the whole world.
    Ah, okay. But then the principle behind the welfare state collapses - that government funding and provision is to help people who can't afford to buy these services on the free market, doesn't it?

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    OK, I've explained this numerous times now. Having immigration controls is a necessary element of every State for societal cohesion,
    Preserving "societal cohesion" - couldn't that argument be used against the Jews by the Arabs in the mandate?

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    security,
    I accept that one reason. As I responded to Howard,

    "So why raise taxes at all for deportation, except where people have committed a crime, if somebody isn't trying to claim British citizenship - just to work here?"

    Of course, you aren't arguing for criminal prosecution (as I am) - you're arguing for foreigner prosecution, namely the principle that foreign people might be a 'security' threat, so should be precluded from entry prima facie. Doesn't the same argument work for a total ban on tourism? Would you support that?

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    economic reasons, etc. Believing in that (as every State does) is not opposition to free movement of people.
    Protecting workers in your own country is not only against the free movement of people, but it's - as we've already established - a nationalist policy. By comparison, should the government intervene to protect British jobs in manufacturing sectors that might be outsourcing? If not, why not?

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    That is not what "trade" means in this circumstance.
    Trade is the exchange of goods or of services. It doesn't have any circumstantial meanings.

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    What crap are you talking now. People who pay taxes ARE given access to the welfare State and that's fair. I oppose giving access to illegal immigrants who have violated our laws by being here illegally.
    And I agree - in principle - that people who have violated British law oughtn't receive the benefits of the welfare state. But if a Turk were to come to Britain today, and be willing to pay taxes, why shouldn't he be allowed to?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    I asked first - why should we reject a Turk and accept a Romanian?
    You answer my question, I'll answer yours. I'm sick of having to be the one who answers.

    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    Ah, okay. But then the principle behind the welfare state collapses - that government funding and provision is to help people who can't afford to buy these services on the free market, doesn't it?
    I think the principle is to allow everyone access to basic services, but as I've said, I'm not a fan of the welfare state as it is.

    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    Preserving "societal cohesion" - couldn't that argument be used against the Jews by the Arabs in the mandate?
    Not really, given that the two communities lived fairly separately - as I said before, stop trying to deploy person-specific points on topics you don't really know about.

    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    you're arguing for foreigner prosecution, namely the principle that foreign people might be a 'security' threat, so should be precluded from entry prima facie. Doesn't the same argument work for a total ban on tourism? Would you support that?
    You have really GOT to stop telling me what I am and am not arguing for. Before people move to this country, they should be vetted security-wise. Again, not an original or difficult concept. I don't think this entails a guilty presumption or "prima facie exclusion" - it's simply prudence.

    It seems a primary theme in your arguments is making claims about what other people believe and argue for, you really need to learn to actually ask rather than guessing and/or making it up.

    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    Protecting workers in your own country is not only against the free movement of people, but it's - as we've already established - a nationalist policy.
    Once again, utter misrepresentation of what I said. I say that there can be economic reasons for limiting immigration, you start pretending that I'm arguing for "protecting workers" and it's some nationalistic policy.

    In fact, you know what? *******s to this. I was going to respond to the rest, but the fact is that every time I respond to you, you make-up some new "argument" that I've apparently made (but actually haven't). I'm spending a large amount of my time in this topic simply repeating the phrase "I didn't say that", as you construct yet another straw-man. It's very boring.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    You answer my question, I'll answer yours. I'm sick of having to be the one who answers.
    Fine. Your question, "What would be the point of such a union if there weren't such advantages?" Answer: there wouldn't need to be one, if the external advantages of EU membership (free trade, movement of peoples) were offered to all nations indiscriminately.

    Now, why should we reject a Turk and accept an Estonian?

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Not really, given that the two communities lived fairly separately - as I said before, stop trying to deploy person-specific points on topics you don't really know about.
    It isn't "person-specific." It might be said that Islamic communities (in Blackburn or Bolton, near where I live, for example) live "fairly separately" from the white population.

