Should we grant amnesty to illegal immigrants in the UK?

Really? You need an explanation of why uncontrolled immigration wouldn't work in the context of modern States?

You gave at least one good reason yourself: "The reason that we have artificial barriers to non-EU immigration is because the welfare state cannot support unlimited numbers of migrants."

That's your evidence for "free movement of people and goods"?
1. We're talking about modern States, not ancient Rome.

2. That's referring to citizens of Rome being able to move across Roman territory, not to everyone in the world being able to move everywhere. There's quite a difference.

Erm... what? Now, frankly, I'm just very confused. Where did Romania appear in this argument from?

EDIT: Oh god, you did not just mix up Rome and Romania, right?

Precisely the same policy? You think having immigration controls in the UK today is the same policy as the British controlling Jewish immigration to Palestine in order not to piss off the Arabs in the 1930s and 40s?

thermoregulatio: Do you have different people using one user name? Because sometimes you seem competent and make decent points, at other times your arguments are a joke and you don't seem to know much at all...

Anyway, your quoting from that site makes me think that you basically didn't expect such a response to your initially raising Jewish immigration to the Mandate and are now desperately searching the net to try to back up a "point" you never should have made. Right?

Yes, please. 'Modern' states are not historical exceptions; they're the product of historical circumstance. You can't just assert something to be true.

That argument is against welfarism and socialism, not the free movement of people.

So if you believe in the principle of the welfare state, you must be in favour of free migration.

So you can't believe in free migration.

You said, "Free movement of goods and people is mainly to do with the internal arrangements of entities such as the EU." I disagreed. I showed how there are examples in antiquity of the free movement of people and goods across economically, demographically and culturally disparate regions.

No, not really. Each province of the Roman Empire was largely internally governed, and - as the quote says, if you read it - "to be a citizen of Rome was to be a citizen of the world." The Roman Empire was the extent of the known world to its inhabitants.

Do you know anything about the European Union at all?

You were the one who said that "free movement of goods and people" referred to the internal arrangements of the EU. So I pointed out that if people from Romania are free to work in Britain, why shouldn't people in nearby Turkey be?

The two policies are substantially similar. In both cases, the domestic population (of the European Union now, native Arabs then) had special privileges (welfare rights now, little competition then).

it is wrong per se for a government to dictate whether somebody can peacably come into the territory it claims sovereignty over.

Except that we HAVE welfarism, so what's the point of trying to argue as if it doesn't exist?

So if you believe in the principle of the welfare state, you must be in favour of free migration.

Why? Why can't you believe that welfare State principles apply to people here and we have a social responsibility to support them, but not apply to other people coming here from outside simply for those benefits?

I should think so, given that just studied EU Law for a year.

1. You're assuming I think that continued EU expansion is a good idea.

2. You really can't see why there's a difference between extending it further across Europe and the rest of the world as a whole?

You can't compare those, those "privileges" are not the same at all. And anyway, "little competition"? This is what you think Arab opposition to Jewish immigration was about - economic competition?

Why not? One of the basic points of having sovereignty is that you can determine who comes on to your sovereign soil!

Not 'as if it doesn't exist' - against it. I want free movement of people and I oppose the welfare state.

The argument - which answers your question - was contained in the bit of my quote that you decided to cut out.

Didn't you recognise Romania as an EU member state, then?

Not necessarily; but you're arguing against open borders, not EU-wide movement of people and goods.

No. Not at all. Stop asking rhetorical questions and give some reasons.

Oh, come on. Just rejecting what I say isn't debate.

Arabs had preferential immigrant status into Palestine. Europeans have prefential immigrant status into Britain.

Jews threatened the Arab domination of agriculture.

I could point out the total absence of meaning of "your sovereign soil" - since the government doesn't "own" the land in Britain. But you'll probably ignore it.

It's quite a nationalist stance to take - that people who pose no physical threat should be banned from entering a country because 'they'll steal our jobs' and 'use our health service'

Yes, I broadly agree with that - but we're not going to lose the welfar state, so you sort of have to decide about immigration around that.

I cut it because I'm not a believer in the welfare state, and that was who it appeared to be aimed at.

I know it's an EU MS, but it's a random one to pick so I didn't get that you were referring to it AS AN EU MS.

Well, unless you think comparing poverty stricken African countries filled with unskilled labourers desperate to come over here to Eastern Europe (admittedly poor, but less so) is correct, then there's really not much need to go further.

Well, you have a very odd idea of what made Arab objection to Jewish immigration.

For completely different reasons.

That really wasn't the reason for their objection at all.

The State does actually own the land, technically. And Parliament is sovereign.

I haven't said either of those. And it's much more about supporting our society due to a common bond, rather than the world as a whole, than it is nationalistically thinking we're in some way better (an accusation thrown in I assume as an attempt to slander).

So we can just dispense with the law and ignore people who have broken it when it's economically advantageous to do so?

We should have unrestricted immigration and allow in everyone who wants to come here? Seriously?

but I don't agree that internal policies (with interest rates, democratisation &c) should affect the free movement of people - because they won't live in that society any longer.[/quote
Where did I say that internal policy should matter?
Though you must remember that the EU is a political entity, not just about free movement of goods and persons, and in that sphere, democratisation plays a key role.


Probably the reasons behind the fighting that was taking place that led to the proposed division, more than agricultural competition.


Technically speaking, the State does own the land though.


Those being two of THE most important things to your average person...


Indeed I'm aware, we did defamation at the end of tort in first year. But many people aren't aware so I simplify - more people know what slander means.


I'm not saying it's the culture. I'm saying that people in this country are bonded by nationality, by contributions to the funds used for provision of public services etc. That's not nationalism.

That's out of context. I actually said "In the vast majority of cases". Of course there are some people who should never be allowed in, but they are few and far between. I'd say that at least 95% of people who wish to migrate here are more worthy of the space than our existing population. And that's a conservative estimate.

I wholly agree- you have no idea the amount of people i would happily kick out of here- starting with those who vote Tory...

haha, I know the feeling, but that would be a little undemocratic. I'm generally referring to the kind of people who CHOOSE not to work and bum off the state. I don't mean those who are genuinely unable to find work - they should be given every bit of help - but people who just decide they don't want to work and instead will claim benefits. Actually kicking them out would be impractical since there is nowhere to send them, but we can at least mitigate their overall impact on the economy and society by allowing in as many hard-working migrants as possible.

That's out of context. I actually said "In the vast majority of cases". Of course there are some people who should never be allowed in, but they are few and far between. I'd say that at least 95% of people who wish to migrate here are more worthy of the space than our existing population. And that's a conservative estimate.