What would happen if Britain opened its borders and welfare to the world?

This seems to be the end destination for many on the ultra-liberal side of politics, that we should: have open, very much unrestricted immigration controls; embrace the needy of the world in terms of benefits, healthcare and housing; welcome all cultural practices of said newcomers, etc.

What do you think would happen if we decided to do this and to care for, embrace and truly welcome all the world's people who wished to come and live, gain healthcare, financial benefits, etc?

Sounds noble, but is this tenable even on purely financial grounds? If not, why is such a stance advocated or at least implicit within arguments?

Reply 1

Boromir

We'd go bankrupt and civil unrest would ensue. Left-wing cretins meanwhile would defend their treason by saying opposition is a racist-bigoted-Islamophobic-homophobic-otherphobic hate crime.

Commies need to be lined up against a wall and shot. Mind you they have plenty of experience.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 2

Snagprophet

17

I feel we should have open borders to to just countries with similar economies to ourselves. Continue EU support for Eastern Europe but England is one of the most of the most densely populated countries on earth.

Reply 3

Kiss

2

The liberals of today would be the conservatives of tomorrow.

Reply 4

Borat

Its racist to not let anyone in dont u middle class ppl know whats its like from a war torn country? all welcome in britain

Reply 5

blytheyohannes

2

Original post by Borat

Its racist to not let anyone in dont u middle class ppl know whats its like from a war torn country? all welcome in britain

I'll gladly admit that I don't know what it's like to be from a war torn country (the "roughest" area I've ever been to is Tottenham). Any of the struggles I will go through in my life will never be as bad as the struggle a child in Somalia or the Central African Republic or India (to name a few places) has to endure. It's a really tragedy that some people are condemned to living such a poor standard of life simply due to the location they were born, and it was pure luck that I was born here in England and afforded a comfortable middle-class upbringing.

However, that doesn't deter me from saying that we can't let everyone in.
And I'm not saying this because I'm callous, indifferent, or cruel. But because it's an undeniable fact - we can't sustain every person from a war-torn country that'd like to live here. We're a small island nation, after all, and we struggle to support our own most the time.

Furthermore, t's much better if we support and empower others so that they can help themselves and their countries. That way they won't have to rely on us nor will they HAVE to move here.

Lastly, your proposition of becoming a welfare state that gave to everyone? Idealistic, but unrealistic in so many ways. No country could afford that

Reply 6

Ripper-Roo

How can people justify supporting one person, but not the other, just because the person they want to support is 'British'. Nationality doesn't mean one person is worthier than the other.

Reply 7

ihatebrownbread

Original post by Boromir

We'd go bankrupt and civil unrest would ensue. Left-wing cretins meanwhile would defend their treason by saying opposition is a racist-bigoted-Islamophobic-homophobic-otherphobic hate crime.

Commies need to be lined up against a wall and shot. Mind you they have plenty of experience.

Rather see some Capitalist lined up against the wall and shot.

Reply 8

Moosferatu

19

Original post by Boromir

We'd go bankrupt and civil unrest would ensue. Left-wing cretins meanwhile would defend their treason by saying opposition is a racist-bigoted-Islamophobic-homophobic-otherphobic hate crime.

Commies need to be lined up against a wall and shot. Mind you they have plenty of experience.

Oh the irony.

Reply 9

Gjaykay

11

Original post by Ripper-Roo

How can people justify supporting one person, but not the other, just because the person they want to support is 'British'. Nationality doesn't mean one person is worthier than the other.

We have limited resources. Let their own countries set up a welfare system, ours is being stretched far enough.

Reply 10

WarriorInAWig

15

Have you ever seen a shop looted before an impending natural disaster?

Reply 11

Ripper-Roo

Original post by Gjaykay

We have limited resources. Let their own countries set up a welfare system, ours is being stretched far enough.

I understand it on a practical level but on a moral level:

But countries (division of people) are kinda arbitrary

Just because someone is across the world, it doesn't mean they are less deserving

I don't like the attitude that you just have to look after "your own"

Reply 12

Gjaykay

11

Original post by Ripper-Roo

I understand it on a practical level but on a moral level:

But countries (division of people) are kinda arbitrary

Just because someone is across the world, it doesn't mean they are less deserving

I don't like the attitude that you just have to look after "your own"

There is an uncountable number of people who are either homeless, roofless or sleeping rough in the UK. They are in every town in the UK and loads will be stuck like that for the rest of their lives. We have a moral duty to help them and they aren't exactly hard to find.