    Could you explain what you meant by "societal cohesion," since it was your term?

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    You have really GOT to stop telling me what I am and am not arguing for. Before people move to this country, they should be vetted security-wise. Again, not an original or difficult concept. I don't think this entails a guilty presumption or "prima facie exclusion" - it's simply prudence.
    I agree. Entirely. 100%. People should be vetted for crimes they've committed elsewhere, and, if they haven't served their sentence (or indeed been caught) they should be extradited to the nation in which they first comitted a crime.

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Once again, utter misrepresentation of what I said. I say that there can be economic reasons for limiting immigration, you start pretending that I'm arguing for "protecting workers" and it's some nationalistic policy.
    What "economic reasons," if not the protection of "British" jobs?

    When I said "Other than job security and health care provision, I can't think of anything of substance which allowing more non-EU migrants would alter"; you responded "Those being two of THE most important things to your average person..."

    I didn't mean to mispresent your argument; indeed, if you're opposed to the welfare state and opposed to protectionism, then I'm sure - as with the security checks - we'll agree on a great deal. But since you described "job security" and "health care provision" as "two of THE most important things to your average person," I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that these were the grounds on which you opposed open borders.

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    In fact, you know what? *******s to this. I was going to respond to the rest, but the fact is that every time I respond to you, you make-up some new "argument" that I've apparently made (but actually haven't). I'm spending a large amount of my time in this topic simply repeating the phrase "I didn't say that", as you construct yet another straw-man. It's very boring.
    Perhaps you could explain, clearly and unambiguously, what the precise reasons are for you to oppose open borders? If you say "economic reasons" or "societal cohesion," I can only respond to the arguments I might use to defend those positions, or those that I've heard other people use. If, on the other hand, you set out the actual arguments (not just-'security, economy, society') why you're against it, then I can respond accordingly.

    Again, I apologise if I've misrepresented your opinion. But when one is confronted with a lot of opinion and little argument, it is difficult to reason and argue back.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    Fine. Your question, "What would be the point of such a union if there weren't such advantages?" Answer: there wouldn't need to be one, if the external advantages of EU membership (free trade, movement of peoples) were offered to all nations indiscriminately.
    So in your opinion the EU is pointless because either we should let the whole world in or no-one?

    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    It isn't "person-specific." It might be said that Islamic communities (in Blackburn or Bolton, near where I live, for example) live "fairly separately" from the white population.
    Would you be bringing up Mandatory Jewish immigration if discussing this topic with anyone else on TSR but me?

    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    Could you explain what you meant by "societal cohesion," since it was your term?
    Admittedly it's something that multiculturalism has damaged severely, but I still believe that there are basic fundamental values of this country and that people are bound together by being British citizens - with a common heritage, language etc. Open the borders to anyone at all and that's damaged even further.

    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    I agree. Entirely. 100%. People should be vetted for crimes they've committed elsewhere, and, if they haven't served their sentence (or indeed been caught) they should be extradited to the nation in which they first comitted a crime.
    Glad we agree.

    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    What "economic reasons," if not the protection of "British" jobs?
    What about the basic functioning of the State - unemployment, housing provision, the basic number of people in the country?
    age person..."

    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    I didn't mean to mispresent your argument; indeed, if you're opposed to the welfare state and opposed to protectionism, then I'm sure - as with the security checks - we'll agree on a great deal.
    Yes indeed.

    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    But since you described "job security" and "health care provision" as "two of THE most important things to your average person," I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that these were the grounds on which you opposed open borders.
    I think you assume (incorrectly) that I'm your average person.

