FabSwingers.com
 

FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Immigration ban?

Immigration ban?

Jump to: Newest in thread

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon

Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *heNerdyFembyWoman  over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? "

no, end of debate

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?

no, end of debate"

Oh. Not prepared to give it some thought? Little narrow minded don’t you think?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *heNerdyFembyWoman  over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?

no, end of debate

Oh. Not prepared to give it some thought? Little narrow minded don’t you think? "

That would be an ad hominem attack based on a strawman assumption.

You are better than that Seb.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?

no, end of debate

Oh. Not prepared to give it some thought? Little narrow minded don’t you think?

That would be an ad hominem attack based on a strawman assumption.

You are better than that Seb."

I’ll put you down as a no then. See how perceptive I am to ‘signals’

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oo hotCouple  over a year ago

North West


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? "

Makes sense….

We have a massive labour shortage.

The population is ageing

Birth rates are down

Who is going to pay for the literally tens of millions of ageing, retired, sick people when the numbers between those in work and those too old to work is ever widening?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?

Makes sense….

We have a massive labour shortage.

The population is ageing

Birth rates are down

Who is going to pay for the literally tens of millions of ageing, retired, sick people when the numbers between those in work and those too old to work is ever widening?"

Interesting. So are you saying the UK can only survive / thrive through immigration?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oo hotCouple  over a year ago

North West


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?

Makes sense….

We have a massive labour shortage.

The population is ageing

Birth rates are down

Who is going to pay for the literally tens of millions of ageing, retired, sick people when the numbers between those in work and those too old to work is ever widening?

Interesting. So are you saying the UK can only survive / thrive through immigration? "

Past performance of a country that has been built on immigration would suggest that if immigration has benefited the country in the past, it should similarly benefit it in the future, particularly when the country is ageing and birth rates are declining.

I do understand that there are a sizeable number of racist fuckwits in this country who seem to derive their oxygen for life from complaining about immigrants and that is why logical discussion tends to be difficult.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *heNerdyFembyWoman  over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?

Makes sense….

We have a massive labour shortage.

The population is ageing

Birth rates are down

Who is going to pay for the literally tens of millions of ageing, retired, sick people when the numbers between those in work and those too old to work is ever widening?

Interesting. So are you saying the UK can only survive / thrive through immigration?

Past performance of a country that has been built on immigration would suggest that if immigration has benefited the country in the past, it should similarly benefit it in the future, particularly when the country is ageing and birth rates are declining.

I do understand that there are a sizeable number of racist fuckwits in this country who seem to derive their oxygen for life from complaining about immigrants and that is why logical discussion tends to be difficult.

"

And also the fact that this inevitably results in people ranting and raving about how what they are saying isn't racist, whether it is or isn't like the person saying the thing is in any way vaguely close to being able to judge that fairly.

It just ends up muddying the waters even further.

But thats fuckwits for you, racist or otherwise.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon

Why would an immigration ban be racist?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?

Makes sense….

We have a massive labour shortage.

The population is ageing

Birth rates are down

Who is going to pay for the literally tens of millions of ageing, retired, sick people when the numbers between those in work and those too old to work is ever widening?

Interesting. So are you saying the UK can only survive / thrive through immigration?

Past performance of a country that has been built on immigration would suggest that if immigration has benefited the country in the past, it should similarly benefit it in the future, particularly when the country is ageing and birth rates are declining.

I do understand that there are a sizeable number of racist fuckwits in this country who seem to derive their oxygen for life from complaining about immigrants and that is why logical discussion tends to be difficult.

"

America is a country built on immigration. Australia also.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *heNerdyFembyWoman  over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)

[Removed by poster at 13/08/22 18:56:47]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"Who said it would be?"

Ay?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"Who said it would be?

Ay? "

I’ve just clicked. Two responses raised the racism angle

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *heNerdyFembyWoman  over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)


"Why would an immigration ban be racist?"

Who said it would be?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *heNerdyFembyWoman  over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)


"Who said it would be?

Ay?

I’ve just clicked. Two responses raised the racism angle"

yeah but neither of them said the ban would be racist.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"Who said it would be?

Ay?

I’ve just clicked. Two responses raised the racism angle

yeah but neither of them said the ban would be racist."

Then why go there? Other than it being a ‘stock’ response?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *eroy1000Man  over a year ago

milton keynes


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? "

It will not matter what you say, they will come anyway so its not enforceable. I suspect there will be international laws preventing it too. Controlling it as best as possible and seeing if they can be a benefit to the country is all you can hope for. It's a tricky subject but should not be ignored

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple  over a year ago

in Lancashire

1.3 million unfilled job positions, businessess in hospitality turning away custom and farmers leaving crops to rot..

A pragmatic approach is required rather than the current disastrous policy of the Tories happy to see the above and content to not want taxes paid to the Exchequer from such vacancies being filled..

It's a mess which defies common and commercial sense and immigration is one way to solve it ..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?

Makes sense….

We have a massive labour shortage.

The population is ageing

Birth rates are down

Who is going to pay for the literally tens of millions of ageing, retired, sick people when the numbers between those in work and those too old to work is ever widening?

Interesting. So are you saying the UK can only survive / thrive through immigration? "

how else will you fill the gap seb ? Even if you massively inventivised having children, that's a 20 year gap. And how are you going to pay for that incentive ?

I guess the other option is euthenasia.

I'd also wonder how our universities would survive with less funding.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan  over a year ago

Gilfach


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? "

No.

This country has too many non-productive old people, and not enough young tax payers. To prevent a show economic collapse, we need to address that.

A cull of the elderly would be the simple option but there might be a teeny bit of objection there, so that's not going to happen. The other option is to increase the number of young people.

We could insist that every woman must have 3 children, but that also might raise the odd objection, and it will only pay off in 20 years time when the new kids start paying taxes.

If none of the above will work, the only option left is to import some young people and set them to work. There were 239,987 work visas issued last year. We'll need to increase that number dramatically if we are to continue to look after the elderly.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?

Makes sense….

We have a massive labour shortage.

The population is ageing

Birth rates are down

Who is going to pay for the literally tens of millions of ageing, retired, sick people when the numbers between those in work and those too old to work is ever widening?

Interesting. So are you saying the UK can only survive / thrive through immigration? how else will you fill the gap seb ? Even if you massively inventivised having children, that's a 20 year gap. And how are you going to pay for that incentive ?

I guess the other option is euthenasia.

I'd also wonder how our universities would survive with less funding. "

Why would Unis have less funding?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *heNerdyFembyWoman  over a year ago

Eastbourne (she/they)


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?

Makes sense….

We have a massive labour shortage.

The population is ageing

Birth rates are down

Who is going to pay for the literally tens of millions of ageing, retired, sick people when the numbers between those in work and those too old to work is ever widening?

Interesting. So are you saying the UK can only survive / thrive through immigration? how else will you fill the gap seb ? Even if you massively inventivised having children, that's a 20 year gap. And how are you going to pay for that incentive ?

I guess the other option is euthenasia.

I'd also wonder how our universities would survive with less funding.

Why would Unis have less funding?"

Foreign students pay for a large amount of the education system.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon

Isn’t it strange that controls or questions on immigration get you labelled a xenophobic racist but calls for euthanasia go unchallenged?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?

Makes sense….

We have a massive labour shortage.

The population is ageing

Birth rates are down

Who is going to pay for the literally tens of millions of ageing, retired, sick people when the numbers between those in work and those too old to work is ever widening?

Interesting. So are you saying the UK can only survive / thrive through immigration? how else will you fill the gap seb ? Even if you massively inventivised having children, that's a 20 year gap. And how are you going to pay for that incentive ?

I guess the other option is euthenasia.

I'd also wonder how our universities would survive with less funding.

Why would Unis have less funding?

Foreign students pay for a large amount of the education system."

I know that but they don’t have to settle here

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *eroy1000Man  over a year ago

milton keynes


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?

No.

This country has too many non-productive old people, and not enough young tax payers. To prevent a show economic collapse, we need to address that.

A cull of the elderly would be the simple option but there might be a teeny bit of objection there, so that's not going to happen. The other option is to increase the number of young people.

We could insist that every woman must have 3 children, but that also might raise the odd objection, and it will only pay off in 20 years time when the new kids start paying taxes.

If none of the above will work, the only option left is to import some young people and set them to work. There were 239,987 work visas issued last year. We'll need to increase that number dramatically if we are to continue to look after the elderly."

Does this mean that the overall population will have to continually increase forever. I'm assuming here that those immigrants will one day be old themselves so will need to be supported. Not sure the cull of old people will be acceptable and of course if it were done it would have to be whites only

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oo hotCouple  over a year ago

North West


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?

No.

This country has too many non-productive old people, and not enough young tax payers. To prevent a show economic collapse, we need to address that.

A cull of the elderly would be the simple option but there might be a teeny bit of objection there, so that's not going to happen. The other option is to increase the number of young people.

We could insist that every woman must have 3 children, but that also might raise the odd objection, and it will only pay off in 20 years time when the new kids start paying taxes.

If none of the above will work, the only option left is to import some young people and set them to work. There were 239,987 work visas issued last year. We'll need to increase that number dramatically if we are to continue to look after the elderly.

Does this mean that the overall population will have to continually increase forever. I'm assuming here that those immigrants will one day be old themselves so will need to be supported. Not sure the cull of old people will be acceptable and of course if it were done it would have to be whites only"

The population will increase yes, as the population increases globally.

It takes a good world war, cataclysmic geological event, or a series of worldwide pandemics to reduce the population.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?

No.

This country has too many non-productive old people, and not enough young tax payers. To prevent a show economic collapse, we need to address that.

A cull of the elderly would be the simple option but there might be a teeny bit of objection there, so that's not going to happen. The other option is to increase the number of young people.

We could insist that every woman must have 3 children, but that also might raise the odd objection, and it will only pay off in 20 years time when the new kids start paying taxes.

If none of the above will work, the only option left is to import some young people and set them to work. There were 239,987 work visas issued last year. We'll need to increase that number dramatically if we are to continue to look after the elderly.

Does this mean that the overall population will have to continually increase forever. I'm assuming here that those immigrants will one day be old themselves so will need to be supported. Not sure the cull of old people will be acceptable and of course if it were done it would have to be whites only"

Voluntary euthanasia- I can think of a few that I would volunteer! Also, the entire Man U team based on what’s happening right now!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Lol! The masonic triangle on the dollar says it all ignorance is blissfull. Let the poor masses be confused and argue while 1% politicians/druglords from all over lunder money into a trillion dollar offshore system own by Britain certainly not hitting the nail on the everything is a trade off not a solution.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"Lol! The masonic triangle on the dollar says it all ignorance is blissfull. Let the poor masses be confused and argue while 1% politicians/druglords from all over lunder money into a trillion dollar offshore system own by Britain certainly not hitting the nail on the everything is a trade off not a solution."

For or against?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan  over a year ago

Gilfach


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?"


"No.

This country has too many non-productive old people, and not enough young tax payers. To prevent a show economic collapse, we need to address that.

A cull of the elderly would be the simple option but there might be a teeny bit of objection there, so that's not going to happen. The other option is to increase the number of young people.

We could insist that every woman must have 3 children, but that also might raise the odd objection, and it will only pay off in 20 years time when the new kids start paying taxes.

If none of the above will work, the only option left is to import some young people and set them to work. There were 239,987 work visas issued last year. We'll need to increase that number dramatically if we are to continue to look after the elderly."


"Does this mean that the overall population will have to continually increase forever. I'm assuming here that those immigrants will one day be old themselves so will need to be supported."

No, we just need to reach a balance point. The introduction of mandatory pensions will help the situation, but not for another 30 years or so.


"Not sure the cull of old people will be acceptable and of course if it were done it would have to be whites only"

I fully expect to see euthanasia legalised, and a significant number of people taking it up, as old age is not fun for a lot of people.

I'm confused as to why you have brought skin colour into this discussion. It doesn't seem to be relevant.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 13/08/22 19:31:53]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

What a load of b/s The aging population of big nations is always a huge proplem it is a fact. Toomany retires and we are not producing as much. Us/Uk greatly depend on dere enemies i.e China they are no longer buying our debt/bonds....get out of the dream the system is a great fraud based corruption/insider trading/wars etc

Also i high influx of immigration caused by destabilising countries or trade offs....

Stop b/s small talk

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"

What a load of b/s The aging population of big nations is always a huge proplem it is a fact. Toomany retires and we are not producing as much. Us/Uk greatly depend on dere enemies i.e China they are no longer buying our debt/bonds....get out of the dream the system is a great fraud based corruption/insider trading/wars etc

Also i high influx of immigration caused by destabilising countries or trade offs....

Stop b/s small talk "

Righty ho.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"1.3 million unfilled job positions, businessess in hospitality turning away custom and farmers leaving crops to rot..

A pragmatic approach is required rather than the current disastrous policy of the Tories happy to see the above and content to not want taxes paid to the Exchequer from such vacancies being filled..

It's a mess which defies common and commercial sense and immigration is one way to solve it .."

Some great points but I’m starting to think that ‘hospitality’ has gone mad. I’d welcome a return to the old licensing hours - do people really need to be able to drink all day and into the early hours. I could be biased on this as I live near a ‘spoons’ and the row at closing time is unbelievable. Animals! And for the record - all white indigenous, mostly male.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple  over a year ago

in Lancashire


"1.3 million unfilled job positions, businessess in hospitality turning away custom and farmers leaving crops to rot..

A pragmatic approach is required rather than the current disastrous policy of the Tories happy to see the above and content to not want taxes paid to the Exchequer from such vacancies being filled..

It's a mess which defies common and commercial sense and immigration is one way to solve it ..

Some great points but I’m starting to think that ‘hospitality’ has gone mad. I’d welcome a return to the old licensing hours - do people really need to be able to drink all day and into the early hours. I could be biased on this as I live near a ‘spoons’ and the row at closing time is unbelievable. Animals! And for the record - all white indigenous, mostly male. "

It's the none chain hotels and restaurants that are being affected more, bigger companies like wether spoons have got the ability to trim back but stay in profit..

