Turn on thread page Beta

Is it racist to wish for stricter limits on immigration? watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Whose parents were immigrants.
    Perhaps, but it is also true that Islamic extremism has grown in this country, not among immigrants, but amongst their children. That means that immigration targetted at shutting out extremists won't impact much on Islamic extremism here, which is mostly domestic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richiboi)
    That opening sentence means that the only thing that you'll be good for is shipping to Antarctica, so we cant hear your hyper-liberal BAWWing.
    I would mine the oil and then buy your tory ass from under you!

    What a ridiculous suggestion- everyone should always be proud of their country-
    Why? What do countries do? People do things, places just sit there.

    it's part of your heritage, where you grew up or live, a significant, almost background aspect of your life.
    Yep, where I grew up is a place. People I can be proud of. Even animals I can be proud of. Places, on the other hand, don't do anything. How can I be pround of a place? I can love, appreciate, and have affection for a place, but pride?

    And if you arent proud of your country, then you are no better than the cowardly "martyrs" who were involved in 7/7.
    What a bunch of emotive, illogical and ad hominous crap. Countries are places. Places do nothing, they neither do things to be shameful of, nor things to be proud of. Only people and sentient animals do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    Perhaps, but it is also true that Islamic extremism has grown in this country, not among immigrants, but amongst their children. That means that immigration targetted at shutting out extremists won't impact much on Islamic extremism here, which is mostly domestic.
    Of course it will. It'll mean that there will be less Muslims here to have extremist children.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Of course it will. It'll mean that there will be less Muslims here to have extremist children.
    No it won't, because if the border controls are targetting extremist Muslims, and not just muslims, then they will admit non-extremist muslims. And extremist Islam is growing here amongst the children of non-extremist muslim, as well as converts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    What is wrong with a growing population, and how do you tell if somebody is worth having?
    Err. Have you ever been to Japan?

    Yes, well, like us, they are only a small island. And I don't know about you but I don't fancy having to be rammed into a train carriage with a large pole because there's more people than can be accommodated by transport services.

    Similarly, other resources aren't infinite. There's only so much land for agriculture.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forbidden Fruit)
    Nearly every news medium I have seen has claimed that the government will be worried about or may face accusations of racism in regards to the new immigration system.

    What kind of pinhead would heckle the government as racist for this?

    Do YOU think this is racist?
    in the UK every immigration limit is called racist.The Liblabcons can't stop immigration because they'll be called racist, so the only party that can really stop immigration is the BNP
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    Err. Have you ever been to Japan?

    Yes, well, like us, they are only a small island. And I don't know about you but I don't fancy having to be rammed into a train carriage with a large pole because there's more people than can be accommodated by transport services.

    Similarly, other resources aren't infinite. There's only so much land for agriculture.
    Ah, so you are coming from a position of economic ignorance.

    First off, there is plenty of room in the UK according to the government's own statistics, 90% of the population live in urban areas amounting to no more than 8% of total land space.

    Secondly, as demand for resources rises relative to supply for them, prices rise, and this results in supply rising, and rationing. Supply of land increases, effectively, by using it more intensively, so that if I can get twice as much out of a single piece of land, the land has, for all intents and purposes, doubled. And this is even ignoring the possibility that we need much agriculture. It might make more sense to import more.

    And lastly, you are ignoring that people create resources, so the more people there are, the more resources there are that they create. Denying this is to assume that the optimum population is one! I would suggest that you look into work by Julian Simon:

    His 1981 book The Ultimate Resource is a criticism of the conventional wisdom on population growth, raw-material scarcity and resource consumption. Simon argues that our notions of increasing resource-scarcity ignore the long-term declines in wage-adjusted raw material prices. Viewed economically, he argues, increasing wealth and technology make more resources available; although supplies may be limited physically they may be viewed as economically indefinite as old resources are recycled and new alternatives are developed by the market. Simon challenged the notion of a pending Malthusian catastrophe—that an increase in population has negative economic consequences; that population is a drain on natural resources; and that we stand at risk of running out of resources through over-consumption. Simon argues that population is the solution to resource scarcities and environmental problems, since people and markets innovate...

    Simon examined different raw materials, especially metals and their prices in historical times. He assumed that besides temporary shortfalls, in the long run prices for raw materials remain at similar levels or even decrease. E.g. aluminium was never as expensive as before 1886 and steel used for medieval armor carried a much higher price tag in current dollars than any modern parallel.

    His 1984 book The Resourceful Earth (co-edited by Herman Kahn), is a similar criticism of the conventional wisdom on population growth and resource consumption and a direct response to the Global 2000 report. For example it predicted that "There is no compelling reason to believe that world oil prices will rise in the coming decades. In fact, prices may well fall below current levels".