    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    Perhaps you could explain, clearly and unambiguously, what the precise reasons are for you to oppose open borders?
    1. Security grounds, especially in the last few years where terrorism has become a real and potent threat, as mentioned.
    2. The fact that the country can only hold so many people and is already a very popular destination for refugees and economic migrants. There's a finite capacity to the UK - our basic infrastructure cannot support an infinite number of people - at some point we'll run out of housing and space in general, just as a start.
    3. A country needs a variety of people to function - we do not need endless millions of unskilled labourers - even if they were all tax-payers, we're still limited in how many doctors and other professionals we have to support those millions.
    4. Given that there is a finite amount of space and a need for a variety of people in order for the country to function (as I have argued), obviously we need to prioritise who we let in - which is the opposite of opening up our borders.
    5. So, whilst I approve of free trade and oppose protectionism, and in principle like the idea of free movement of people - it's just not feasible. And this is all without even raising issues to do with the welfare state.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    So in your opinion the EU is pointless because either we should let the whole world in or no-one?
    Yes; if, in principle, we believe that country of origin should not be a discriminatory factor for goods and services from Estonia, Lithuania or Romania, why don't we believe it for the United States, Canada or Japan?

    What I'm trying to show is that being the criteria for EU membership has no coherent relation to the benefits, and its therefore entirely arbitrary. Benefit - people can leave your country and move to other EU nations; Condition - you introduce democratic reforms and secularism. But why, if the benefit allows people to leave a state, why must it be a precondition that that state subscribes to certain principles?

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Would you be bringing up Mandatory Jewish immigration if discussing this topic with anyone else on TSR but me?
    Probably not; but it's because I wanted to draw out a step of your argument that I couldn't understand - and indeed, still don't. Some Islamic communities in Britain voluntarily segregate themselves (as in Blackburn or Bolton), and if this is against "societal cohesion" - one of the original (vague) reasons you gave, then why isn't the Zionist communities decision to live "fairly separately" from the 'native' Arabs also against "societal cohesion?" Ultimately, given that I can't attribute any of the specific points with which you conclude confidently to "societal cohesion," I'm assuming that you've ceased to use that as a reason - which I was pushing for, because it's implicitly collectivist.

    (And I mis-understood your use of "person-specific." I thought you were referring, en masse, to the specific personal scenario of conflict between Arabs and Jews - as opposed to between you and I )

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Admittedly it's something that multiculturalism has damaged severely, but I still believe that there are basic fundamental values of this country and that people are bound together by being British citizens - with a common heritage, language etc. Open the borders to anyone at all and that's damaged even further.
    What about unlimited migration, then, from ex-British colonies - India, the United States, the African colonies, Australia, the Carribean nations &c? This is a compromise; because throughout the period of the British Empire, they were integral to our island's history, and were the destination for our exported values. They largely spoke English - and indeed, the book whence I quoted earlier, by Churchill, was called "A History of the English-Speaking Peoples," and Churchill was the last real exponent of the nineteenth century Whiggery, which viewed Britain as exceptional in its tolerance, diversity and liberty. It seems to me that you're invoking these same arguments (that to be born British is to come first in the lottery of life), and so, by extension, would agree to make an exception for ex-British colonies?

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    What about the basic functioning of the State - unemployment, housing provision, the basic number of people in the country?
    age person..."
    Unemployment - let the market decide, abolish social security payments.
    Housing provision - let the market decide, loosen planning laws.
    The number of people in the country - let the market decide; this might be a problem within the present welfare state climate, but - were these impediments to be removed - I see no reason why we need to fear "overpopulating".

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    I think you assume (incorrectly) that I'm your average person.
    The manner in which you presented it was as though it was heresy for me to question these precepts of welfarism and protectionism.


    (Original post by JonathanH)
    1. Security grounds, especially in the last few years where terrorism has become a real and potent threat, as mentioned.
    Fine. But no prima facie rejections - people must be shown to have either comitted a crime in another country or conspired to commit a crime against British citizens.

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    2. The fact that the country can only hold so many people and is already a very popular destination for refugees and economic migrants. There's a finite capacity to the UK - our basic infrastructure cannot support an infinite number of people - at some point we'll run out of housing and space in general, just as a start.
    If we were to abolish the welfare state, do you think Britain would remain a "very popular destination for refugees and economic migrants?" I don't - if, for example, we were to withdraw from the EU (in order to abolish social security obligations) - other European states would be more attractive for low skilled economic migrants and refugees, whilst more investors (due to lower taxes, less regulation) would view the UK as a more profitable business environment, thus attracting investment which would attract high skilled workers.