Smaller place are going under..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"1.3 million unfilled job positions, businessess in hospitality turning away custom and farmers leaving crops to rot..

A pragmatic approach is required rather than the current disastrous policy of the Tories happy to see the above and content to not want taxes paid to the Exchequer from such vacancies being filled..

It's a mess which defies common and commercial sense and immigration is one way to solve it ..

Some great points but I’m starting to think that ‘hospitality’ has gone mad. I’d welcome a return to the old licensing hours - do people really need to be able to drink all day and into the early hours. I could be biased on this as I live near a ‘spoons’ and the row at closing time is unbelievable. Animals! And for the record - all white indigenous, mostly male.

It's the none chain hotels and restaurants that are being affected more, bigger companies like wether spoons have got the ability to trim back but stay in profit..

Smaller place are going under.."

I’m a huge fan of supporting independents - usually family owned & run. Maybe the families need to pull their fingers out?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *olly_chromaticTV/TS  over a year ago

Stockport


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? "

If England did do this, it would only be fair for every other country in the world to say "Fuck off" to the English. So yeah, maybe just blow up the chunnel, sink all the ferries, burn all the airplanes, rebuild Hadrian's Wall to be 200 feet tall. Nobody in, nobody out. Let's see how long before there's a total collapse and people have to start eating each other. On the bright side, the rest of the world will be much improved by us stopping the export of racist chundercunts...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?

If England did do this, it would only be fair for every other country in the world to say "Fuck off" to the English. So yeah, maybe just blow up the chunnel, sink all the ferries, burn all the airplanes, rebuild Hadrian's Wall to be 200 feet tall. Nobody in, nobody out. Let's see how long before there's a total collapse and people have to start eating each other. On the bright side, the rest of the world will be much improved by us stopping the export of racist chundercunts..."

The UK not England. Banning travel, where did that come from? Why bring racism into it?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Part of the issue is this false belief that the electorate can influence immigration policy. Normal people do not matter to those who really hold power. To them poor people are poor people, no matter what race or creed they are.

At the end of the day, powerful lobby groups and business owners want open borders and cheap workforces. There is nothing anybody, be they for or against immigration can do to stop it.

We concede that occasionally some political party will pay lip-service that they will reduce immigration. However nothing actually comes of it. Lets take the Conservative's policy to deport those arriving in boats to Rwanda, the amount deported has barely breached two digits.

We are all indoctrinated during state education to believe our country is 'good' and that it has its people's interests at heart. We are programmed through our media to believe 'your vote matters'. Events in recent years have clearly shown when people pick something powerful people don't want the goalposts can be moved...

Sorry, went a little off topic there, in summary just saying nothing will change it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?

Makes sense….

We have a massive labour shortage.

The population is ageing

Birth rates are down

Who is going to pay for the literally tens of millions of ageing, retired, sick people when the numbers between those in work and those too old to work is ever widening?

Interesting. So are you saying the UK can only survive / thrive through immigration? how else will you fill the gap seb ? Even if you massively inventivised having children, that's a 20 year gap. And how are you going to pay for that incentive ?

I guess the other option is euthenasia.

I'd also wonder how our universities would survive with less funding.

Why would Unis have less funding?

Foreign students pay for a large amount of the education system.

I know that but they don’t have to settle here"

still count as immigration

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-march-2022/why-do-people-come-to-the-uk-to-study

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ayturners turn hayMan  over a year ago

Wellingborugh


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? "

Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Are you here illegally?

Yes []

No []

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. "

immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *eroy1000Man  over a year ago

milton keynes


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?

No.

This country has too many non-productive old people, and not enough young tax payers. To prevent a show economic collapse, we need to address that.

A cull of the elderly would be the simple option but there might be a teeny bit of objection there, so that's not going to happen. The other option is to increase the number of young people.

We could insist that every woman must have 3 children, but that also might raise the odd objection, and it will only pay off in 20 years time when the new kids start paying taxes.

If none of the above will work, the only option left is to import some young people and set them to work. There were 239,987 work visas issued last year. We'll need to increase that number dramatically if we are to continue to look after the elderly.

Does this mean that the overall population will have to continually increase forever. I'm assuming here that those immigrants will one day be old themselves so will need to be supported.

No, we just need to reach a balance point. The introduction of mandatory pensions will help the situation, but not for another 30 years or so.

Not sure the cull of old people will be acceptable and of course if it were done it would have to be whites only

I fully expect to see euthanasia legalised, and a significant number of people taking it up, as old age is not fun for a lot of people.

I'm confused as to why you have brought skin colour into this discussion. It doesn't seem to be relevant."

I'm not sure if we will reach a point of balance as it seems the more here, the more grow old and therefore need even more to support them. Having Said that I am sure you know it far better than me. If we do reach this point of balance, then what happens, what do we do with immigrants after that. The whites thing for euthanasia was just a tongue in cheek thing given racism as usual is being raised. Maybe it was misplaced

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

A couple of questions about this

1.How would this immigration ban work?

2.What about those we legally have to allow to immigrate due to treaties?

3.Whats the policy on exiles and those fleeing persecution?

4.Do we still undertake visa renewals?

5.What about foreigners who become married to a UK citizen?

6.How are you planning on getting it to stand for 20 years?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?

No.

This country has too many non-productive old people, and not enough young tax payers. To prevent a show economic collapse, we need to address that.

A cull of the elderly would be the simple option but there might be a teeny bit of objection there, so that's not going to happen. The other option is to increase the number of young people.

We could insist that every woman must have 3 children, but that also might raise the odd objection, and it will only pay off in 20 years time when the new kids start paying taxes.

If none of the above will work, the only option left is to import some young people and set them to work. There were 239,987 work visas issued last year. We'll need to increase that number dramatically if we are to continue to look after the elderly.

Does this mean that the overall population will have to continually increase forever. I'm assuming here that those immigrants will one day be old themselves so will need to be supported.

No, we just need to reach a balance point. The introduction of mandatory pensions will help the situation, but not for another 30 years or so.

Not sure the cull of old people will be acceptable and of course if it were done it would have to be whites only

I fully expect to see euthanasia legalised, and a significant number of people taking it up, as old age is not fun for a lot of people.

I'm confused as to why you have brought skin colour into this discussion. It doesn't seem to be relevant.

I'm not sure if we will reach a point of balance as it seems the more here, the more grow old and therefore need even more to support them. Having Said that I am sure you know it far better than me. If we do reach this point of balance, then what happens, what do we do with immigrants after that. The whites thing for euthanasia was just a tongue in cheek thing given racism as usual is being raised. Maybe it was misplaced"

I knew you were joking but some on here just don’t do humour.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"A couple of questions about this

1.How would this immigration ban work?

2.What about those we legally have to allow to immigrate due to treaties?

3.Whats the policy on exiles and those fleeing persecution?

4.Do we still undertake visa renewals?

5.What about foreigners who become married to a UK citizen?

6.How are you planning on getting it to stand for 20 years?"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"A couple of questions about this

1.How would this immigration ban work?

2.What about those we legally have to allow to immigrate due to treaties?

3.Whats the policy on exiles and those fleeing persecution?

4.Do we still undertake visa renewals?

5.What about foreigners who become married to a UK citizen?

6.How are you planning on getting it to stand for 20 years?"

Simple. Create new laws. We had no problem doing that and quickly during Covid.

What ‘treaties’?

Nobody needs to come to the UK to escape persecution. I may rethink the marriage issue. Although, judging by the scam Albanian gang marriages this would be tough.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oan of DArcCouple  over a year ago

Glasgow


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots. "

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries."

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oan of DArcCouple  over a year ago

Glasgow


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?"

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 13/08/22 22:45:24]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"A couple of questions about this

1.How would this immigration ban work?

2.What about those we legally have to allow to immigrate due to treaties?

3.Whats the policy on exiles and those fleeing persecution?

4.Do we still undertake visa renewals?

5.What about foreigners who become married to a UK citizen?

6.How are you planning on getting it to stand for 20 years?

Simple. Create new laws. We had no problem doing that and quickly during Covid.

What ‘treaties’?

Nobody needs to come to the UK to escape persecution. I may rethink the marriage issue. Although, judging by the scam Albanian gang marriages this would be tough.

"

For a lot of people fleeing persecution the UK is one of few countries that will accept them

How are you planning on having it stand for 20 years?

Just guide me through the hypothetical writing of this law

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries."

So we're not pure enough to be considered a legitimate people??

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hybloke67Man  over a year ago

ROMFORD


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

"

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hybloke67Man  over a year ago

ROMFORD


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? "

Ban - No

Tightly controlled - Yes

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ust RachelTV/TS  over a year ago

Horsham

That wouldn't stop the illegals coming across..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *uddy laneMan  over a year ago

dudley

Has anyone asked the people crossing from France if England is their final destination, they may be heading to Wales Scotland isle of man or NI the French government seem to leave them get on with their journey and not rescue them when they enter their territory.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Every industry in this country depends heavily on people coming in for work. The economy would collapse

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *olly_chromaticTV/TS  over a year ago

Stockport


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?

If England did do this, it would only be fair for every other country in the world to say "Fuck off" to the English. So yeah, maybe just blow up the chunnel, sink all the ferries, burn all the airplanes, rebuild Hadrian's Wall to be 200 feet tall. Nobody in, nobody out. Let's see how long before there's a total collapse and people have to start eating each other. On the bright side, the rest of the world will be much improved by us stopping the export of racist chundercunts...

The UK not England. Banning travel, where did that come from? Why bring racism into it? "

I merely point out that these arrangements are generally symmetrical (as we are in the process of painfully finding out with brexit). Any law passed by the UK to totally stop all immigration would invariably result in the rest of the world refusing all emigration from the UK. Repatriation of foreign nationals from the UK to their home countries would result in repatriation of UK citizens from their countries back to here. Tight controls on foreign visitors to the UK in order to prevent the possibility of illegal immigrants would result in similar tight controls on the visiting rights of UK citizens to other countries.

The only way to enforce zero immigration is to become another North Korea - nobody in, nobody out.

Then I just point out that nearly everywhere else in the world, everyone is fed up to the back teeth with the English sense of self-entitlement (and yes I do mean English there, the English really are far worse at it than the peoples of Scotland, Wales or NI), and might well be rather relieved if we did voluntarily isolate ourselves.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oan of DArcCouple  over a year ago

Glasgow


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

So we're not pure enough to be considered a legitimate people??"

.................................

All people are 'legitimate'.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oan of DArcCouple  over a year ago

Glasgow


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?"

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irldnCouple  over a year ago

Brighton

Oh Seb, another day another thread started about immigration. Each time trying to find another angle. As time hoes by the proliferation of these threads are starting to come across as click bait!

It has already been said by others but the uncomfortable truth is that the indigenous UK population has negative birth rates. Without immigration we will not have enough workers. Without enough workers there will not be enough tax collected (both from individuals and the companies that collapse or stop growing as they cannot get enough workers). That means public services will have to be cut and reduced and, most pertinent to people approaching retirement, not enough tax to fund your state pension.

So you could ban all immigration to the UK but you will also have to give up a proportion (and eventually all) of your state pension.

That work for you?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ayturners turn hayMan  over a year ago

Wellingborugh


"Oh Seb, another day another thread started about immigration. Each time trying to find another angle. As time hoes by the proliferation of these threads are starting to come across as click bait!

It has already been said by others but the uncomfortable truth is that the indigenous UK population has negative birth rates. Without immigration we will not have enough workers. Without enough workers there will not be enough tax collected (both from individuals and the companies that collapse or stop growing as they cannot get enough workers). That means public services will have to be cut and reduced and, most pertinent to people approaching retirement, not enough tax to fund your state pension.

So you could ban all immigration to the UK but you will also have to give up a proportion (and eventually all) of your state pension.

That work for you? "

. However this is only a short term solution. If the birth rate is falling the issue becomes self correcting as eventually there would be less elderly to care for and we can concentrate on the quality of life as opposed to over developing areas . If necessary we could provide incentives to increase the birth rate. We are in an age of automation so repetitive tasks are less common and this will free up workers to do undertake other roles.

By concentrating on automation and efficiencies companies will still be profitable and sufficient taxes collected to care for the elderly.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *osephSamuel90Man  over a year ago

Warfield


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them."

Actually the Roman's didn't do a lot of inter mixing with native Brits. It obviously happened occasionally, but generally they married their own to preserve Roman power. It's like Britain ruling India for hundreds of years. Sure there were some marriages between Brits and Indians and some Indians will have British heritage, but it's a very small number, because generally Brits married other British families.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *osephSamuel90Man  over a year ago

Warfield


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them."

Also, they were really 'immigrants' more 'colonisers'. Did exactly to us what we did when we were colonising the world. The net benefits are obviously good, roads, sewage systems etc, but to call them 'immigrants' is like calling the British Raj immigrants

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *osephSamuel90Man  over a year ago

Warfield


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them.

Also, they were really 'immigrants' more 'colonisers'. Did exactly to us what we did when we were colonising the world. The net benefits are obviously good, roads, sewage systems etc, but to call them 'immigrants' is like calling the British Raj immigrants "

*weren't really immigrants

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

"

It was in response to your suggestion that our past success / wealth was through plundering other countries.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"A couple of questions about this

1.How would this immigration ban work?

2.What about those we legally have to allow to immigrate due to treaties?

3.Whats the policy on exiles and those fleeing persecution?

4.Do we still undertake visa renewals?

5.What about foreigners who become married to a UK citizen?

6.How are you planning on getting it to stand for 20 years?

Simple. Create new laws. We had no problem doing that and quickly during Covid.

What ‘treaties’?

Nobody needs to come to the UK to escape persecution. I may rethink the marriage issue. Although, judging by the scam Albanian gang marriages this would be tough.

For a lot of people fleeing persecution the UK is one of few countries that will accept them

How are you planning on having it stand for 20 years?

