Turn on thread page Beta

Immigration needs to stop now watch

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Limesasquatch)
    how else did they get here?
    Birth.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Limesasquatch)
    well did you guys know, there are more coloured children than white children in Birmingham?
    and that by 2020 there will be more coloured people of all ages than white in birmingham?

    who wants to go to school with majority immigrants?
    Wow.
    Fail at the person who doesn;t even understand what immigrant means.

    Being born here, means your not an immigrant, is that really that hard to understand in your tiny ignorant mind?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommyjw)
    Wow.
    Fail at the person who doesn;t even understand what immigrant means.

    Being born here, means your not an immigrant, is that really that hard to understand in your tiny ignorant mind?
    i don't care if they're born here
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sonny_J_D)
    Can I come too?
    definitely
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tiger_socks)
    However much we dont like to hear it because of our multi-cultural society and our public correctness, there are currently 181,000 illegal immigrants in England alone who have over-stayed their vise by 5+ years. These people will have families here by now, using the NHS, taking our necessary jobs and benefits.
    Free for all does need to stop, if you can bring something worthwhile to out country, education, occupation, experience- then come on in.
    On the other hand, if you are coming to use our free health service and council housing, brilliant schools and generous culture then dont bother.
    Lauren,
    How are they using the NHS and claiming benefits if they are here illegally?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ripper)
    How are they using the NHS and claiming benefits if they are here illegally?
    somehow they're allowed to, i didnt believe it myself but remember the story of the failed asylum seeker who ran over that little girl? hes on benefits and our govt. now being told they cant deport him by the fourth reich
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alhae)
    Nothing good will come to a first world country by turning it into the one on the right.
    On the right? Wtf?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alhae)
    Nothing good will come to a first world country by turning it into the one on the right.
    1. There are statistical group differences in intelligence so large scale immigration from African countries will certainly transform first world countries in a negative way, unless you carefully screen for intelligent migrants. http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/jam...-truth_296.php

    2. The economic benefits of immigration are generally overstated & overlook the infrastructure/welfare/social cohesion impacts. A skilled migrant criteria would be a more sensible approach - see the House of Lords select committee of economic affairs report.

    http://www.publications.parliament.u...onaf/82/82.pdf

    3. Immigration from statistically high crime populations should also be minimised - again screening for smart/highly skilled migrants would help achieve this.

    http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=v...ed=0CCQQ6AEwAQ
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cybergrad)
    We are so "advanced" only because we stole everything they had and used them as free labour.
    ...
    Not true, genetic changes accelerated over the past 10,000 years in response to agriculture and population density (see 'The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution'). These helped pre-select traits that would prove beneficial for developing an industrial economy (docility, patience, forward planning etc). For instance, also you see differences in average cognitive ability across populations. http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/02/wor...-lynn-maps.php

    Also, see UC Davis economist Greg Clark's 'A Farewell to Alms'. Some of Clark's recent work is summarised here:

    In my recent book, A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World I argue two things. First that all societies remained in a state I label the “Malthusian economy” up until the onset of the Industrial Revolution around 1800. In that state crucially the economic laws governing all human societies before 1800 were those that govern all animal societies. Second that was thus subject to natural selection throughout the Malthusian era, even after the arrival of settled agrarian societies with the Neolithic Revolution.

    The Darwinian struggle that shaped human nature did not end with the Neolithic Revolution but continued right up until the Industrial Revolution. But the arrival of settled agriculture and stable property rights set natural selection on a very different course. It created an accelerated period of evolution, rewarding with reproductive success a new repertoire of human behaviors – patience, self-control, passivity, and hard work – which consequently spread widely.

    And we see in England, from at least 1250, that the kind of people who succeeded in the economic system – who accumulated assets, got skills, got literacy – increased their representation in each generation. Through the long agrarian passage leading up to the Industrial Revolution man was becoming biologically more adapted to the modern economic world. Modern people are thus in part a creation of the market economies that emerged with the Neolithic Revolution. Just as people shaped economies, the pre-industrial economy shaped people. This has left the people of long settled agrarian societies substantially different now from our hunter gatherer ancestors, in terms of culture, and likely also in terms of biology. We are also presumably equivalently different from groups like Australian Aboriginals that never experience the Neolithic Revolution before the arrival of the English settlers in 1788.
    http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/07...y-edition.html
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LaidBaqq)
    Wow. Somebody needs to do some more research.

    Ancient Egypt ring any bells? Where was that? Ah , yes Africa.

    I think you'll find that the general consensus is that Egypt was seen as the most 'advanced' ancient society.
    Except that the racial mix in Egypt was quite different to sub-saharan Africa. Classics scholar Mary Leftkowitz has debunked a number of afrocentric myths. http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&sou...G3pbCg&cad=rja

    Also, in terms of books I'd recommend you 'The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution'. This helps explain the disparities seen today. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/e3465a8a-1...#axzz1H1m3AHpw

    'A Farewell to Alms' is also good on the Industrial Revolution and the role of malthusian selection for certain traits. http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/07...y-edition.html
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Iraq 3000 years ago





    Britain 3000 years ago




    Does this mean Iraqi's are superior to white people? What terrible logic.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Busby_Babe)
    Iraq 3000 years ago
    Does this mean Iraqi's are superior to white people? What terrible logic.
    Probably more relevant are current disparities in measured cognitive ability and crime rates.

    http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rus...&E%20Crime.pdf

    http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/jam...-truth_296.php
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chi019)
    Probably more relevant are current disparities in measured cognitive ability and crime rates.

    http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rus...&E%20Crime.pdf

    http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/jam...-truth_296.php
    I admit I only skimmed through those but what are you arguing? That East Asians are superior to Europeans who are superior to Africans due to lower crime rate and academic achievement amongst those communities which is down to genetics?