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    3. A country needs a variety of people to function - we do not need endless millions of unskilled labourers - even if they were all tax-payers, we're still limited in how many doctors and other professionals we have to support those millions.
    Ignoring the recent terrorist attack on Glasgow airport, don't you see how your 'problem' solves itself? If you have free migration, then more doctors and other professionals - who are self-interested, not altruistic - will be inclined to move to low tax countries, especially if, for example, the health insurance market were deregulated. "Millions of unskilled labourers" would, on the other hand, flock to a socialist paradise like France - where unions are strong and the slightest suggestion that you deregulate is met with barricades and violence.


    (Original post by JonathanH)
    4. Given that there is a finite amount of space and a need for a variety of people in order for the country to function (as I have argued), obviously we need to prioritise who we let in - which is the opposite of opening up our borders.
    Two points; "the country" doesn't "function" as an organic unit - it is just the aggregation of individuals and voluntary cooperation between them that gives the impression of some controlling principle (Marx's motor of history), when really - as Friedrich Hayek has shown - there is "spontaneous order" in the marketplace. Secondly, wouldn't you agree that the market does a pretty good job of rationing how much of every good we receive - so why can't the same be done with services? Rather than expend labour in creating a good which satisfies people's wants, you're just spending the same time satisfying other people's wants more directly - by serving them. So the market "priotises" who comes into Britain (by offering higher wages) - it is who is wanted the most, which, I think would broadly correspond to your conception of what we "need... in order for the country to function."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    What I'm trying to show is that being the criteria for EU membership has no coherent relation to the benefits, and its therefore entirely arbitrary. Benefit - people can leave your country and move to other EU nations; Condition - you introduce democratic reforms and secularism. But why, if the benefit allows people to leave a state, why must it be a precondition that that state subscribes to certain principles?
    Except you're taking one benefit and one condition and trying to say that the one is dependent on the other - rather than looking at ALL the aspects and benefits of the EU. The secularism and democratic reforms do not JUST allow the benefit of free movement for your people, they, more broadly, allow membership of an increasingly powerful political union.

    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    then why isn't the Zionist communities decision to live "fairly separately" from the 'native' Arabs also against "societal cohesion?"
    Because the Mandate had no proper society to begin with? It wasn't a State, it didn't have a national identity or the institutions of a State - it was a completely different situation to modern day Britain.

    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    It seems to me that you're invoking these same arguments (that to be born British is to come first in the lottery of life), and so, by extension, would agree to make an exception for ex-British colonies?
    Those colonies are now their own States with their own institutions - the people do not have a link to the UK in anything more than language (in some places) - they have their own culture. And it's not about coming first in the lottery of life, it's just about being born in one country, as oppose to another.

    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    Unemployment - let the market decide, abolish social security payments.
    In theory a nice idea - one I could support, but I don't want to be stepping over starving, homeless people the whole time.

    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    Housing provision - let the market decide, loosen planning laws.
    That doesn't change the fact that we may very well not have enough houses to put everyone in. Or the space to build all these houses. Land is a finite resource - there's an upper limit to how many people we can jam in.

    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    The number of people in the country - let the market decide; this might be a problem within the present welfare state climate, but - were these impediments to be removed - I see no reason why we need to fear "overpopulating".
    It's more than just the welfare state that's a draw - this is a modern, first-world country. Anyway, we're stuck with the welfare state for now, and I'd rather deal with reality rather than endless hypotheticals.

    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    The manner in which you presented it was as though it was heresy for me to question these precepts of welfarism and protectionism.
    Oh, well, I don't think that's heresy.