Just guide me through the hypothetical writing of this law"

Why are we of the ‘few’ countries that accept these people? Copy the laws of countries that don’t accept them?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"Every industry in this country depends heavily on people coming in for work. The economy would collapse "

No they don’t.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?

If England did do this, it would only be fair for every other country in the world to say "Fuck off" to the English. So yeah, maybe just blow up the chunnel, sink all the ferries, burn all the airplanes, rebuild Hadrian's Wall to be 200 feet tall. Nobody in, nobody out. Let's see how long before there's a total collapse and people have to start eating each other. On the bright side, the rest of the world will be much improved by us stopping the export of racist chundercunts...

The UK not England. Banning travel, where did that come from? Why bring racism into it?

I merely point out that these arrangements are generally symmetrical (as we are in the process of painfully finding out with brexit). Any law passed by the UK to totally stop all immigration would invariably result in the rest of the world refusing all emigration from the UK. Repatriation of foreign nationals from the UK to their home countries would result in repatriation of UK citizens from their countries back to here. Tight controls on foreign visitors to the UK in order to prevent the possibility of illegal immigrants would result in similar tight controls on the visiting rights of UK citizens to other countries.

The only way to enforce zero immigration is to become another North Korea - nobody in, nobody out.

Then I just point out that nearly everywhere else in the world, everyone is fed up to the back teeth with the English sense of self-entitlement (and yes I do mean English there, the English really are far worse at it than the peoples of Scotland, Wales or NI), and might well be rather relieved if we did voluntarily isolate ourselves."

Nobody is talking about repatriation and what a nonsense comment that ‘everyone in the world is fed up with English self entitlement’.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

OP just doesn’t get it, but like many like him their relevance is becoming less and less as the years go by. Time is the great cleanser, removing the debris. Because in 30 years time where are these ideas going to be? Buried and long forgotten, with no one mourning them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"Oh Seb, another day another thread started about immigration. Each time trying to find another angle. As time hoes by the proliferation of these threads are starting to come across as click bait!

It has already been said by others but the uncomfortable truth is that the indigenous UK population has negative birth rates. Without immigration we will not have enough workers. Without enough workers there will not be enough tax collected (both from individuals and the companies that collapse or stop growing as they cannot get enough workers). That means public services will have to be cut and reduced and, most pertinent to people approaching retirement, not enough tax to fund your state pension.

So you could ban all immigration to the UK but you will also have to give up a proportion (and eventually all) of your state pension.

That work for you? "

But why is the birth rate falling? I heard a quote a few years back that “high house prices are the best form of contraception known to man’.

Hands off my pension by the way! I’ve only just started getting it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? "

No.

What makes you think ‘we are full’? Is there a set number?

Why do you continually start these thread on immigration , you seem obsessed

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irldnCouple  over a year ago

Brighton


"Oh Seb, another day another thread started about immigration. Each time trying to find another angle. As time hoes by the proliferation of these threads are starting to come across as click bait!

It has already been said by others but the uncomfortable truth is that the indigenous UK population has negative birth rates. Without immigration we will not have enough workers. Without enough workers there will not be enough tax collected (both from individuals and the companies that collapse or stop growing as they cannot get enough workers). That means public services will have to be cut and reduced and, most pertinent to people approaching retirement, not enough tax to fund your state pension.

So you could ban all immigration to the UK but you will also have to give up a proportion (and eventually all) of your state pension.

That work for you? . However this is only a short term solution. If the birth rate is falling the issue becomes self correcting as eventually there would be less elderly to care for and we can concentrate on the quality of life as opposed to over developing areas . If necessary we could provide incentives to increase the birth rate. We are in an age of automation so repetitive tasks are less common and this will free up workers to do undertake other roles.

By concentrating on automation and efficiencies companies will still be profitable and sufficient taxes collected to care for the elderly. "

Automation and AI will lead to less jobs for those who would normally have gone into manual labour type roles.

You talk about self correcting but that will take decades and the issue of funding pensions is an immediate requirement.

So the irony is that a lot of the people complaining about immigration (and in some cases immigrants themselves) are of a “certain age” and fast approaching retirement. So the whole self correcting argument is actually only going to come into play when many of them are already gone!

Another example of people demanding things that ultimately won’t impact them (for long) and dictating to younger generations what their future should look like.

As for “incentives to increase birth rate” OMG talk about Tory supporters being selective in their policy choices. How much criticism gets thrown at low income families who have loads of kids “to collect the child benefit”. Or is it that only middle and upper class people should have more kids and be incentivised to do so?

I’ll tell you what SHOULD happen. HMRC should collect the actual tax that the current population and corporations should be paying. Clamp down on evasion, have far clearer/stricter rules around avoidance, tackle tax haven/offshoring. Make companies pay tax on the income generated from the sales within the country of purchase rather than offshoring their HQ to tax havens and paying them IP royalties that effectively means their UK operations make a loss.

Solve all of THOSE issues first and then (knowing the correct level of tax collection) we can then explore other factors.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Oh Seb, another day another thread started about immigration. Each time trying to find another angle. As time hoes by the proliferation of these threads are starting to come across as click bait!

It has already been said by others but the uncomfortable truth is that the indigenous UK population has negative birth rates. Without immigration we will not have enough workers. Without enough workers there will not be enough tax collected (both from individuals and the companies that collapse or stop growing as they cannot get enough workers). That means public services will have to be cut and reduced and, most pertinent to people approaching retirement, not enough tax to fund your state pension.

So you could ban all immigration to the UK but you will also have to give up a proportion (and eventually all) of your state pension.

That work for you?

But why is the birth rate falling? I heard a quote a few years back that “high house prices are the best form of contraception known to man’.

Hands off my pension by the way! I’ve only just started getting it."

how much of your pension are you willing to give up to see this 20 year ban put on place ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? "

How do you stop it?

Echr block moves while shit loads of Albanian s flood in

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ools and the brainCouple  over a year ago

couple, us we him her.

I think that it should be limited to refugees only for a few years.

Whilst the country is in such a piss poor state.

Let's get this shit government out, get a government in place that's willing to properly fund the NHS and emergency services, social housing and social services.

Get funding back into much needed area's such as education and stopping the stripping of government assets to line the pockets of private individuals.

Then allow stricter controls of who's let in, similar to many other countries with strict vetting process that they can add skills to the workforce rather than getting any old job then be entitled to all the benefits of the NHS without hardly if ever paying into it.

I'd go as far as saying all people seeking to live here must have private medical insurance and pay privately for the first two years of residence until they have payed enough into the system to qualify for NHS support.

The reason people are willing to die to get here is the fact that the system gives preference to immigrants before people who hold UK citizenship from birth.

I'm all for helping those that are in dire need.

But just allowing everyone and anyone in has been a contributing factor to the countries current financial situation.

Hopefully this makes sense, it's not about saying NO.

It's about saying Yes to those in need and no to those who's only goal is to take advantage of all the services we the tax payer pay for without contributing themselves.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I think that it should be limited to refugees only for a few years.

Whilst the country is in such a piss poor state.

Let's get this shit government out, get a government in place that's willing to properly fund the NHS and emergency services, social housing and social services.

Get funding back into much needed area's such as education and stopping the stripping of government assets to line the pockets of private individuals.

Then allow stricter controls of who's let in, similar to many other countries with strict vetting process that they can add skills to the workforce rather than getting any old job then be entitled to all the benefits of the NHS without hardly if ever paying into it.

I'd go as far as saying all people seeking to live here must have private medical insurance and pay privately for the first two years of residence until they have payed enough into the system to qualify for NHS support.

The reason people are willing to die to get here is the fact that the system gives preference to immigrants before people who hold UK citizenship from birth.

I'm all for helping those that are in dire need.

But just allowing everyone and anyone in has been a contributing factor to the countries current financial situation.

Hopefully this makes sense, it's not about saying NO.

It's about saying Yes to those in need and no to those who's only goal is to take advantage of all the services we the tax payer pay for without contributing themselves."

do non refugee immigrants really get preferential treatment ? As in people coming here to work and study ?

I agree with your points we should focus getting the UK back to a better place. I would disagree that this has much, if anything, to do with immigration.

Indeed if we had an electorate that cared as much about this as they did immigration we may have parties looking to do stuff about it rather than coming up with tin pot Rwanda schemes to win votes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oan of DArcCouple  over a year ago

Glasgow


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

It was in response to your suggestion that our past success / wealth was through plundering other countries."

..........................

...and your response didn't address the point I was making.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I think that it should be limited to refugees only for a few years.

Whilst the country is in such a piss poor state.

Let's get this shit government out, get a government in place that's willing to properly fund the NHS and emergency services, social housing and social services.

Get funding back into much needed area's such as education and stopping the stripping of government assets to line the pockets of private individuals.

Then allow stricter controls of who's let in, similar to many other countries with strict vetting process that they can add skills to the workforce rather than getting any old job then be entitled to all the benefits of the NHS without hardly if ever paying into it.

I'd go as far as saying all people seeking to live here must have private medical insurance and pay privately for the first two years of residence until they have payed enough into the system to qualify for NHS support.

The reason people are willing to die to get here is the fact that the system gives preference to immigrants before people who hold UK citizenship from birth.

I'm all for helping those that are in dire need.

But just allowing everyone and anyone in has been a contributing factor to the countries current financial situation.

Hopefully this makes sense, it's not about saying NO.

It's about saying Yes to those in need and no to those who's only goal is to take advantage of all the services we the tax payer pay for without contributing themselves."

Maybe going a bit far but I broadly agree.If it was up to me immigration would be a last ditch effort and there would be channels and investigations to prove they were needed and even then there should be a preference list of nations we should accept from.

Unfortunately a true government addressing our internal issues is as unlikely as the OPs preferred government instead its all cheap slogans and claims of victory.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them.

Actually the Roman's didn't do a lot of inter mixing with native Brits. It obviously happened occasionally, but generally they married their own to preserve Roman power. It's like Britain ruling India for hundreds of years. Sure there were some marriages between Brits and Indians and some Indians will have British heritage, but it's a very small number, because generally Brits married other British families."

Actually there was quite a lot of intermixing between Romans and natives so much so that two distinct peoples sprung up,The romano-british and the northerners.Roman was more of a culture rather than a set race.

British India was more complicated and became very factional behind the scenes

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oan of DArcCouple  over a year ago

Glasgow


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them.

Actually the Roman's didn't do a lot of inter mixing with native Brits. It obviously happened occasionally, but generally they married their own to preserve Roman power. It's like Britain ruling India for hundreds of years. Sure there were some marriages between Brits and Indians and some Indians will have British heritage, but it's a very small number, because generally Brits married other British families.

Actually there was quite a lot of intermixing between Romans and natives so much so that two distinct peoples sprung up,The romano-british and the northerners.Roman was more of a culture rather than a set race.

British India was more complicated and became very factional behind the scenes"

...............................

Yes I'm aware of that and it endorses my original point, which was immigration to the UK is far from a recent phenomenon, those immigrants made an impression on our social/economic development and assimilated with the 'native' population.

Ps I didn't say Romans were a race, they were immigrants who came here and remained for 400 years, so obviously there will have been merging and blurring of the respective cultures.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *osephSamuel90Man  over a year ago

Warfield


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them.

Actually the Roman's didn't do a lot of inter mixing with native Brits. It obviously happened occasionally, but generally they married their own to preserve Roman power. It's like Britain ruling India for hundreds of years. Sure there were some marriages between Brits and Indians and some Indians will have British heritage, but it's a very small number, because generally Brits married other British families.

Actually there was quite a lot of intermixing between Romans and natives so much so that two distinct peoples sprung up,The romano-british and the northerners.Roman was more of a culture rather than a set race.

British India was more complicated and became very factional behind the scenes

...............................

Yes I'm aware of that and it endorses my original point, which was immigration to the UK is far from a recent phenomenon, those immigrants made an impression on our social/economic development and assimilated with the 'native' population.

Ps I didn't say Romans were a race, they were immigrants who came here and remained for 400 years, so obviously there will have been merging and blurring of the respective cultures."

They weren't immigrants though. They were colonisers. Wasn't like a few Romans suddenly decided Italy was _oo hot for them and they'd visit Britain for cooler climates. The Romans that originally arrived were part of an army sent here specifically to conquer the land and expand the Roman empire

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irldnCouple  over a year ago

Brighton


"Oh Seb, another day another thread started about immigration. Each time trying to find another angle. As time hoes by the proliferation of these threads are starting to come across as click bait!

It has already been said by others but the uncomfortable truth is that the indigenous UK population has negative birth rates. Without immigration we will not have enough workers. Without enough workers there will not be enough tax collected (both from individuals and the companies that collapse or stop growing as they cannot get enough workers). That means public services will have to be cut and reduced and, most pertinent to people approaching retirement, not enough tax to fund your state pension.

So you could ban all immigration to the UK but you will also have to give up a proportion (and eventually all) of your state pension.

That work for you?

But why is the birth rate falling? I heard a quote a few years back that “high house prices are the best form of contraception known to man’.

Hands off my pension by the way! I’ve only just started getting it."

You are 64 so how you getting your state pension?

Declining birth rate is attributed to many factors and is an issue facing much of the first world. Factors include cost of living and women choosing to focus on careers and starting families later.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them.

Actually the Roman's didn't do a lot of inter mixing with native Brits. It obviously happened occasionally, but generally they married their own to preserve Roman power. It's like Britain ruling India for hundreds of years. Sure there were some marriages between Brits and Indians and some Indians will have British heritage, but it's a very small number, because generally Brits married other British families.

Actually there was quite a lot of intermixing between Romans and natives so much so that two distinct peoples sprung up,The romano-british and the northerners.Roman was more of a culture rather than a set race.

British India was more complicated and became very factional behind the scenes

...............................

Yes I'm aware of that and it endorses my original point, which was immigration to the UK is far from a recent phenomenon, those immigrants made an impression on our social/economic development and assimilated with the 'native' population.