It's all well and good in saying that because X's country is war torn they should be allowed to come here and have a better life, but there are people here who are miserable, suffering and dying everyday from living on the street.

Why are they less deserving than someone who can't speak English, wont integrate easily and when they get a job, send money back to their home country to their families?

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 13

Rakas21

21

Original post by Lady Comstock

This seems to be the end destination for many on the ultra-liberal side of politics, that we should: have open, very much unrestricted immigration controls; embrace the needy of the world in terms of benefits, healthcare and housing; welcome all cultural practices of said newcomers, etc.

What do you think would happen if we decided to do this and to care for, embrace and truly welcome all the world's people who wished to come and live, gain healthcare, financial benefits, etc?

Sounds noble, but is this tenable even on purely financial grounds? If not, why is such a stance advocated or at least implicit within arguments?

To start with the majority of people who want more open borders don't want more generous welfare for them, in my case i'd charge them a fee to use public services upon entry (discourages those who don't want to work). Also my healthcare policies have not changed regardless of my support for immigration, healthcare budget is too large. Finally if government really wanted it could rapidly and significantly expand housing stock so the picture is not as dire as it sounds.

With that being said based on experience from the EU approximately 1% of the population would seek to move here so immigration of approximately 70 million people working on the basis of 7 billion people, equally however we'd see a degree of emigration (we have net emigration to Australia and Spain). The effect of these people arriving is likely in the short term at least to be inflationary but also potentially beneficial as a much larger labour force allows for larger potential output. Given that most countries have a higher birthrate you'd also expect the British birthrate to surge fueling even faster population initially.

If it were enacted in 2020 then by 2050 i'd wager we'd have a population at 150 million and climbing however by then i'd expect that it would be a non issue as governments would have had ample time to expand infrastructure.

Is it tenable financially? Probably not at least if all borders dropped at once as there's need to be time to massively expand infrastructure otherwise we'd either need to borrow heavily or public services would collapse under the strain.

My personal stance is that i have no problem with immigrants that work and so i'm happy with free movement and would extend it to the Anglo-sphere. I would in addition sign preferential labour agreements with the likes of Japan, Taiwan and Singapore contingent on a £10k payment upon entry, degree level education and passing an English test. I would not however extend it to the Middle East (we need to tackle social integration before we invite millions of Muslims - no offense to any but they seem least willing to integrate) and right now South America, most of Asia and Africa are still too poor.

Original post by Snagprophet

I feel we should have open borders to to just countries with similar economies to ourselves. Continue EU support for Eastern Europe but England is one of the most of the most densely populated countries on earth.

Does it matter that we're regarded as densely populated, over 80% of UK land is not urban.

Original post by Snagprophet

I feel we should have open borders to to just countries with similar economies to ourselves. Continue EU support for Eastern Europe but England is one of the most of the most densely populated countries on earth.

Reply 14

Blue56

15

To dramatically depict the reality:

Reply 15

MostUncivilised

3

Socialist though I am, I would warn against throwing open our borders to millions of sly and crafty foreigners. That way lies ruin.

Reply 16

TheLoveDoctor

9

Original post by Borat

Its racist to not let anyone in dont u middle class ppl know whats its like from a war torn country? all welcome in britain

Reply 17

Ripper-Roo

Original post by Gjaykay

There is an uncountable number of people who are either homeless, roofless or sleeping rough in the UK. They are in every town in the UK and loads will be stuck like that for the rest of their lives. We have a moral duty to help them and they aren't exactly hard to find.

It's all well and good in saying that because X's country is war torn they should be allowed to come here and have a better life, but there are people here who are miserable, suffering and dying everyday from living on the street.

Why are they less deserving than someone who can't speak English, wont integrate easily and when they get a job, send money back to their home country to their families?

I won't dispute that there are elements of poverty in the UK, but they have had the safety net of a welfare state, health and education provided for them, for most of their lives (if they were born post 1940s).

Whereas if you're born in a Third World or war torn country you don't have those opportunities. They didn't choose to be born into a poor country. I'm not arguing that poor people in Britain chose to be poor, however if they really work at it, they won't go without the basic necessities and they can improve their position. People feel more entitled in this country, compared to developing nations, so there isn't as much determination to help themselves.

I don't think one is more deserving than the other

Reply 18

KimKallstrom

14

Original post by Boromir

We'd go bankrupt and civil unrest would ensue. Left-wing cretins meanwhile would defend their treason by saying opposition is a racist-bigoted-Islamophobic-homophobic-otherphobic hate crime.

Commies need to be lined up against a wall and shot. Mind you they have plenty of experience.