    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    Fine. But no prima facie rejections - people must be shown to have either comitted a crime in another country or conspired to commit a crime against British citizens.
    To what standard of evidence? And if we had as many applicants as I suspect - it'd take a hell of a lot of people and time to carry out such investigations...

    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    If we were to abolish the welfare state, do you think Britain would remain a "very popular destination for refugees and economic migrants?" I don't - if, for example, we were to withdraw from the EU
    But once again this is all academic because we're not about to get rid of the welfare state or pull out of the EU. If we want to talk about an amnesty for illegal immigrants, why deal with these absolute hypotheticals?

    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    If you have free migration, then more doctors and other professionals - who are self-interested, not altruistic - will be inclined to move to low tax countries, especially if, for example, the health insurance market were deregulated. "Millions of unskilled labourers" would, on the other hand, flock to a socialist paradise like France - where unions are strong and the slightest suggestion that you deregulate is met with barricades and violence.
    But we do need SOME unskilled labourers! You're theorising that we'll just somehow get exactly the right people in exactly the right quantities we need, rather than by any sort of organised selection process about who we let in. Keep immigration limited and we can take in as many doctors or unskilled labourers as we need - drop all control and we can't do that.

    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    "the country" doesn't "function" as an organic unit - it is just the aggregation of individuals and voluntary cooperation between them that gives the impression of some controlling principle (Marx's motor of history), when really - as Friedrich Hayek has shown - there is "spontaneous order" in the marketplace.
    Doesn't change the fact that certain conditions, people, etc. are needed within the country in order for things to work.

    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    So the market "priotises" who comes into Britain (by offering higher wages) - it is who is wanted the most, which, I think would broadly correspond to your conception of what we "need... in order for the country to function."
    As I said before - "You're theorising that we'll just somehow get exactly the right people in exactly the right quantities we need, rather than by any sort of organised selection process about who we let in. Keep immigration limited and we can take in as many doctors or unskilled labourers as we need - drop all control and we can't do that."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Why the hell? That would be rewarding illegals. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lamenter)
    Why the hell? That would be rewarding illegals. :rolleyes:
    Indeed. For all this fine talk about it being "economically advantageous" we cannot escape the fact that they are illegal. They have broken the law. Why should we turn a blind eye to what is a crime?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Except you're taking one benefit and one condition and trying to say that the one is dependent on the other - rather than looking at ALL the aspects and benefits of the EU. The secularism and democratic reforms do not JUST allow the benefit of free movement for your people, they, more broadly, allow membership of an increasingly powerful political union.
    That's a fair criticism of my point, which might be valid were we discussing some other aspect of the EU - farm subsidies, for example. But when people are trying to leave a nation - eg. Turkey - compelling the government to accept responsibility for the Armenian Genocide is wholly unrelated. I'd prefer, as I think you can see, either universal or bilateral agreements on the specific issue of immigration. The 'benefit' of movement of population doesn't help the governments of potential EU candidate countries - it helps the actual population. And if you would be willing to accept them, if their government complied with democratic reforms, then you have no reason to reject them because their national government hasn't done ]so. Essentially, I'm arguing for an individualist stance, instead of the collectivist one we currently have.

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Because the Mandate had no proper society to begin with? It wasn't a State, it didn't have a national identity or the institutions of a State - it was a completely different situation to modern day Britain.
    But there was a distinct Arabic culture - which conflicted with Jewish traditions (eg. the kibbutz) - in the regions hitherto under Ottoman rule. You surely wouldn't contest that prior to Jewish migration, there was no form of "society"?

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Those colonies are now their own States with their own institutions - the people do not have a link to the UK in anything more than language (in some places) - they have their own culture.
    I find this to be a very weak argument. As I said, for the best part of the last 250 years, English and Indian history have been intertwined. Your condition, that Britons share "a common heritage, language etc." is largely satisfied by English-speaking Indians, for example, unless you have something substantially different hidden in the "etc".