Ps I didn't say Romans were a race, they were immigrants who came here and remained for 400 years, so obviously there will have been merging and blurring of the respective cultures."

I was more referring to the “married their own” by pointing out their own was different to them.I was pointing out that the Romans never actually left and here even planned at times to war with the Empire to protect their culture.

Landing here with 10,000 armed men intent on taking over the Cornish(yes thats who the Romans came here to fight) isn’t really what I would class as immigration.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irldnCouple  over a year ago

Brighton


"I think that it should be limited to refugees only for a few years.

Whilst the country is in such a piss poor state.

Let's get this shit government out, get a government in place that's willing to properly fund the NHS and emergency services, social housing and social services.

Get funding back into much needed area's such as education and stopping the stripping of government assets to line the pockets of private individuals.

Then allow stricter controls of who's let in, similar to many other countries with strict vetting process that they can add skills to the workforce rather than getting any old job then be entitled to all the benefits of the NHS without hardly if ever paying into it.

I'd go as far as saying all people seeking to live here must have private medical insurance and pay privately for the first two years of residence until they have payed enough into the system to qualify for NHS support.

The reason people are willing to die to get here is the fact that the system gives preference to immigrants before people who hold UK citizenship from birth.

I'm all for helping those that are in dire need.

But just allowing everyone and anyone in has been a contributing factor to the countries current financial situation.

Hopefully this makes sense, it's not about saying NO.

It's about saying Yes to those in need and no to those who's only goal is to take advantage of all the services we the tax payer pay for without contributing themselves."

Genuine refugees aside, I totally agree with this...

“I'd go as far as saying all people seeking to live here must have private medical insurance and pay privately for the first two years of residence until they have payed enough into the system to qualify for NHS support.”

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?

No.

What makes you think ‘we are full’? Is there a set number?

Why do you continually start these thread on immigration , you seem obsessed "

You are obsessed about me being obsessed. I like to raise the issue as I think it’s good to discuss these things.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irldnCouple  over a year ago

Brighton


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them.

Actually the Roman's didn't do a lot of inter mixing with native Brits. It obviously happened occasionally, but generally they married their own to preserve Roman power. It's like Britain ruling India for hundreds of years. Sure there were some marriages between Brits and Indians and some Indians will have British heritage, but it's a very small number, because generally Brits married other British families.

Actually there was quite a lot of intermixing between Romans and natives so much so that two distinct peoples sprung up,The romano-british and the northerners.Roman was more of a culture rather than a set race.

British India was more complicated and became very factional behind the scenes

...............................

Yes I'm aware of that and it endorses my original point, which was immigration to the UK is far from a recent phenomenon, those immigrants made an impression on our social/economic development and assimilated with the 'native' population.

Ps I didn't say Romans were a race, they were immigrants who came here and remained for 400 years, so obviously there will have been merging and blurring of the respective cultures.

I was more referring to the “married their own” by pointing out their own was different to them.I was pointing out that the Romans never actually left and here even planned at times to war with the Empire to protect their culture.

Landing here with 10,000 armed men intent on taking over the Cornish(yes thats who the Romans came here to fight) isn’t really what I would class as immigration.

"

The “Cornish”? As in the Celtic Britons who were the population of all modern day England and Wales?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?

No.

What makes you think ‘we are full’? Is there a set number?

Why do you continually start these thread on immigration , you seem obsessed

You are obsessed about me being obsessed. I like to raise the issue as I think it’s good to discuss these things."

You are obsessed, but that is your choice. Would this ban include sports people, ban all foreign footballers from playing here?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them.

Actually the Roman's didn't do a lot of inter mixing with native Brits. It obviously happened occasionally, but generally they married their own to preserve Roman power. It's like Britain ruling India for hundreds of years. Sure there were some marriages between Brits and Indians and some Indians will have British heritage, but it's a very small number, because generally Brits married other British families.

Actually there was quite a lot of intermixing between Romans and natives so much so that two distinct peoples sprung up,The romano-british and the northerners.Roman was more of a culture rather than a set race.

British India was more complicated and became very factional behind the scenes

...............................

Yes I'm aware of that and it endorses my original point, which was immigration to the UK is far from a recent phenomenon, those immigrants made an impression on our social/economic development and assimilated with the 'native' population.

Ps I didn't say Romans were a race, they were immigrants who came here and remained for 400 years, so obviously there will have been merging and blurring of the respective cultures.

I was more referring to the “married their own” by pointing out their own was different to them.I was pointing out that the Romans never actually left and here even planned at times to war with the Empire to protect their culture.

Landing here with 10,000 armed men intent on taking over the Cornish(yes thats who the Romans came here to fight) isn’t really what I would class as immigration.

The “Cornish”? As in the Celtic Britons who were the population of all modern day England and Wales?"

Well they had a problem with all Celtic Britons when they landed as they couldn’t tell them apart for a while but it was against tribes from Cornwall that the case for invasion was made.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ayturners turn hayMan  over a year ago

Wellingborugh


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?

No.

What makes you think ‘we are full’? Is there a set number?

Why do you continually start these thread on immigration , you seem obsessed

You are obsessed about me being obsessed. I like to raise the issue as I think it’s good to discuss these things."

. Well said . You have raised a very interesting discussion topic. . Numerous posters raise the same discussion topics time and time again. You probably raise a lot less topics than others . My guess is that some people would prefer that the topic was not discussed and that they are incapable of matching the benefits with the costs

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?

No.

What makes you think ‘we are full’? Is there a set number?

Why do you continually start these thread on immigration , you seem obsessed

You are obsessed about me being obsessed. I like to raise the issue as I think it’s good to discuss these things.. Well said . You have raised a very interesting discussion topic. . Numerous posters raise the same discussion topics time and time again. You probably raise a lot less topics than others . My guess is that some people would prefer that the topic was not discussed and that they are incapable of matching the benefits with the costs "

Do you have a breakdown of the costs v benefits of immigration

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oan of DArcCouple  over a year ago

Glasgow


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them.

Actually the Roman's didn't do a lot of inter mixing with native Brits. It obviously happened occasionally, but generally they married their own to preserve Roman power. It's like Britain ruling India for hundreds of years. Sure there were some marriages between Brits and Indians and some Indians will have British heritage, but it's a very small number, because generally Brits married other British families.

Actually there was quite a lot of intermixing between Romans and natives so much so that two distinct peoples sprung up,The romano-british and the northerners.Roman was more of a culture rather than a set race.

British India was more complicated and became very factional behind the scenes

...............................

Yes I'm aware of that and it endorses my original point, which was immigration to the UK is far from a recent phenomenon, those immigrants made an impression on our social/economic development and assimilated with the 'native' population.

Ps I didn't say Romans were a race, they were immigrants who came here and remained for 400 years, so obviously there will have been merging and blurring of the respective cultures.

They weren't immigrants though. They were colonisers. Wasn't like a few Romans suddenly decided Italy was _oo hot for them and they'd visit Britain for cooler climates. The Romans that originally arrived were part of an army sent here specifically to conquer the land and expand the Roman empire"

.............................

The term 'immigrant' simply describes people relocating from one country to live in another. It doesn't consider their reasons for doing so.

But it's semantics, the Romans came here for selfish reasons not altruistic ones, yet they still influenced the development of this country and assimilated with the natives over time, yet the rabid chest beating continues regarding more recent immigration, usually directed at refugees who comprise a small proportion of immigrant numbers.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *eroy1000Man  over a year ago

milton keynes


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?

No.

This country has too many non-productive old people, and not enough young tax payers. To prevent a show economic collapse, we need to address that.

A cull of the elderly would be the simple option but there might be a teeny bit of objection there, so that's not going to happen. The other option is to increase the number of young people.

We could insist that every woman must have 3 children, but that also might raise the odd objection, and it will only pay off in 20 years time when the new kids start paying taxes.

If none of the above will work, the only option left is to import some young people and set them to work. There were 239,987 work visas issued last year. We'll need to increase that number dramatically if we are to continue to look after the elderly.

Does this mean that the overall population will have to continually increase forever. I'm assuming here that those immigrants will one day be old themselves so will need to be supported.

No, we just need to reach a balance point. The introduction of mandatory pensions will help the situation, but not for another 30 years or so.

Not sure the cull of old people will be acceptable and of course if it were done it would have to be whites only

I fully expect to see euthanasia legalised, and a significant number of people taking it up, as old age is not fun for a lot of people.

I'm confused as to why you have brought skin colour into this discussion. It doesn't seem to be relevant.

I'm not sure if we will reach a point of balance as it seems the more here, the more grow old and therefore need even more to support them. Having Said that I am sure you know it far better than me. If we do reach this point of balance, then what happens, what do we do with immigrants after that. The whites thing for euthanasia was just a tongue in cheek thing given racism as usual is being raised. Maybe it was misplaced

I knew you were joking but some on here just don’t do humour."

Thank you. As an extra question, are you talking about just the illegal people being banned (still don't think that's do able) or do you mean to include not issuing any work visas to foreign nationals and stopping foreign students attending for their studies

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them.

Actually the Roman's didn't do a lot of inter mixing with native Brits. It obviously happened occasionally, but generally they married their own to preserve Roman power. It's like Britain ruling India for hundreds of years. Sure there were some marriages between Brits and Indians and some Indians will have British heritage, but it's a very small number, because generally Brits married other British families.

Actually there was quite a lot of intermixing between Romans and natives so much so that two distinct peoples sprung up,The romano-british and the northerners.Roman was more of a culture rather than a set race.

British India was more complicated and became very factional behind the scenes

...............................

Yes I'm aware of that and it endorses my original point, which was immigration to the UK is far from a recent phenomenon, those immigrants made an impression on our social/economic development and assimilated with the 'native' population.

Ps I didn't say Romans were a race, they were immigrants who came here and remained for 400 years, so obviously there will have been merging and blurring of the respective cultures.

They weren't immigrants though. They were colonisers. Wasn't like a few Romans suddenly decided Italy was _oo hot for them and they'd visit Britain for cooler climates. The Romans that originally arrived were part of an army sent here specifically to conquer the land and expand the Roman empire

.............................

The term 'immigrant' simply describes people relocating from one country to live in another. It doesn't consider their reasons for doing so.

But it's semantics, the Romans came here for selfish reasons not altruistic ones, yet they still influenced the development of this country and assimilated with the natives over time, yet the rabid chest beating continues regarding more recent immigration, usually directed at refugees who comprise a small proportion of immigrant numbers."

‘Rabid chest beating’, what he heck is that ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them.

Actually the Roman's didn't do a lot of inter mixing with native Brits. It obviously happened occasionally, but generally they married their own to preserve Roman power. It's like Britain ruling India for hundreds of years. Sure there were some marriages between Brits and Indians and some Indians will have British heritage, but it's a very small number, because generally Brits married other British families.

Actually there was quite a lot of intermixing between Romans and natives so much so that two distinct peoples sprung up,The romano-british and the northerners.Roman was more of a culture rather than a set race.

British India was more complicated and became very factional behind the scenes

...............................

Yes I'm aware of that and it endorses my original point, which was immigration to the UK is far from a recent phenomenon, those immigrants made an impression on our social/economic development and assimilated with the 'native' population.

Ps I didn't say Romans were a race, they were immigrants who came here and remained for 400 years, so obviously there will have been merging and blurring of the respective cultures.

They weren't immigrants though. They were colonisers. Wasn't like a few Romans suddenly decided Italy was _oo hot for them and they'd visit Britain for cooler climates. The Romans that originally arrived were part of an army sent here specifically to conquer the land and expand the Roman empire

.............................

The term 'immigrant' simply describes people relocating from one country to live in another. It doesn't consider their reasons for doing so.

But it's semantics, the Romans came here for selfish reasons not altruistic ones, yet they still influenced the development of this country and assimilated with the natives over time, yet the rabid chest beating continues regarding more recent immigration, usually directed at refugees who comprise a small proportion of immigrant numbers.

‘Rabid chest beating’, what he heck is that ? "

Does your plan involve banning all foreign footballers from plating here and are you going to stop British people from immigrating abroad

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *olly_chromaticTV/TS  over a year ago

Stockport


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them.

Actually the Roman's didn't do a lot of inter mixing with native Brits. It obviously happened occasionally, but generally they married their own to preserve Roman power. It's like Britain ruling India for hundreds of years. Sure there were some marriages between Brits and Indians and some Indians will have British heritage, but it's a very small number, because generally Brits married other British families.

Actually there was quite a lot of intermixing between Romans and natives so much so that two distinct peoples sprung up,The romano-british and the northerners.Roman was more of a culture rather than a set race.

British India was more complicated and became very factional behind the scenes

...............................

Yes I'm aware of that and it endorses my original point, which was immigration to the UK is far from a recent phenomenon, those immigrants made an impression on our social/economic development and assimilated with the 'native' population.

Ps I didn't say Romans were a race, they were immigrants who came here and remained for 400 years, so obviously there will have been merging and blurring of the respective cultures.

They weren't immigrants though. They were colonisers. Wasn't like a few Romans suddenly decided Italy was _oo hot for them and they'd visit Britain for cooler climates. The Romans that originally arrived were part of an army sent here specifically to conquer the land and expand the Roman empire

.............................

The term 'immigrant' simply describes people relocating from one country to live in another. It doesn't consider their reasons for doing so.

But it's semantics, the Romans came here for selfish reasons not altruistic ones, yet they still influenced the development of this country and assimilated with the natives over time, yet the rabid chest beating continues regarding more recent immigration, usually directed at refugees who comprise a small proportion of immigrant numbers.

‘Rabid chest beating’, what he heck is that ?

Does your plan involve banning all foreign footballers from plating here and are you going to stop British people from immigrating abroad "

I made this exact point some way above. The belief that some on here seem to have that border controls are a one way thing, perfectly illustrates the English exceptionalism that I talked about. Saying nobody allowed in to the UK would basically just lead to the rest of the world saying nobody allowed out from the UK.