    With respect to oil, the (2008) price rose to $142, exceeding its previous record (inflation adjusted) in the late 1800s. The price dropped to below $40 by 2009. It fell after the 1970s oil shortages to comparably low levels in the late 1980s and 1990s (though not all the way to the 1970 prices, to say nothing of the record lows of the 1930s)
    Also, Mary Ruwart writes,

    Rapid population growth and high population density are not major factors in Third World poverty either. In 1996, both Hong Kong and Singapore, with 10 times the population density of China or India, created five-and-a-half times more wealth than either of them. Developing countries that enjoy the highest population growth rates as well. Between 1775 and 1975 the United States had the biggest population explosion in history, yet Americans now earn the highest wages in the world. Clearly rapid population growth and high population density are no more responsible for poverty than inadequate resource endowment.
    In 1996 the country with the highest GDP/capita was also one of the world's most densely populated countries. Over 40% of its population were immigrants or refugees, because it had relatively open immigration policies. It had so few natural resources that Oil, raw materials and even water were imported. This country was Hong Kong.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    And lastly, you are ignoring that people create resources, so the more people there are, the more resources there are that they create. Denying this is to assume that the optimum population is one! I would suggest that you look into work by Julian Simon:
    The last time i checked, people dont **** coal out of their backside, or throw up oil, or secrete gold, uranium or any other resources. People are a resource, yes, but they also consume lots more of other resources. Unlimited population growth is a terrible idea, and will reduce quality of life for many people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richiboi)
    The last time i checked, people dont **** coal out of their backside, or throw up oil, or secrete gold, uranium or any other resources.
    Last I checked, which was by reading my last post, access to natural resources was not sufficient, and often is unnecessary, for a country, and its populace to get wealthy. Japan has few good natural resurces. Mexico has plenty. Japanese are rich, mexicans aren't.

    People are a resource, yes, but they also consume lots more of other resources.
    And those resources are not as finite as people think, firstly because the amount of resources is not fixed: There is not a fixed quantity of wealth so that consumption of it by some people means less for others; increased consumption means increased production. And secondly because the more people consume it, the more incentives people have to find ways to economise on it, to get more from less.

    Unlimited population growth is a terrible idea, and will reduce quality of life for many people.
    Population has its own natural limits and doesn't need the state to help it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    How can one be proud of a country? A country is just a place, one specific piece of the earth, piece of mud, as opposed to another. It can't do anything for people to be proud of. People can do things that we can be proud of, and you might want to say that you are proud of the people in your country, but that would imply that there are things that you are proud of that were done unanimously by, or with the unanimous approval of all the people in the country. I doubt there are such things.



    Good.



    Aren't Polish people white, too? If you feel like a minority surrounded by non-white people then the people surrounding you are probably not the result of the EU's looser migration laws but come from commonwealth or other countries between which we do not have free immigration, or are the descendants of such people.



    Quite right.

    The kind of views you hold are really annoying, you speak hippy-liberal-utopian **** but if you ever experienced the real world you would realise that the views I hold and the views of like minded people are just an accurate analysis of whats going on.

    I don't hold prejudice, in the sense that when I meet a person I give them a clean slate, and don't judge anyone before I know them. Therefore, as the essence of racism is prejudice, none of the opinions I hold come from racism. However, I will not ignore the effect of having such a high introduction of immigrants on Britain when these effects are so blatant.

    The example of Japan is simplistic, but good. When a tiny island has too many people residing within it, resources will inevitably become stretched. Unfortunately when people don't understand the obvious, simplistic examples are often used to try and 'break-it-down'.

    As for the 'Polish people are white' comment, I have already explicitly stated that skin colour, at least in my opinion, is totally irrelevant. Thus, you are arguing points that don't exist.

    You seem like a literate person, and its a shame that you hold such misguided views.

    Laterz
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Richard_A_Garner]Last I checked, which was by reading my last post, access to natural resources was not sufficient, and often is unnecessary, for a country, and its populace to get wealthy. Japan has few good natural resurces. Mexico has plenty. Japanese are rich, mexicans aren't.



    And those resources are not as finite as people think, firstly because the amount of resources is not fixed: There is not a fixed quantity of wealth so that consumption of it by some people means less for others; increased consumption means increased production. And secondly because the more people consume it, the more incentives people have to find ways to economise on it, to get more from less.