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    In theory a nice idea - one I could support, but I don't want to be stepping over starving, homeless people the whole time.
    We have homeless people now. Plus, if you don't like it, give them your charity. And, given that the roads and all 'public places' should be privately owned, you wouldn't have "to be stepping over starving, homeless people" - the proprietor could evict them.

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    That doesn't change the fact that we may very well not have enough houses to put everyone in. Or the space to build all these houses. Land is a finite resource - there's an upper limit to how many people we can jam in.
    True land is a finite resource - but it's hardly the case that new developments in Britain have proceeded too slowly. Rather, the 'problem' that new developments are unaffordable for low-income earners because the government imposes certain regulations on planning which push up the builder's costs and reduce the amount of available land (eg. land earmarked for non-residential development - such as the Olympic site). Plus, crowding out occurs as a result of the government subsidy to social housing.

    When you say "we may very well not have enough houses to put people in," you suppose that it is 'society's' duty to provide these services; I don't.

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    It's more than just the welfare state that's a draw - this is a modern, first-world country. Anyway, we're stuck with the welfare state for now, and I'd rather deal with reality rather than endless hypotheticals.
    What's attractive about a modern, first-world country, apart from the implication that people don't starve because of welfare benefits, they have education because it's state funded, they have healthcare as part of the cradle to grave welfare state? Higher wages - maybe - but why should native Brits have protected access to high wage jobs?

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    To what standard of evidence? And if we had as many applicants as I suspect - it'd take a hell of a lot of people and time to carry out such investigations...
    Assume, as with tourists, that they're innocent unless otherwise proven. I'm in favour of stopping people you know to be criminals, but not imposing a pre-requisite of proof of innocence of the potentail migrant.

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    But once again this is all academic because we're not about to get rid of the welfare state or pull out of the EU. If we want to talk about an amnesty for illegal immigrants, why deal with these absolute hypotheticals?
    I don't want an amnesty; I want actual open borders. And the point of online discussion forums is to consider 'academic,' 'hypothetical' ideologies - you're hardly in a position to affect these things, so you don't need to compromise from your principles.

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    But we do need SOME unskilled labourers! You're theorising that we'll just somehow get exactly the right people in exactly the right quantities we need, rather than by any sort of organised selection process about who we let in. Keep immigration limited and we can take in as many doctors or unskilled labourers as we need - drop all control and we can't do that.
    Not "just somehow" - by the market. The "right people in exactly the right quantities we need" will come, if we pay them enough, and they won't, if we don't - assuming no external factors (eg welfarism) distort their decision.

    And you say "keep immigration limited and we can take in as many doctors or unskilled labourers as we need"; given that there are 26 other countries in the EU from which unskilled labourers can move without obstruction, and to which non-EU migrants can initially apply for citizenship, the government can hardly control the present number of migrants - as the massive number of illegals illustrates. Plus - suppose we need 100,000 doctors. Do you reject the 100,001st one, on the grounds that "we're full up," or do you let him compete in the market place to try and provide the best services? I know which I prefer.

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Doesn't change the fact that certain conditions, people, etc. are needed within the country in order for things to work.
    "Things to work" - what things? "The country," as I clearly spelled out, isn't organic - a unit or an entity of its own capacity. The reason we have propserity in some capitalist nations is because, for the vast majority of our history, the government played no role whatsoever in regulating trade or providing health care and pensions - and that's a good thing. Spontaneous order is a product of the complexities that are necessarily a fact of life with 6 billion self-owning individuals when capitalist paradigms are followed. Your idea about 'planning' the number of doctors and unskilled labourers, and 'controlling' non-EU applicants is very dirigiste and presumes that the government can somehow discover precisely how many doctors we need. We know that monopoly is inefficient - so you give the government a monopoly over education, healthcare, pensions, transport and so on. The answer is less government and more international capitalism - which involves the free movement of goods and people/services.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Indeed. For all this fine talk about it being "economically advantageous" we cannot escape the fact that they are illegal. They have broken the law. Why should we turn a blind eye to what is a crime?
    We shouldn't - for current illegals - and compromising the rule of law for national economic interests is the province of dictators and socialists.