It still stuns me that all the brexiters who voted to make life, travel and trade harder for Europeans coming into this country, are now crying boo hoo hoo that the result is to make life, travel and trade much harder for the British going to Europe.

"We don't want to be part of that nasty European union" said the English (but not the Scottish or the Northern Irish, and in Wales it was only the English settlers that took the "leave" vote above 50%). "Fine" said Europe, "You're out". And now the English are all "Wah! The nasty Europeans won't let us into their club for free" and "Why do they insist on stamping our papers when we try to get into Europe? Why are they making us stand in the Not EU queue? Don't they know that we're English?".

Top tip: If a country spends years telling a much larger Union of countries to piss off, then they will probably listen to it and decide that country isn't really welcome to visit any more.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *uddy laneMan  over a year ago

dudley


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them.

Actually the Roman's didn't do a lot of inter mixing with native Brits. It obviously happened occasionally, but generally they married their own to preserve Roman power. It's like Britain ruling India for hundreds of years. Sure there were some marriages between Brits and Indians and some Indians will have British heritage, but it's a very small number, because generally Brits married other British families.

Actually there was quite a lot of intermixing between Romans and natives so much so that two distinct peoples sprung up,The romano-british and the northerners.Roman was more of a culture rather than a set race.

British India was more complicated and became very factional behind the scenes

...............................

Yes I'm aware of that and it endorses my original point, which was immigration to the UK is far from a recent phenomenon, those immigrants made an impression on our social/economic development and assimilated with the 'native' population.

Ps I didn't say Romans were a race, they were immigrants who came here and remained for 400 years, so obviously there will have been merging and blurring of the respective cultures.

They weren't immigrants though. They were colonisers. Wasn't like a few Romans suddenly decided Italy was _oo hot for them and they'd visit Britain for cooler climates. The Romans that originally arrived were part of an army sent here specifically to conquer the land and expand the Roman empire

.............................

The term 'immigrant' simply describes people relocating from one country to live in another. It doesn't consider their reasons for doing so.

But it's semantics, the Romans came here for selfish reasons not altruistic ones, yet they still influenced the development of this country and assimilated with the natives over time, yet the rabid chest beating continues regarding more recent immigration, usually directed at refugees who comprise a small proportion of immigrant numbers.

‘Rabid chest beating’, what he heck is that ?

Does your plan involve banning all foreign footballers from plating here and are you going to stop British people from immigrating abroad

I made this exact point some way above. The belief that some on here seem to have that border controls are a one way thing, perfectly illustrates the English exceptionalism that I talked about. Saying nobody allowed in to the UK would basically just lead to the rest of the world saying nobody allowed out from the UK.

It still stuns me that all the brexiters who voted to make life, travel and trade harder for Europeans coming into this country, are now crying boo hoo hoo that the result is to make life, travel and trade much harder for the British going to Europe.

"We don't want to be part of that nasty European union" said the English (but not the Scottish or the Northern Irish, and in Wales it was only the English settlers that took the "leave" vote above 50%). "Fine" said Europe, "You're out". And now the English are all "Wah! The nasty Europeans won't let us into their club for free" and "Why do they insist on stamping our papers when we try to get into Europe? Why are they making us stand in the Not EU queue? Don't they know that we're English?".

Top tip: If a country spends years telling a much larger Union of countries to piss off, then they will probably listen to it and decide that country isn't really welcome to visit any more."

Just a question have you had difficulty leaving the UK.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *olly_chromaticTV/TS  over a year ago

Stockport


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them.

Actually the Roman's didn't do a lot of inter mixing with native Brits. It obviously happened occasionally, but generally they married their own to preserve Roman power. It's like Britain ruling India for hundreds of years. Sure there were some marriages between Brits and Indians and some Indians will have British heritage, but it's a very small number, because generally Brits married other British families.

Actually there was quite a lot of intermixing between Romans and natives so much so that two distinct peoples sprung up,The romano-british and the northerners.Roman was more of a culture rather than a set race.

British India was more complicated and became very factional behind the scenes

...............................

Yes I'm aware of that and it endorses my original point, which was immigration to the UK is far from a recent phenomenon, those immigrants made an impression on our social/economic development and assimilated with the 'native' population.

Ps I didn't say Romans were a race, they were immigrants who came here and remained for 400 years, so obviously there will have been merging and blurring of the respective cultures.

They weren't immigrants though. They were colonisers. Wasn't like a few Romans suddenly decided Italy was _oo hot for them and they'd visit Britain for cooler climates. The Romans that originally arrived were part of an army sent here specifically to conquer the land and expand the Roman empire

.............................

The term 'immigrant' simply describes people relocating from one country to live in another. It doesn't consider their reasons for doing so.

But it's semantics, the Romans came here for selfish reasons not altruistic ones, yet they still influenced the development of this country and assimilated with the natives over time, yet the rabid chest beating continues regarding more recent immigration, usually directed at refugees who comprise a small proportion of immigrant numbers.

‘Rabid chest beating’, what he heck is that ?

Does your plan involve banning all foreign footballers from plating here and are you going to stop British people from immigrating abroad

I made this exact point some way above. The belief that some on here seem to have that border controls are a one way thing, perfectly illustrates the English exceptionalism that I talked about. Saying nobody allowed in to the UK would basically just lead to the rest of the world saying nobody allowed out from the UK.

It still stuns me that all the brexiters who voted to make life, travel and trade harder for Europeans coming into this country, are now crying boo hoo hoo that the result is to make life, travel and trade much harder for the British going to Europe.

"We don't want to be part of that nasty European union" said the English (but not the Scottish or the Northern Irish, and in Wales it was only the English settlers that took the "leave" vote above 50%). "Fine" said Europe, "You're out". And now the English are all "Wah! The nasty Europeans won't let us into their club for free" and "Why do they insist on stamping our papers when we try to get into Europe? Why are they making us stand in the Not EU queue? Don't they know that we're English?".

Top tip: If a country spends years telling a much larger Union of countries to piss off, then they will probably listen to it and decide that country isn't really welcome to visit any more.

Just a question have you had difficulty leaving the UK."

Personally no, because I've not been stupid enough to even try since Brexit. However I think that the 20 odd mile queues up the motorway from Dover of people waiting to get into France might indicate that there is some slight difficulty. Also the UK ex-pats living in Europe that have now been told that they aren't allowed to have a UK bank account any more might believe that Brexit has introduced some difficulty into their lives. Likewise the rules about UK cars in Europe which have recently led to some great difficulty for those attempting to be resident here for part of the year and resident there for part of the year - finding that their UK registered car is actually illegal in France when they hold French residency papers. Likewise the UK citizens finding that even if they do hold official residency in one EU country, it does not allow them freedom to work in a different EU country. Likewise UK musicians finding that they can no longer afford to tour and play concerts in EU countries, because it costs thousands of pounds for customs paperwork to be able to move their instruments across borders.

Every single one of these things are the results of the demands made by the UK, the post-brexit agreement written by the UK government, and the English exceptionalism of saying "we can tell those Europeans what to do, but they can't tell us what to do".

You've got it, it's what you asked for, it's a shit show, embrace it.

I didn't ask for it, I'm lumbered with it, I'm tolerating it, I'm allowed to complain about it, I'm waiting (quite possibly forever) for the arrangements to be sorted out before I even attempt to travel.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them.

Actually the Roman's didn't do a lot of inter mixing with native Brits. It obviously happened occasionally, but generally they married their own to preserve Roman power. It's like Britain ruling India for hundreds of years. Sure there were some marriages between Brits and Indians and some Indians will have British heritage, but it's a very small number, because generally Brits married other British families.

Actually there was quite a lot of intermixing between Romans and natives so much so that two distinct peoples sprung up,The romano-british and the northerners.Roman was more of a culture rather than a set race.

British India was more complicated and became very factional behind the scenes

...............................

Yes I'm aware of that and it endorses my original point, which was immigration to the UK is far from a recent phenomenon, those immigrants made an impression on our social/economic development and assimilated with the 'native' population.

Ps I didn't say Romans were a race, they were immigrants who came here and remained for 400 years, so obviously there will have been merging and blurring of the respective cultures.

They weren't immigrants though. They were colonisers. Wasn't like a few Romans suddenly decided Italy was _oo hot for them and they'd visit Britain for cooler climates. The Romans that originally arrived were part of an army sent here specifically to conquer the land and expand the Roman empire

.............................

The term 'immigrant' simply describes people relocating from one country to live in another. It doesn't consider their reasons for doing so.

But it's semantics, the Romans came here for selfish reasons not altruistic ones, yet they still influenced the development of this country and assimilated with the natives over time, yet the rabid chest beating continues regarding more recent immigration, usually directed at refugees who comprise a small proportion of immigrant numbers.

‘Rabid chest beating’, what he heck is that ?

Does your plan involve banning all foreign footballers from plating here and are you going to stop British people from immigrating abroad "

I don’t have a plan. Just raising the question really. I saw the other day that in 2018 Japan admitted 115k immigrants, they have a population of 125 million. I accept there would be challenges. If I had a plan it would attractive females only but I don’t think I’d get that one through.

Students - of course. I would never want to stand in the way of love as I’m a nice guy so marriages are ok. I think the rules there are already strict and the system has been abused. Im also a hypocrite as I’d quite like to fuck off to France.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them.

Actually the Roman's didn't do a lot of inter mixing with native Brits. It obviously happened occasionally, but generally they married their own to preserve Roman power. It's like Britain ruling India for hundreds of years. Sure there were some marriages between Brits and Indians and some Indians will have British heritage, but it's a very small number, because generally Brits married other British families.

Actually there was quite a lot of intermixing between Romans and natives so much so that two distinct peoples sprung up,The romano-british and the northerners.Roman was more of a culture rather than a set race.

British India was more complicated and became very factional behind the scenes

...............................

Yes I'm aware of that and it endorses my original point, which was immigration to the UK is far from a recent phenomenon, those immigrants made an impression on our social/economic development and assimilated with the 'native' population.

Ps I didn't say Romans were a race, they were immigrants who came here and remained for 400 years, so obviously there will have been merging and blurring of the respective cultures.

They weren't immigrants though. They were colonisers. Wasn't like a few Romans suddenly decided Italy was _oo hot for them and they'd visit Britain for cooler climates. The Romans that originally arrived were part of an army sent here specifically to conquer the land and expand the Roman empire

.............................

The term 'immigrant' simply describes people relocating from one country to live in another. It doesn't consider their reasons for doing so.

But it's semantics, the Romans came here for selfish reasons not altruistic ones, yet they still influenced the development of this country and assimilated with the natives over time, yet the rabid chest beating continues regarding more recent immigration, usually directed at refugees who comprise a small proportion of immigrant numbers.

‘Rabid chest beating’, what he heck is that ?

Does your plan involve banning all foreign footballers from plating here and are you going to stop British people from immigrating abroad

I don’t have a plan. Just raising the question really. I saw the other day that in 2018 Japan admitted 115k immigrants, they have a population of 125 million. I accept there would be challenges. If I had a plan it would attractive females only but I don’t think I’d get that one through.

Students - of course. I would never want to stand in the way of love as I’m a nice guy so marriages are ok. I think the rules there are already strict and the system has been abused. Im also a hypocrite as I’d quite like to fuck off to France."

Ah ok, as you don’t have many details and it’s a bit vague I am going to say it’s a bad idea and will never happen ,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them.

Actually the Roman's didn't do a lot of inter mixing with native Brits. It obviously happened occasionally, but generally they married their own to preserve Roman power. It's like Britain ruling India for hundreds of years. Sure there were some marriages between Brits and Indians and some Indians will have British heritage, but it's a very small number, because generally Brits married other British families.

Actually there was quite a lot of intermixing between Romans and natives so much so that two distinct peoples sprung up,The romano-british and the northerners.Roman was more of a culture rather than a set race.

British India was more complicated and became very factional behind the scenes

...............................

Yes I'm aware of that and it endorses my original point, which was immigration to the UK is far from a recent phenomenon, those immigrants made an impression on our social/economic development and assimilated with the 'native' population.

Ps I didn't say Romans were a race, they were immigrants who came here and remained for 400 years, so obviously there will have been merging and blurring of the respective cultures.

They weren't immigrants though. They were colonisers. Wasn't like a few Romans suddenly decided Italy was _oo hot for them and they'd visit Britain for cooler climates. The Romans that originally arrived were part of an army sent here specifically to conquer the land and expand the Roman empire

.............................

The term 'immigrant' simply describes people relocating from one country to live in another. It doesn't consider their reasons for doing so.

But it's semantics, the Romans came here for selfish reasons not altruistic ones, yet they still influenced the development of this country and assimilated with the natives over time, yet the rabid chest beating continues regarding more recent immigration, usually directed at refugees who comprise a small proportion of immigrant numbers.

‘Rabid chest beating’, what he heck is that ?

Does your plan involve banning all foreign footballers from plating here and are you going to stop British people from immigrating abroad

I don’t have a plan. Just raising the question really. I saw the other day that in 2018 Japan admitted 115k immigrants, they have a population of 125 million. I accept there would be challenges. If I had a plan it would attractive females only but I don’t think I’d get that one through.

Students - of course. I would never want to stand in the way of love as I’m a nice guy so marriages are ok. I think the rules there are already strict and the system has been abused. Im also a hypocrite as I’d quite like to fuck off to France.

Ah ok, as you don’t have many details and it’s a bit vague I am going to say it’s a bad idea and will never happen , "

Why so negative? Let’s have some positivity please.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them.

Actually the Roman's didn't do a lot of inter mixing with native Brits. It obviously happened occasionally, but generally they married their own to preserve Roman power. It's like Britain ruling India for hundreds of years. Sure there were some marriages between Brits and Indians and some Indians will have British heritage, but it's a very small number, because generally Brits married other British families.

Actually there was quite a lot of intermixing between Romans and natives so much so that two distinct peoples sprung up,The romano-british and the northerners.Roman was more of a culture rather than a set race.

British India was more complicated and became very factional behind the scenes

...............................