    Population has its own natural limits and doesn't need the state to help it.[/QUOTE]

    You can't be serious man. People aren't rabbits.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keiran0)
    The kind of views you hold are really annoying, you speak hippy-liberal-utopian **** but if you ever experienced the real world you would realise that the views I hold and the views of like minded people are just an accurate analysis of whats going on.
    In what sense do I not experience the real world?

    I don't hold prejudice, in the sense that when I meet a person I give them a clean slate, and don't judge anyone before I know them. Therefore, as the essence of racism is prejudice, none of the opinions I hold come from racism. However, I will not ignore the effect of having such a high introduction of immigrants on Britain when these effects are so blatant.

    The example of Japan is simplistic, but good. When a tiny island has too many people residing within it, resources will inevitably become stretched. Unfortunately when people don't understand the obvious, simplistic examples are often used to try and 'break-it-down'.
    Except that people in Japan are wealthier. People in mexico are poorer, though the population density is far lower and there are far more natural resources. People in Africa are much poorer than the Japanese or Hong Kongese, even though they have much lower population density and much more natural resources. There is no empiricaly correlation between population density and poverty, or population whatever-the-opposite-of-density-is and propserity. GDP per capita in Hong Kong was the highest in the world when Hong Kong also had no natural resopurces other than a good harbour, imported all oil and gas and even water, 40% of the population were immigrants or refugees and there were loose controls on immigration.

    As for the 'Polish people are white' comment, I have already explicitly stated that skin colour, at least in my opinion, is totally irrelevant. Thus, you are arguing points that don't exist.
    You said that the immigrant influx has been Polish, and yet has resulted in a situation in which you feel like you are a member of a minority "even though you are white." Polish immigrants tend to be white, too. The people that make you feel like you are a minority are not likely to have come here from countries against which we have loose immigration controls, as we do with Europe. They are likely to come from the Indian Sub-continent, African countries, or Carribean countries, from the commonwealth. In other words, the people who make you feel like a minority "even though you are white" are not the beneficiaries of weak controls on immigration.

    You seem like a literate person, and its a shame that you hold such misguided views.
    I am inclined to think the same of you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Keiran0]
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    Last I checked, which was by reading my last post, access to natural resources was not sufficient, and often is unnecessary, for a country, and its populace to get wealthy. Japan has few good natural resurces. Mexico has plenty. Japanese are rich, mexicans aren't.



    And those resources are not as finite as people think, firstly because the amount of resources is not fixed: There is not a fixed quantity of wealth so that consumption of it by some people means less for others; increased consumption means increased production. And secondly because the more people consume it, the more incentives people have to find ways to economise on it, to get more from less.



    Population has its own natural limits and doesn't need the state to help it.[/QUOTE]

    You can't be serious man. People aren't rabbits.
    Errrr... I know
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    Ah, so you are coming from a position of economic ignorance.

    First off, there is plenty of room in the UK according to the government's own statistics, 90% of the population live in urban areas amounting to no more than 8% of total land space.

    Secondly, as demand for resources rises relative to supply for them, prices rise, and this results in supply rising, and rationing. Supply of land increases, effectively, by using it more intensively, so that if I can get twice as much out of a single piece of land, the land has, for all intents and purposes, doubled. And this is even ignoring the possibility that we need much agriculture. It might make more sense to import more.

    And lastly, you are ignoring that people create resources, so the more people there are, the more resources there are that they create. Denying this is to assume that the optimum population is one! I would suggest that you look into work by Julian Simon:
    8% of the landmass is given to housing, but where does the rest of it go? On agriculture, in order to feed those urban areas. There is barely a free piece of land which is capable of producing crops that is not being used right now. You can use the fields more intensively, sure, but there is and always will be an upper limit to how much you can harvest from any given plot of land. There is no upper limit to population growth. Clearly, this is an issue, and it's one that I think should be curbed immediately. Population growth is at the highest since the WWII baby boom, and rather than be complacent and get stuck in the mind-set that 'there is and always will be plenty to go round', I'd rather get a grounding in reality and realise that population growth is currently unbounded, whilst resources are.

    I think perhaps you've spent too long thinking about economic theory, and neglected economic practicality. In the real world, supply is not infinite. There is a point which a rise in supply is simply not workable.

    Importing is nothing but a temporary fix, but it's not just the UK population that is rising. The worldwide population is also rising rapidly, and do you think other countries will wilfully be sending us their harvest when their own population's demand is close to exceeding their maximum output? No, I don't think so.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    8% of the landmass is given to housing, but where does the rest of it go? On agriculture, in order to feed those urban areas. There is barely a free piece of land which is capable of producing crops that is not being used right now. You can use the fields more intensively, sure, but there is and always will be an upper limit to how much you can harvest from any given plot of land. There is no upper limit to population growth. Clearly, this is an issue, and it's one that I think should be curbed immediately. Population growth is at the highest since the WWII baby boom, and rather than be complacent and get stuck in the mind-set that 'there is and always will be plenty to go round', I'd rather get a grounding in reality and realise that population growth is currently unbounded, whilst resources are.