    On the other hand, should immigration be illegal? Can you justly compel somebody to stay where they were born?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    We shouldn't - for current illegals - and compromising the rule of law for national economic interests is the province of dictators and socialists.

    On the other hand, should immigration be illegal? Can you justly compel somebody to stay where they were born?
    What is this? Some kind of morality test?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    We shouldn't - for current illegals - and compromising the rule of law for national economic interests is the province of dictators and socialists.
    Not really. "Capitalist" and "democratic" countries have often flouted international law for their economic interest when it has suited them.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    We shouldn't - for current illegals - and compromising the rule of law for national economic interests is the province of dictators and socialists.

    On the other hand, should immigration be illegal? Can you justly compel somebody to stay where they were born?
    You do realize that non-restricted immigration in today's world will mean a doubling or tripling of the populations of most Western nations within a few years, which would completely destroy the social, medical, and criminal systems of the countries concerned. It would also depopulate much of the third world, leading to the same types of problems that were caused by the slave trade.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    do people realise immigration today is actually lower than a century ago? Pretty much unrestricted immigration to the US, esp. places like NY, have made it what it is today. I think our controls need sorting out, but i dont think we should have a closed immigration policy, it should just be open but have small, but well managed, controls. AS for legalising this mere half million, thats fine. Its not quite the same as legalising the 12m in the US (or is it 14m?). But the focus should be on keeping the bad apples out, which we're currently crap at doing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Consie)
    do people realise immigration today is actually lower than a century ago? Pretty much unrestricted immigration to the US, esp. places like NY, have made it what it is today. I think our controls need sorting out, but i dont think we should have a closed immigration policy, it should just be open but have small, but well managed, controls. AS for legalising this mere half million, thats fine. Its not quite the same as legalising the 12m in the US (or is it 14m?). But the focus should be on keeping the bad apples out, which we're currently crap at doing.
    When that 'pretty much unrestricted immigration' to the US took place, there was a need for unskilled labour and so on. You cannot compare a situation centuries ago to now and conclude that because unskilled and uneducated immigration was good then, it must be good now and must be always good.

    Noone is advocating a closed immigration policy, most Western countries have a sensible immigration policy where people with skills that are needed are allowed to come in, and provisions are made for genuine refugees. I don't think legalising this 'mere half million' is 'fine', if we get into the habit of amnestys it will soon be a figure that even you don't think is 'fine'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    On the other hand, should immigration be illegal? Can you justly compel somebody to stay where they were born?
    Yes, a state's right to control who emigrates to it is an important one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    The major difference being that i was joking, being tongue-in cheek, wheareas most people who bash immigrants on here are utterly serious. Of course i wouldn't kick all Tories out. But people WOULD really kick immigrants out if they could. You must surely see the difference.
    I can see the difference, but you didn't really justify it as such in the original post :p:.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agamemnon)
    It isn't economically advantageous to give citizenship to half a million people who do not speak the language, are uneducated and have no skills. It is also not economically advantageous to encourage more illegal immigration, which is what an amnesty would certainly do.

    Deportation may be too expensive, but we certainly shouldn't be encouraging more illegal immigration. Without the prospect of an amnesty many of these illegal immigrants may return home or move to live in a different country, knowing that they have no propect of any income while living here.
    How can you be sure that near none of them have any skills? I would say that is far from the truth. They did most likely have jobs, trades, skills in the country they travelled from :p:.

    I'm not sure an amnesty would encourage illegal immigration. Having one gives no indication as to whether we shall have one in the future or not.

    I disagree simply on these grounds, that these people have broken the laws of this country for reasons good or bad, and that they shouldn't be rewarded for that. As Howard has pointed out, we aren't rewarded for breaking the law so why should they be? Whether it is 'economically advantageous' or not is a) unimportant given the legal context and b) is usually the line trotted out when something will be socially destructive.