Yes I'm aware of that and it endorses my original point, which was immigration to the UK is far from a recent phenomenon, those immigrants made an impression on our social/economic development and assimilated with the 'native' population.

Ps I didn't say Romans were a race, they were immigrants who came here and remained for 400 years, so obviously there will have been merging and blurring of the respective cultures.

They weren't immigrants though. They were colonisers. Wasn't like a few Romans suddenly decided Italy was _oo hot for them and they'd visit Britain for cooler climates. The Romans that originally arrived were part of an army sent here specifically to conquer the land and expand the Roman empire

.............................

The term 'immigrant' simply describes people relocating from one country to live in another. It doesn't consider their reasons for doing so.

But it's semantics, the Romans came here for selfish reasons not altruistic ones, yet they still influenced the development of this country and assimilated with the natives over time, yet the rabid chest beating continues regarding more recent immigration, usually directed at refugees who comprise a small proportion of immigrant numbers.

‘Rabid chest beating’, what he heck is that ?

Does your plan involve banning all foreign footballers from plating here and are you going to stop British people from immigrating abroad

I don’t have a plan. Just raising the question really. I saw the other day that in 2018 Japan admitted 115k immigrants, they have a population of 125 million. I accept there would be challenges. If I had a plan it would attractive females only but I don’t think I’d get that one through.

Students - of course. I would never want to stand in the way of love as I’m a nice guy so marriages are ok. I think the rules there are already strict and the system has been abused. Im also a hypocrite as I’d quite like to fuck off to France.

Ah ok, as you don’t have many details and it’s a bit vague I am going to say it’s a bad idea and will never happen ,

Why so negative? Let’s have some positivity please."

It lacks detail, it won’t happen, convince me otherwise,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them.

Actually the Roman's didn't do a lot of inter mixing with native Brits. It obviously happened occasionally, but generally they married their own to preserve Roman power. It's like Britain ruling India for hundreds of years. Sure there were some marriages between Brits and Indians and some Indians will have British heritage, but it's a very small number, because generally Brits married other British families.

Actually there was quite a lot of intermixing between Romans and natives so much so that two distinct peoples sprung up,The romano-british and the northerners.Roman was more of a culture rather than a set race.

British India was more complicated and became very factional behind the scenes

...............................

Yes I'm aware of that and it endorses my original point, which was immigration to the UK is far from a recent phenomenon, those immigrants made an impression on our social/economic development and assimilated with the 'native' population.

Ps I didn't say Romans were a race, they were immigrants who came here and remained for 400 years, so obviously there will have been merging and blurring of the respective cultures.

They weren't immigrants though. They were colonisers. Wasn't like a few Romans suddenly decided Italy was _oo hot for them and they'd visit Britain for cooler climates. The Romans that originally arrived were part of an army sent here specifically to conquer the land and expand the Roman empire

.............................

The term 'immigrant' simply describes people relocating from one country to live in another. It doesn't consider their reasons for doing so.

But it's semantics, the Romans came here for selfish reasons not altruistic ones, yet they still influenced the development of this country and assimilated with the natives over time, yet the rabid chest beating continues regarding more recent immigration, usually directed at refugees who comprise a small proportion of immigrant numbers.

‘Rabid chest beating’, what he heck is that ?

Does your plan involve banning all foreign footballers from plating here and are you going to stop British people from immigrating abroad

I don’t have a plan. Just raising the question really. I saw the other day that in 2018 Japan admitted 115k immigrants, they have a population of 125 million. I accept there would be challenges. If I had a plan it would attractive females only but I don’t think I’d get that one through.

Students - of course. I would never want to stand in the way of love as I’m a nice guy so marriages are ok. I think the rules there are already strict and the system has been abused. Im also a hypocrite as I’d quite like to fuck off to France."

Japan is facing into its aging population challenge by increasing immigration despite it being one of the more anti immigration of countries.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/18/japan-could-allow-more-foreigners-to-stay-indefinitely-in-major-shift.html

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them.

Actually the Roman's didn't do a lot of inter mixing with native Brits. It obviously happened occasionally, but generally they married their own to preserve Roman power. It's like Britain ruling India for hundreds of years. Sure there were some marriages between Brits and Indians and some Indians will have British heritage, but it's a very small number, because generally Brits married other British families.

Actually there was quite a lot of intermixing between Romans and natives so much so that two distinct peoples sprung up,The romano-british and the northerners.Roman was more of a culture rather than a set race.

British India was more complicated and became very factional behind the scenes

...............................

Yes I'm aware of that and it endorses my original point, which was immigration to the UK is far from a recent phenomenon, those immigrants made an impression on our social/economic development and assimilated with the 'native' population.

Ps I didn't say Romans were a race, they were immigrants who came here and remained for 400 years, so obviously there will have been merging and blurring of the respective cultures.

They weren't immigrants though. They were colonisers. Wasn't like a few Romans suddenly decided Italy was _oo hot for them and they'd visit Britain for cooler climates. The Romans that originally arrived were part of an army sent here specifically to conquer the land and expand the Roman empire

.............................

The term 'immigrant' simply describes people relocating from one country to live in another. It doesn't consider their reasons for doing so.

But it's semantics, the Romans came here for selfish reasons not altruistic ones, yet they still influenced the development of this country and assimilated with the natives over time, yet the rabid chest beating continues regarding more recent immigration, usually directed at refugees who comprise a small proportion of immigrant numbers.

‘Rabid chest beating’, what he heck is that ?

Does your plan involve banning all foreign footballers from plating here and are you going to stop British people from immigrating abroad

I don’t have a plan. Just raising the question really. I saw the other day that in 2018 Japan admitted 115k immigrants, they have a population of 125 million. I accept there would be challenges. If I had a plan it would attractive females only but I don’t think I’d get that one through.

Students - of course. I would never want to stand in the way of love as I’m a nice guy so marriages are ok. I think the rules there are already strict and the system has been abused. Im also a hypocrite as I’d quite like to fuck off to France.

Ah ok, as you don’t have many details and it’s a bit vague I am going to say it’s a bad idea and will never happen ,

Why so negative? Let’s have some positivity please.

It lacks detail, it won’t happen, convince me otherwise,"

You can’t handle ‘detail! ‘

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irldnCouple  over a year ago

Brighton


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them.

Actually the Roman's didn't do a lot of inter mixing with native Brits. It obviously happened occasionally, but generally they married their own to preserve Roman power. It's like Britain ruling India for hundreds of years. Sure there were some marriages between Brits and Indians and some Indians will have British heritage, but it's a very small number, because generally Brits married other British families.

Actually there was quite a lot of intermixing between Romans and natives so much so that two distinct peoples sprung up,The romano-british and the northerners.Roman was more of a culture rather than a set race.

British India was more complicated and became very factional behind the scenes

...............................

Yes I'm aware of that and it endorses my original point, which was immigration to the UK is far from a recent phenomenon, those immigrants made an impression on our social/economic development and assimilated with the 'native' population.

Ps I didn't say Romans were a race, they were immigrants who came here and remained for 400 years, so obviously there will have been merging and blurring of the respective cultures.

They weren't immigrants though. They were colonisers. Wasn't like a few Romans suddenly decided Italy was _oo hot for them and they'd visit Britain for cooler climates. The Romans that originally arrived were part of an army sent here specifically to conquer the land and expand the Roman empire

.............................

The term 'immigrant' simply describes people relocating from one country to live in another. It doesn't consider their reasons for doing so.

But it's semantics, the Romans came here for selfish reasons not altruistic ones, yet they still influenced the development of this country and assimilated with the natives over time, yet the rabid chest beating continues regarding more recent immigration, usually directed at refugees who comprise a small proportion of immigrant numbers.

‘Rabid chest beating’, what he heck is that ?

Does your plan involve banning all foreign footballers from plating here and are you going to stop British people from immigrating abroad

I don’t have a plan. Just raising the question really. I saw the other day that in 2018 Japan admitted 115k immigrants, they have a population of 125 million. I accept there would be challenges. If I had a plan it would attractive females only but I don’t think I’d get that one through.

Students - of course. I would never want to stand in the way of love as I’m a nice guy so marriages are ok. I think the rules there are already strict and the system has been abused. Im also a hypocrite as I’d quite like to fuck off to France."

“Attractive females only” apart from being highly subjective, that is actually a bit creepy. Next you’ll be saying you support sex for rent type landlords!

Glad to see you admit to hypocrisy. Something many people who are anti-immigrants tend to be. If they come to the UK they are immigrants but if these Brits head abroad they are Ex-Pats which sounds much nicer to them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them.

Actually the Roman's didn't do a lot of inter mixing with native Brits. It obviously happened occasionally, but generally they married their own to preserve Roman power. It's like Britain ruling India for hundreds of years. Sure there were some marriages between Brits and Indians and some Indians will have British heritage, but it's a very small number, because generally Brits married other British families.

Actually there was quite a lot of intermixing between Romans and natives so much so that two distinct peoples sprung up,The romano-british and the northerners.Roman was more of a culture rather than a set race.

British India was more complicated and became very factional behind the scenes

...............................

Yes I'm aware of that and it endorses my original point, which was immigration to the UK is far from a recent phenomenon, those immigrants made an impression on our social/economic development and assimilated with the 'native' population.

Ps I didn't say Romans were a race, they were immigrants who came here and remained for 400 years, so obviously there will have been merging and blurring of the respective cultures.

They weren't immigrants though. They were colonisers. Wasn't like a few Romans suddenly decided Italy was _oo hot for them and they'd visit Britain for cooler climates. The Romans that originally arrived were part of an army sent here specifically to conquer the land and expand the Roman empire

.............................

The term 'immigrant' simply describes people relocating from one country to live in another. It doesn't consider their reasons for doing so.

But it's semantics, the Romans came here for selfish reasons not altruistic ones, yet they still influenced the development of this country and assimilated with the natives over time, yet the rabid chest beating continues regarding more recent immigration, usually directed at refugees who comprise a small proportion of immigrant numbers.

‘Rabid chest beating’, what he heck is that ?

Does your plan involve banning all foreign footballers from plating here and are you going to stop British people from immigrating abroad

I don’t have a plan. Just raising the question really. I saw the other day that in 2018 Japan admitted 115k immigrants, they have a population of 125 million. I accept there would be challenges. If I had a plan it would attractive females only but I don’t think I’d get that one through.

Students - of course. I would never want to stand in the way of love as I’m a nice guy so marriages are ok. I think the rules there are already strict and the system has been abused. Im also a hypocrite as I’d quite like to fuck off to France.

“Attractive females only” apart from being highly subjective, that is actually a bit creepy. Next you’ll be saying you support sex for rent type landlords!

Glad to see you admit to hypocrisy. Something many people who are anti-immigrants tend to be. If they come to the UK they are immigrants but if these Brits head abroad they are Ex-Pats which sounds much nicer to them."

The ‘ex pats’ thing is nonsense but you are like a dog with a bone. It’s a colloquial term - what do you think immigrants to the UK refer to themselves as? Think about It.

You have made your mind up that you don’t like me, so it’s not ‘creepy! At all, it’s what we call humour.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan  over a year ago

Gilfach


"... finding that their UK registered car is actually illegal in France when they hold French residency papers. Likewise the UK citizens finding that even if they do hold official residency in one EU country, it does not allow them freedom to work in a different EU country. Likewise UK musicians finding that they can no longer afford to tour and play concerts in EU countries, because it costs thousands of pounds for customs paperwork to be able to move their instruments across borders.

Every single one of these things are the results of the demands made by the UK."

Are they?

Did the UK demand that France refuse to recognise UK registered cars? Did the UK demand that UK citizens' work visas be limited to one country and not the whole EU? Did the UK demand that customs paperwork for musicians must cost thousands of euros?

Or are all of these things decisions made by EU countries?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"... finding that their UK registered car is actually illegal in France when they hold French residency papers. Likewise the UK citizens finding that even if they do hold official residency in one EU country, it does not allow them freedom to work in a different EU country. Likewise UK musicians finding that they can no longer afford to tour and play concerts in EU countries, because it costs thousands of pounds for customs paperwork to be able to move their instruments across borders.

Every single one of these things are the results of the demands made by the UK.

Are they?

Did the UK demand that France refuse to recognise UK registered cars? Did the UK demand that UK citizens' work visas be limited to one country and not the whole EU? Did the UK demand that customs paperwork for musicians must cost thousands of euros?

Or are all of these things decisions made by EU countries?"

are we being treated any different to any other third country ?

If so, we chose to accept the default position by ebcominh a third country.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irldnCouple  over a year ago

Brighton


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them.

Actually the Roman's didn't do a lot of inter mixing with native Brits. It obviously happened occasionally, but generally they married their own to preserve Roman power. It's like Britain ruling India for hundreds of years. Sure there were some marriages between Brits and Indians and some Indians will have British heritage, but it's a very small number, because generally Brits married other British families.

Actually there was quite a lot of intermixing between Romans and natives so much so that two distinct peoples sprung up,The romano-british and the northerners.Roman was more of a culture rather than a set race.

British India was more complicated and became very factional behind the scenes

...............................

Yes I'm aware of that and it endorses my original point, which was immigration to the UK is far from a recent phenomenon, those immigrants made an impression on our social/economic development and assimilated with the 'native' population.

Ps I didn't say Romans were a race, they were immigrants who came here and remained for 400 years, so obviously there will have been merging and blurring of the respective cultures.

They weren't immigrants though. They were colonisers. Wasn't like a few Romans suddenly decided Italy was _oo hot for them and they'd visit Britain for cooler climates. The Romans that originally arrived were part of an army sent here specifically to conquer the land and expand the Roman empire

.............................

The term 'immigrant' simply describes people relocating from one country to live in another. It doesn't consider their reasons for doing so.

But it's semantics, the Romans came here for selfish reasons not altruistic ones, yet they still influenced the development of this country and assimilated with the natives over time, yet the rabid chest beating continues regarding more recent immigration, usually directed at refugees who comprise a small proportion of immigrant numbers.