    And I can't help but think whoever wrote the second article was wearing a tinfoil hat whilst doing so.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Busby_Babe)
    I admit I only skimmed through those but what are you arguing? That East Asians are superior to Europeans who are superior to Africans due to lower crime rate and academic achievement amongst those communities which is down to genetics?

    And I can't help but think whoever wrote the second article was wearing a tinfoil hat whilst doing so.
    1. Those are just facts based on empirical data. That doesn't make people superior, it means that there are statistical differences across populations. Therefore, just as insurers charge higher premiums to statisically risky groups (ie. males) immigration could require higher standards for populations more at risk of poor outcomes. Skill selection is a reasonable way of doing this.

    2. The article about James Watson by Jason Malloy? It's a pretty good summary of research you can otherwise find in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2.

    http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Investment Banker)
    So very ignorant and stupid of you ! Dumb statement at its best
    Ignorant of what? I think he's alluding to statistical differences across populations that suggest that immigration has to be carefully managed. Populations, in other words, aren't simply interchangeable.

    http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2008/12...in-humans.html

    http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/national-iq.html#more
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamesman13)
    somehow they're allowed to, i didnt believe it myself but remember the story of the failed asylum seeker who ran over that little girl? hes on benefits and our govt. now being told they cant deport him by the fourth reich
    Stop reading the DM, and instead watch some of the border force programs on TV. It's real life stuff, and most(like 99.99%) illegal immigrants can't get anything, lest they want to come up on the radar
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by de_monies)
    Stop reading the DM, and instead watch some of the border force programs on TV. It's real life stuff, and most(like 99.99%) illegal immigrants can't get anything, lest they want to come up on the radar
    And nor should they, of course. People shouldn't stop reading the DM, they need to be less apathetic and protest about the abuse of the asylum system & use of human rights laws to subvert national borders.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Jesus OP is a moron

    This is coming from a 3rd gen British-Sikh...grandparents were immigrants but myself+parents are British:

    -Immigration is a wholly positive process WHEN controlled....since 1997 immigrants have added well over £36 billion to our economy. Why totally ban something which is brining benefit to our country? Madness sir. Utter utter madness!

    -Yes, atmo, we need to do something to control immigration. I believe the new system the con-dems want to introduce is highly flawed in many places...for those unaware of how it works they want to but a monthly limit on non-EU workers...the irony being if you earn more than £150k equivalent, yearly, in the country you are coming from, you aren't affected by the monthly cap. So much for the con-dems not wanting to blow open the rich-poor gap even further....

    But wanting to totally ban immigration? That's absolutely ridiculous. As I often say: "Do your research before complaining about immigration..."
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    Indeed, without colonialism, the industrial revolution would also have happened in Africa and India...
    This is a bizarre comment. There wasn't the malthusian selection in Africa that lead to the adoption of traits which were a pre-requisite for an industrial economy. This had occurred in China and in Europe (see links below).

    In my recent book, A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World I argue two things. First that all societies remained in a state I label the “Malthusian economy” up until the onset of the Industrial Revolution around 1800. In that state crucially the economic laws governing all human societies before 1800 were those that govern all animal societies. Second that was thus subject to natural selection throughout the Malthusian era, even after the arrival of settled agrarian societies with the Neolithic Revolution.

    The Darwinian struggle that shaped human nature did not end with the Neolithic Revolution but continued right up until the Industrial Revolution. But the arrival of settled agriculture and stable property rights set natural selection on a very different course. It created an accelerated period of evolution, rewarding with reproductive success a new repertoire of human behaviors – patience, self-control, passivity, and hard work – which consequently spread widely.

    And we see in England, from at least 1250, that the kind of people who succeeded in the economic system – who accumulated assets, got skills, got literacy – increased their representation in each generation. Through the long agrarian passage leading up to the Industrial Revolution man was becoming biologically more adapted to the modern economic world. Modern people are thus in part a creation of the market economies that emerged with the Neolithic Revolution. Just as people shaped economies, the pre-industrial economy shaped people. This has left the people of long settled agrarian societies substantially different now from our hunter gatherer ancestors, in terms of culture, and likely also in terms of biology.
    http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/07...y-edition.html

    http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2011/02...ations-of.html
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Singh993)
    J

    Immigration is a wholly positive process WHEN controlled....since 1997 immigrants have added well over £36 billion to our economy. Why totally ban something which is brining benefit to our country? Madness sir. Utter utter madness!."
    So allowing Muslim migrants into India or Israel would be wholly positive provided there was a GDP boost? You need to factor in social cohesion, along with instrastructure demands & environmental concerns. More fundamentally, overall GDP type arguments avoid the crucial question of actual benefits for current citizens. The House of Lords select committee report showed these are actually pretty marginal.

    http://www.publications.parliament.u...onaf/82/82.pdf

    That said, I agree that skilled migration is useful and necessary in some areas. The problem is unskilled migration from higher crime populations that add to an existing underclass.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
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.