    I think perhaps you've spent too long thinking about economic theory, and neglected economic practicality. In the real world, supply is not infinite. There is a point which a rise in supply is simply not workable.

    Importing is nothing but a temporary fix, but it's not just the UK population that is rising. The worldwide population is also rising rapidly, and do you think other countries will wilfully be sending us their harvest when their own population's demand is close to exceeding their maximum output? No, I don't think so.
    The trouble is that this doesn't relate to the real world. People spend less on food, clothing and shelter in than ever. Just look at Julian Simon's bets that he won - prices for raw materials have fallen whilst population has grown.

    Your question about other people sending us their harvests? Well, most countries don't export anything. People export things, not countries. If Rover sold a car to Mr Yatamoto, Britain has not exported something, Rover have, and Japan hasn't imported anything, Mr Yatamoto has. So the question is whether people in those countries will send us their harvest. But then it is not even that. It is whether all of them will, or will send us all their harvests, or whether they will send just part of them. Only the latter is true, of course, and they will do that if they can get a better price for it here than elsewhere.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    The trouble is that this doesn't relate to the real world. People spend less on food, clothing and shelter in than ever. Just look at Julian Simon's bets that he won - prices for raw materials have fallen whilst population has grown.
    I really don't care if they're cheaper or dearer. If they are finite, then my issues still stand.

    Your question about other people sending us their harvests? Well, most countries don't export anything. People export things, not countries. If Rover sold a car to Mr Yatamoto, Britain has not exported something, Rover have, and Japan hasn't imported anything, Mr Yatamoto has. So the question is whether people in those countries will send us their harvest. But then it is not even that. It is whether all of them will, or will send us all their harvests, or whether they will send just part of them. Only the latter is true, of course, and they will do that if they can get a better price for it here than elsewhere.
    And they won't get a better price for it elsewhere. If a country is bursting to the full, and needs a resource to sustain that population, then it will open contracts with its home companies to make sure its goods stay in the country, and that only the excess is exported. A company is at the mercy of the government that runs its country, as they can decide how much government subsidies they get, how much tax they pay, etc. The government has a large amount of say in the allocation of even those goods manufactured and sold privately.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Immigrant is not a race.

    Therefore the answer is an obvious and invariable no.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    Immigrant is not a race.

    Therefore the answer is an obvious and invariable no.
    As one or two people don't know, i use my rep sparingly, due to not having much of it myself. That short comment bulldozed 4 pages of argument, and for that, you will get +rep from me!

    Rich
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)


    Except that people in Japan are wealthier. People in mexico are poorer, though the population density is far lower and there are far more natural resources. People in Africa are much poorer than the Japanese or Hong Kongese, even though they have much lower population density and much more natural resources. There is no empiricaly correlation between population density and poverty, or population whatever-the-opposite-of-density-is and propserity. GDP per capita in Hong Kong was the highest in the world when Hong Kong also had no natural resopurces other than a good harbour, imported all oil and gas and even water, 40% of the population were immigrants or refugees and there were loose controls on immigration.
    Ah, my dear namesake- in- adversary, population density is completely irrelevant to prosperity, and your argument is limited to economic prosperity. The happiest and some, albiet not the most wealthy countries have some very low population densities. Canada, Australia and Norway all have relatively low population densities, but are all economically very strong. Sure, you might say that most of their land is pretty harsh, but the same argument can be applied to New Zealand, Sweden, possibly Liechtenstein and Luxembourg even. Prosperity in economic terms and social terms are very much linked when it comes to immigration.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richiboi)
    Ah, my dear namesake- in- adversary, population density is completely irrelevant to prosperity, and your argument is limited to economic prosperity.
    I didn't say it wasn't. I asked what the problem with rising population was, and then countered some objections to it.

    The happiest and some, albiet not the most wealthy countries have some very low population densities. Canada, Australia and Norway all have relatively low population densities, but are all economically very strong. Sure, you might say that most of their land is pretty harsh, but the same argument can be applied to New Zealand, Sweden, possibly Liechtenstein and Luxembourg even. Prosperity in economic terms and social terms are very much linked when it comes to immigration.
    Well, Norway has a very high suicide rate, and Sweden's is pretty high, too, so I don't know if they are successes. Hong Kong does as well, of course.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.