‘Rabid chest beating’, what he heck is that ?

Does your plan involve banning all foreign footballers from plating here and are you going to stop British people from immigrating abroad

I don’t have a plan. Just raising the question really. I saw the other day that in 2018 Japan admitted 115k immigrants, they have a population of 125 million. I accept there would be challenges. If I had a plan it would attractive females only but I don’t think I’d get that one through.

Students - of course. I would never want to stand in the way of love as I’m a nice guy so marriages are ok. I think the rules there are already strict and the system has been abused. Im also a hypocrite as I’d quite like to fuck off to France.

“Attractive females only” apart from being highly subjective, that is actually a bit creepy. Next you’ll be saying you support sex for rent type landlords!

Glad to see you admit to hypocrisy. Something many people who are anti-immigrants tend to be. If they come to the UK they are immigrants but if these Brits head abroad they are Ex-Pats which sounds much nicer to them.

The ‘ex pats’ thing is nonsense but you are like a dog with a bone. It’s a colloquial term - what do you think immigrants to the UK refer to themselves as? Think about It.

You have made your mind up that you don’t like me, so it’s not ‘creepy! At all, it’s what we call humour."

Oh Seb if I offended you then I apologise. It was humour on my part! Maybe humour only works one way?

The Ex Pat thing has far wider context linked to our media and also how many Ex Pats on the Costas got quite upset when you told them thry were immigrants.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them.

Actually the Roman's didn't do a lot of inter mixing with native Brits. It obviously happened occasionally, but generally they married their own to preserve Roman power. It's like Britain ruling India for hundreds of years. Sure there were some marriages between Brits and Indians and some Indians will have British heritage, but it's a very small number, because generally Brits married other British families.

Actually there was quite a lot of intermixing between Romans and natives so much so that two distinct peoples sprung up,The romano-british and the northerners.Roman was more of a culture rather than a set race.

British India was more complicated and became very factional behind the scenes

...............................

Yes I'm aware of that and it endorses my original point, which was immigration to the UK is far from a recent phenomenon, those immigrants made an impression on our social/economic development and assimilated with the 'native' population.

Ps I didn't say Romans were a race, they were immigrants who came here and remained for 400 years, so obviously there will have been merging and blurring of the respective cultures.

They weren't immigrants though. They were colonisers. Wasn't like a few Romans suddenly decided Italy was _oo hot for them and they'd visit Britain for cooler climates. The Romans that originally arrived were part of an army sent here specifically to conquer the land and expand the Roman empire

.............................

The term 'immigrant' simply describes people relocating from one country to live in another. It doesn't consider their reasons for doing so.

But it's semantics, the Romans came here for selfish reasons not altruistic ones, yet they still influenced the development of this country and assimilated with the natives over time, yet the rabid chest beating continues regarding more recent immigration, usually directed at refugees who comprise a small proportion of immigrant numbers.

‘Rabid chest beating’, what he heck is that ?

Does your plan involve banning all foreign footballers from plating here and are you going to stop British people from immigrating abroad

I don’t have a plan. Just raising the question really. I saw the other day that in 2018 Japan admitted 115k immigrants, they have a population of 125 million. I accept there would be challenges. If I had a plan it would attractive females only but I don’t think I’d get that one through.

Students - of course. I would never want to stand in the way of love as I’m a nice guy so marriages are ok. I think the rules there are already strict and the system has been abused. Im also a hypocrite as I’d quite like to fuck off to France.

Ah ok, as you don’t have many details and it’s a bit vague I am going to say it’s a bad idea and will never happen ,

Why so negative? Let’s have some positivity please.

It lacks detail, it won’t happen, convince me otherwise,

You can’t handle ‘detail! ‘"

Poor effort, you haven’t convinced myself or anyone else on here that it’s a good idea, try harder next time

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

No matter how much people want to ban immigration the fact of the matter is that immigration will never ever stop.

Even though we've reduced immigration from the EU. We have now got increased Immigration from the the rest of the world.

The government know all too well that this country depends on a foreign workforce to keep the country ticking and prices low.

So saying things like this, isn't going to make a blind bit of difference.

OP only sees people on boats, coming over, he doesn't understand the whole picture.

We could easily sort that problem out, by putting centres in Calais and entry points and conduct assessments, on those coming who want to come to the UK.

But the problem with this government is that they rather create stupid polices to fire up its base, instead of investing in a proper immigration system to bring order to chaos.

They are out of touch and lacking ideas, the sooner they kicked out and a proper sensible government comes in the better the UK will be.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Stirring up racism again I see.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *olly_chromaticTV/TS  over a year ago

Stockport


"... finding that their UK registered car is actually illegal in France when they hold French residency papers. Likewise the UK citizens finding that even if they do hold official residency in one EU country, it does not allow them freedom to work in a different EU country. Likewise UK musicians finding that they can no longer afford to tour and play concerts in EU countries, because it costs thousands of pounds for customs paperwork to be able to move their instruments across borders.

Every single one of these things are the results of the demands made by the UK.

Are they?

Did the UK demand that France refuse to recognise UK registered cars? Did the UK demand that UK citizens' work visas be limited to one country and not the whole EU? Did the UK demand that customs paperwork for musicians must cost thousands of euros?

Or are all of these things decisions made by EU countries?"

The brexit agreement was written by Johnson and his people. He signed it. He was the one shouting about it being a fantastic deal, that he had got brexit done and that it was a wonderful brexit.

All that the EU is doing is abiding by the legally binding brexit agreement. So yes, it was the UK government that asked for every one of these things. And it's no use them now saying "we didn't mean it to be interpreted that way" and "we didn't think they would do this". Johnson's government refused to allow proper detailed scrutiny of the agreement by parliament, and refused to listen to the people that did point out the gaping holes in it. The totality of the change in the UK's relationship with the EU was demanded by the UK conservative government, nobody in the EU told us that we had to leave, and in fact right until the last moment the EU kept telling us that we had made a mistake and that we could just reset everything back to how it was.

Every single problem now occurring with the UK relative to the EU is the direct result of the agreement that Johnson wrote, Johnson signed and Johnson claimed to be a brilliant deal.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"... finding that their UK registered car is actually illegal in France when they hold French residency papers. Likewise the UK citizens finding that even if they do hold official residency in one EU country, it does not allow them freedom to work in a different EU country. Likewise UK musicians finding that they can no longer afford to tour and play concerts in EU countries, because it costs thousands of pounds for customs paperwork to be able to move their instruments across borders.

Every single one of these things are the results of the demands made by the UK.

Are they?

Did the UK demand that France refuse to recognise UK registered cars? Did the UK demand that UK citizens' work visas be limited to one country and not the whole EU? Did the UK demand that customs paperwork for musicians must cost thousands of euros?

Or are all of these things decisions made by EU countries?

The brexit agreement was written by Johnson and his people. He signed it. He was the one shouting about it being a fantastic deal, that he had got brexit done and that it was a wonderful brexit.

All that the EU is doing is abiding by the legally binding brexit agreement. So yes, it was the UK government that asked for every one of these things. And it's no use them now saying "we didn't mean it to be interpreted that way" and "we didn't think they would do this". Johnson's government refused to allow proper detailed scrutiny of the agreement by parliament, and refused to listen to the people that did point out the gaping holes in it. The totality of the change in the UK's relationship with the EU was demanded by the UK conservative government, nobody in the EU told us that we had to leave, and in fact right until the last moment the EU kept telling us that we had made a mistake and that we could just reset everything back to how it was.

Every single problem now occurring with the UK relative to the EU is the direct result of the agreement that Johnson wrote, Johnson signed and Johnson claimed to be a brilliant deal."

I think many people fell into the if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is trap.

That’s what happens when you trust a Con Artist.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *JB1954Man  over a year ago

Reading


"No matter how much people want to ban immigration the fact of the matter is that immigration will never ever stop.

Even though we've reduced immigration from the EU. We have now got increased Immigration from the the rest of the world.

The government know all too well that this country depends on a foreign workforce to keep the country ticking and prices low.

So saying things like this, isn't going to make a blind bit of difference.

OP only sees people on boats, coming over, he doesn't understand the whole picture.

We could easily sort that problem out, by putting centres in Calais and entry points and conduct assessments, on those coming who want to come to the UK.

But the problem with this government is that they rather create stupid polices to fire up its base, instead of investing in a proper immigration system to bring order to chaos.

They are out of touch and lacking ideas, the sooner they kicked out and a proper sensible government comes in the better the UK will be.

"

A thought . If the UK did put centres in Calais to process . What would happen to all persons who were refused entry to UK. Then found crossing in a boat. They reach the UK. Where would they be sent back to ?.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"No matter how much people want to ban immigration the fact of the matter is that immigration will never ever stop.

Even though we've reduced immigration from the EU. We have now got increased Immigration from the the rest of the world.

The government know all too well that this country depends on a foreign workforce to keep the country ticking and prices low.

So saying things like this, isn't going to make a blind bit of difference.

OP only sees people on boats, coming over, he doesn't understand the whole picture.

We could easily sort that problem out, by putting centres in Calais and entry points and conduct assessments, on those coming who want to come to the UK.

But the problem with this government is that they rather create stupid polices to fire up its base, instead of investing in a proper immigration system to bring order to chaos.

They are out of touch and lacking ideas, the sooner they kicked out and a proper sensible government comes in the better the UK will be.

A thought . If the UK did put centres in Calais to process . What would happen to all persons who were refused entry to UK. Then found crossing in a boat. They reach the UK. Where would they be sent back to ?. "

in theory I'd say yes. You can easily say anyone coming across by boat regardless is sent back. That's how part of the EU and turkey agreement works.

However that does mean UK process working. I dont have that confidence !!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"Stirring up racism again I see."

Who is?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *exanthemMan  over a year ago

North

Illegal immigration - No

Legal immigration- Yes

Our beloved NHS cannot survive without foreign nurses and doctors. Our heavy tax paying companies cannot survive without foreign/legal migrants. Legal immigrants with paying jobs and not claiming an iota of benefits are big plus for British economy. You stop legal Immigrants you push your GDP down. You need right people with right jobs in this country - to grow economy, and support vulnerable people.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *annaBeStrongMan  over a year ago

wokingham

God forbid I be racist and say that I like immigration control

Get into the country legally? Great, happy for you

Cross over illegally? Shot out of a cannon to where you came from

Guess im racist, despite the fact I’d equally shoot all races out of a cannon

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"Illegal immigration - No

Legal immigration- Yes

Our beloved NHS cannot survive without foreign nurses and doctors. Our heavy tax paying companies cannot survive without foreign/legal migrants. Legal immigrants with paying jobs and not claiming an iota of benefits are big plus for British economy. You stop legal Immigrants you push your GDP down. You need right people with right jobs in this country - to grow economy, and support vulnerable people. "

I tend to agree with you and I do see the bigger picture, not just the boat thing as suggested by someone earlier.

We have been saying for decades now that the NHS and other sectors need immigration to function but still the NHS is struggling with shortages. Maybe, just maybe, mass immigration is not the answer.

We are told that the hospitality industry is struggling to cope, well maybe that ‘industry needs to change its ways. Go back to old style licensing hours, do pubs need to be open all hours? Ban home deliveries of food - get those poor buggers delivering sandwiches to people to fucking lazy to get of their arses, into better jobs.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them.

Actually the Roman's didn't do a lot of inter mixing with native Brits. It obviously happened occasionally, but generally they married their own to preserve Roman power. It's like Britain ruling India for hundreds of years. Sure there were some marriages between Brits and Indians and some Indians will have British heritage, but it's a very small number, because generally Brits married other British families.

Actually there was quite a lot of intermixing between Romans and natives so much so that two distinct peoples sprung up,The romano-british and the northerners.Roman was more of a culture rather than a set race.

British India was more complicated and became very factional behind the scenes

...............................

Yes I'm aware of that and it endorses my original point, which was immigration to the UK is far from a recent phenomenon, those immigrants made an impression on our social/economic development and assimilated with the 'native' population.

Ps I didn't say Romans were a race, they were immigrants who came here and remained for 400 years, so obviously there will have been merging and blurring of the respective cultures.

They weren't immigrants though. They were colonisers. Wasn't like a few Romans suddenly decided Italy was _oo hot for them and they'd visit Britain for cooler climates. The Romans that originally arrived were part of an army sent here specifically to conquer the land and expand the Roman empire

.............................

The term 'immigrant' simply describes people relocating from one country to live in another. It doesn't consider their reasons for doing so.

But it's semantics, the Romans came here for selfish reasons not altruistic ones, yet they still influenced the development of this country and assimilated with the natives over time, yet the rabid chest beating continues regarding more recent immigration, usually directed at refugees who comprise a small proportion of immigrant numbers.

‘Rabid chest beating’, what he heck is that ?

Does your plan involve banning all foreign footballers from plating here and are you going to stop British people from immigrating abroad

I don’t have a plan. Just raising the question really. I saw the other day that in 2018 Japan admitted 115k immigrants, they have a population of 125 million. I accept there would be challenges. If I had a plan it would attractive females only but I don’t think I’d get that one through.

Students - of course. I would never want to stand in the way of love as I’m a nice guy so marriages are ok. I think the rules there are already strict and the system has been abused. Im also a hypocrite as I’d quite like to fuck off to France.

“Attractive females only” apart from being highly subjective, that is actually a bit creepy. Next you’ll be saying you support sex for rent type landlords!

Glad to see you admit to hypocrisy. Something many people who are anti-immigrants tend to be. If they come to the UK they are immigrants but if these Brits head abroad they are Ex-Pats which sounds much nicer to them.

The ‘ex pats’ thing is nonsense but you are like a dog with a bone. It’s a colloquial term - what do you think immigrants to the UK refer to themselves as? Think about It.

You have made your mind up that you don’t like me, so it’s not ‘creepy! At all, it’s what we call humour.

Oh Seb if I offended you then I apologise. It was humour on my part! Maybe humour only works one way?