    I also doubt that many of these people are refugees. If you are a refugee, why did you come from Somalia to the UK, and not go to Kenya, or Egypt? Why did you break international law getting here? I can only assume that many people are getting lied too as to how they will be looked after here. I can only assume this is the case, as so many of these people seem to turn up entirely unprepared expecting everything to be ready when they arrive. Many immigrants have naive attitudes, rather than 'bad' ones IMO.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    You're extremely adroit, JonathanH, at ignoring my direct questions and picking up on out-of-context side points.


    I asked you directly:
    "If we accept labourers from Lithuania, why not from adjacent Russia?
    Real GDP per capita in 2000 (in 1996 dollars) - Lithuania = $7241, Russia = $8012.

    If we accept labourers from Bulgaria, why not from nearby Turkey and Lebanon?
    Real GDP per capita in 200 (in 1996 dollars) - Bulgaria = $5784. Turkey = $6837. Lebanon = $5779."


    Could you answer those points, please?

    At the margins, the EU is precisely the same as its neighbours, as the examples above show; so what is the defining principle that determines whether or not the citizens of a nation can move and work freely in Britain?



    Of course the EU is a political entity - but if the economic principles (distinct from the political ones) are to be held consistently (ie. that free markets are good, protectionism bad, unobstructed movement of people good, nationalistic barriers bad) then there's no reason to prevent a citizen of Turkey from moving freely to an EU state because Turkey isn't democratic.

    By approving of unlimited migration within the EU, and disapproving of it outside, you necessarily apply a political yardstick, instead of an economic one.


    Could you be more specific? What were these same "reasons behind the fighting," then?


    So then why did you respond, after I gave those examples, with "I haven't said either of those" - which suggests that you didn't oppose immigration on those grounds?


    "People in this country are bonded by nationality." "That's not nationalism." What is "nationalism," then? According to dictionary.com, it means:

    "the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations,"

    which you seem to have done pretty consistently in this thread.


    Spot on. Giving people access to schools, hospitals and welfare benefits because they happen to live on the same island, or in the same geographic area, is inconsistent with the belief that people deserve these facilities because they are in need.


    Why is it in the taxpayer's interests to do that? There are a class of people on low wages and not contributing in taxation - but more importantly, not benefitting from the welfare state. So why raise taxes at all for deportation, except where people have committed a crime, if somebody isn't trying to claim British citizenship - just to work here?
    The first two countries are in the EU, the others are not. We have a framework within which we can work hand-in-hand with these nations to manage immigration for everyones best benefit. We do not have that political and legal framework in place with the other mentioned nations.

    Remarkably simple really.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehjonny)
    How can you be sure that near none of them have any skills? I would say that is far from the truth. They did most likely have jobs, trades, skills in the country they travelled from :p:.
    An illiterate peasant farmer from Africa? Some of the migrants do, but most do not have any particular skills, or they would have gone through the legal channels. With the expansion of the EU and other provisions for legal immigration, we can get all the skilled and unskilled labour we could possibly need. It is simply not economically advantageous to have an amnesty.

    (Original post by tehjonny)
    I also doubt that many of these people are refugees. If you are a refugee, why did you come from Somalia to the UK, and not go to Kenya, or Egypt? Why did you break international law getting here?
    They're mostly not refugees but economic migrants as I said. I don't blame anyone living in a third world country seeing the vast disparity in wealth and wishing to come here anyway they can, however, I do think it's reasonable for the government to have a sensible immigration policy.

    We have limited resources. While at one level, an African living on less than a dollar a day in absolute misery, unable to get the AIDS drugs he needs deserves to live in Britain, we simply do not have the means to allow in the billions of people in the world who live in poverty. That's why we should have good provisions for genuine refugees rather than economic migrants. I think the Conservative policy in the 2005 election (although the numbers were too small, and I did not agree with their limits on legal economic immigration) was a sensible one (i.e. taking refugees from the UN where we know they are genuine refugees rather than processing people when they get here, who are mostly, the government admits, not genuine refugees).
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

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.