The Ex Pat thing has far wider context linked to our media and also how many Ex Pats on the Costas got quite upset when you told them thry were immigrants."

I’m easily hurt. It shows the dangers of typing not talking. Let’s both smile about it.

We do like to beat ourselves up on the ex pat thing, of course the Brits abroad know they are immigrants.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Illegal immigration - No

Legal immigration- Yes

Our beloved NHS cannot survive without foreign nurses and doctors. Our heavy tax paying companies cannot survive without foreign/legal migrants. Legal immigrants with paying jobs and not claiming an iota of benefits are big plus for British economy. You stop legal Immigrants you push your GDP down. You need right people with right jobs in this country - to grow economy, and support vulnerable people.

I tend to agree with you and I do see the bigger picture, not just the boat thing as suggested by someone earlier.

We have been saying for decades now that the NHS and other sectors need immigration to function but still the NHS is struggling with shortages. Maybe, just maybe, mass immigration is not the answer.

We are told that the hospitality industry is struggling to cope, well maybe that ‘industry needs to change its ways. Go back to old style licensing hours, do pubs need to be open all hours? Ban home deliveries of food - get those poor buggers delivering sandwiches to people to fucking lazy to get of their arses, into better jobs. "

immigration is probably not the only answer.

Investing in home grown would be good. That may mean looking at pay and conditions..

Which would likely need more taxes. Taxes again.

Why aren't the Uber ppl going to better jobs already ?

Good rant tho.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irldnCouple  over a year ago

Brighton


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? Last time I checked checked at least 67 % of the population agreed with you. Sadly it is a topic which a vocal minority will shout down those with whom they disagree.

A good start might be to do full survey to see how many people are staying in the UK illegally and take steps to remove them. No one appears to be able to put forward any valid argument as to why immigration should be used to resolve short term problems. With proper planning we can avoid the need for any immigration and ensure that the elderly are properly cared for . We are entering an age of automation and need to ensure that full advantage is taken of this. This will potentially free up people to take care of the elderly. The era of cheap labour provided by immigration was a convenient excuse to engage in long term planning. All immigrants become elderly eventually so the argument that they take pressure off caring for the elderly does not stack up.

Those in favour of immigration to tackle short term problems tend to be middle class and do not suffer from the negative aspects of immigration such as pressure on holding, the health service and schools .

On a simplistic basis we should protect the rights of those who are here legally, evict any staying illegally, recognise that we need to stabilise the structure of the population of the UK in addition to recognising that we are already over populated. Even immigrants recognise this. immigration is a fix to piss poor long term planning and an unwillingness to make hard decisions.

We should absolutely be having these conversations now.

Boost auto enrolment savings to 15pc. Possibly more. Push back the retirement age.

Make caring a deseriable and respected career. Not something you push onto teenagers and other people who have just been replaced by robots.

..............................

Great Britain's population is almost entirely derived from immigrantion and inter-mixing. Equally we have benefitted from colonising huge swathes of the planet and plundering the resources of other countries.

Derived by what form of immigration?

Nothing to do with our intellect, science, endeavour, enterprise, medicine?

...............................

Foreigners have been coming to these shores for thousands of years, the Romans for example shaped the development of Britain over 400 years.

Not sure of the relevance of your science/intellect comment, the British were usually uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations.

The Romans were uninvited visitors, who imposed themselves on indigenous populations yet you appear to praise the fact?

...............................

Simply stating a fact, Roman immigrants shaped the development of Great Britain and we are descended from them.

Actually the Roman's didn't do a lot of inter mixing with native Brits. It obviously happened occasionally, but generally they married their own to preserve Roman power. It's like Britain ruling India for hundreds of years. Sure there were some marriages between Brits and Indians and some Indians will have British heritage, but it's a very small number, because generally Brits married other British families.

Actually there was quite a lot of intermixing between Romans and natives so much so that two distinct peoples sprung up,The romano-british and the northerners.Roman was more of a culture rather than a set race.

British India was more complicated and became very factional behind the scenes

...............................

Yes I'm aware of that and it endorses my original point, which was immigration to the UK is far from a recent phenomenon, those immigrants made an impression on our social/economic development and assimilated with the 'native' population.

Ps I didn't say Romans were a race, they were immigrants who came here and remained for 400 years, so obviously there will have been merging and blurring of the respective cultures.

They weren't immigrants though. They were colonisers. Wasn't like a few Romans suddenly decided Italy was _oo hot for them and they'd visit Britain for cooler climates. The Romans that originally arrived were part of an army sent here specifically to conquer the land and expand the Roman empire

.............................

The term 'immigrant' simply describes people relocating from one country to live in another. It doesn't consider their reasons for doing so.

But it's semantics, the Romans came here for selfish reasons not altruistic ones, yet they still influenced the development of this country and assimilated with the natives over time, yet the rabid chest beating continues regarding more recent immigration, usually directed at refugees who comprise a small proportion of immigrant numbers.

‘Rabid chest beating’, what he heck is that ?

Does your plan involve banning all foreign footballers from plating here and are you going to stop British people from immigrating abroad

I don’t have a plan. Just raising the question really. I saw the other day that in 2018 Japan admitted 115k immigrants, they have a population of 125 million. I accept there would be challenges. If I had a plan it would attractive females only but I don’t think I’d get that one through.

Students - of course. I would never want to stand in the way of love as I’m a nice guy so marriages are ok. I think the rules there are already strict and the system has been abused. Im also a hypocrite as I’d quite like to fuck off to France.

“Attractive females only” apart from being highly subjective, that is actually a bit creepy. Next you’ll be saying you support sex for rent type landlords!

Glad to see you admit to hypocrisy. Something many people who are anti-immigrants tend to be. If they come to the UK they are immigrants but if these Brits head abroad they are Ex-Pats which sounds much nicer to them.

The ‘ex pats’ thing is nonsense but you are like a dog with a bone. It’s a colloquial term - what do you think immigrants to the UK refer to themselves as? Think about It.

You have made your mind up that you don’t like me, so it’s not ‘creepy! At all, it’s what we call humour.

Oh Seb if I offended you then I apologise. It was humour on my part! Maybe humour only works one way?

The Ex Pat thing has far wider context linked to our media and also how many Ex Pats on the Costas got quite upset when you told them thry were immigrants.

I’m easily hurt. It shows the dangers of typing not talking. Let’s both smile about it.

We do like to beat ourselves up on the ex pat thing, of course the Brits abroad know they are immigrants. "

I’m sure we are all lovely people!

I have firsthand experience of friends/family living in Spain who categorically disagreed and were offended when told they were immigrants. They proudly proclaimed “we are ex-pats” insisting there was a difference.

That difference (in their minds) came down to whether you arrive in country with some money “the Spanish economy needs our money or these resorts would all close down in winter”

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *otMe66Man  over a year ago

Terra Firma


"Oh Seb if I offended you then I apologise. It was humour on my part! Maybe humour only works one way?

The Ex Pat thing has far wider context linked to our media and also how many Ex Pats on the Costas got quite upset when you told them thry were immigrants.

I’m easily hurt. It shows the dangers of typing not talking. Let’s both smile about it.

We do like to beat ourselves up on the ex pat thing, of course the Brits abroad know they are immigrants.

I’m sure we are all lovely people!

I have firsthand experience of friends/family living in Spain who categorically disagreed and were offended when told they were immigrants. They proudly proclaimed “we are ex-pats” insisting there was a difference.

That difference (in their minds) came down to whether you arrive in country with some money “the Spanish economy needs our money or these resorts would all close down in winter” "

I thought rightly or wrongly an expat was more a lifestyle choice and immigration is for improving choices.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irldnCouple  over a year ago

Brighton


"Oh Seb if I offended you then I apologise. It was humour on my part! Maybe humour only works one way?

The Ex Pat thing has far wider context linked to our media and also how many Ex Pats on the Costas got quite upset when you told them thry were immigrants.

I’m easily hurt. It shows the dangers of typing not talking. Let’s both smile about it.

We do like to beat ourselves up on the ex pat thing, of course the Brits abroad know they are immigrants.

I’m sure we are all lovely people!

I have firsthand experience of friends/family living in Spain who categorically disagreed and were offended when told they were immigrants. They proudly proclaimed “we are ex-pats” insisting there was a difference.

That difference (in their minds) came down to whether you arrive in country with some money “the Spanish economy needs our money or these resorts would all close down in winter”

I thought rightly or wrongly an expat was more a lifestyle choice and immigration is for improving choices.

"

Not clear on your distinction?

I have friends/relatives who were/are living in Spain.

Some retired out there to improve their lives because at the time a) their money went further (equity from sale of home in UK and also exchange rate meaning pensions and savings bought more). Plus warmer weather.

Some were younger and moved for work. At one point there was a building bonanza in Spain and construction workers/trades were raking it in plus living there came with same benefits as retired (lower cost of living, sun etc). So they were most definitely economic migrants.

Some just did not see the irony.

Some even voted for Brexit!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irldnCouple  over a year ago

Brighton


"Oh Seb if I offended you then I apologise. It was humour on my part! Maybe humour only works one way?

The Ex Pat thing has far wider context linked to our media and also how many Ex Pats on the Costas got quite upset when you told them thry were immigrants.

I’m easily hurt. It shows the dangers of typing not talking. Let’s both smile about it.

We do like to beat ourselves up on the ex pat thing, of course the Brits abroad know they are immigrants.

I’m sure we are all lovely people!

I have firsthand experience of friends/family living in Spain who categorically disagreed and were offended when told they were immigrants. They proudly proclaimed “we are ex-pats” insisting there was a difference.

That difference (in their minds) came down to whether you arrive in country with some money “the Spanish economy needs our money or these resorts would all close down in winter”

I thought rightly or wrongly an expat was more a lifestyle choice and immigration is for improving choices.

Not clear on your distinction?

I have friends/relatives who were/are living in Spain.

Some retired out there to improve their lives because at the time a) their money went further (equity from sale of home in UK and also exchange rate meaning pensions and savings bought more). Plus warmer weather.

Some were younger and moved for work. At one point there was a building bonanza in Spain and construction workers/trades were raking it in plus living there came with same benefits as retired (lower cost of living, sun etc). So they were most definitely economic migrants.

Some just did not see the irony.

Some even voted for Brexit!"

At a basic level immigration is surely about a better life for you and your family. That applies just as much to someone retiring abroad as it does moving abroad for work.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *otMe66Man  over a year ago

Terra Firma


"Oh Seb if I offended you then I apologise. It was humour on my part! Maybe humour only works one way?

The Ex Pat thing has far wider context linked to our media and also how many Ex Pats on the Costas got quite upset when you told them thry were immigrants.

I’m easily hurt. It shows the dangers of typing not talking. Let’s both smile about it.

We do like to beat ourselves up on the ex pat thing, of course the Brits abroad know they are immigrants.

I’m sure we are all lovely people!

I have firsthand experience of friends/family living in Spain who categorically disagreed and were offended when told they were immigrants. They proudly proclaimed “we are ex-pats” insisting there was a difference.

That difference (in their minds) came down to whether you arrive in country with some money “the Spanish economy needs our money or these resorts would all close down in winter”

I thought rightly or wrongly an expat was more a lifestyle choice and immigration is for improving choices.

Not clear on your distinction?

I have friends/relatives who were/are living in Spain.

Some retired out there to improve their lives because at the time a) their money went further (equity from sale of home in UK and also exchange rate meaning pensions and savings bought more). Plus warmer weather.

Some were younger and moved for work. At one point there was a building bonanza in Spain and construction workers/trades were raking it in plus living there came with same benefits as retired (lower cost of living, sun etc). So they were most definitely economic migrants.

Some just did not see the irony.

Some even voted for Brexit!

At a basic level immigration is surely about a better life for you and your family. That applies just as much to someone retiring abroad as it does moving abroad for work."

I think expats are temporally living in a place because the lifestyle is better. Example would be, climate. This is why expats would choose to vote for Brexit, they always have one foot in their homeland.

An immigrant has chosen a new country to better their choices in salary or opportunities and are more likely to become part of the fabric of society because they are working to make ends meet or better themselves.

That is how I see the differences.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *otMe66Man  over a year ago

Terra Firma


"Oh Seb if I offended you then I apologise. It was humour on my part! Maybe humour only works one way?

The Ex Pat thing has far wider context linked to our media and also how many Ex Pats on the Costas got quite upset when you told them thry were immigrants.

I’m easily hurt. It shows the dangers of typing not talking. Let’s both smile about it.

We do like to beat ourselves up on the ex pat thing, of course the Brits abroad know they are immigrants.

I’m sure we are all lovely people!

I have firsthand experience of friends/family living in Spain who categorically disagreed and were offended when told they were immigrants. They proudly proclaimed “we are ex-pats” insisting there was a difference.

That difference (in their minds) came down to whether you arrive in country with some money “the Spanish economy needs our money or these resorts would all close down in winter”

I thought rightly or wrongly an expat was more a lifestyle choice and immigration is for improving choices.

Not clear on your distinction?

I have friends/relatives who were/are living in Spain.

Some retired out there to improve their lives because at the time a) their money went further (equity from sale of home in UK and also exchange rate meaning pensions and savings bought more). Plus warmer weather.

Some were younger and moved for work. At one point there was a building bonanza in Spain and construction workers/trades were raking it in plus living there came with same benefits as retired (lower cost of living, sun etc). So they were most definitely economic migrants.

Some just did not see the irony.

Some even voted for Brexit!

At a basic level immigration is surely about a better life for you and your family. That applies just as much to someone retiring abroad as it does moving abroad for work.

I think expats are temporally living in a place because the lifestyle is better. Example would be, climate. This is why expats would choose to vote for Brexit, they always have one foot in their homeland.

An immigrant has chosen a new country to better their choices in salary or opportunities and are more likely to become part of the fabric of society because they are working to make ends meet or better themselves.

That is how I see the differences."

To add to the point about the builders who went out to Spain. This in my mind would be the expat way, they are there for a benefit, no commitment other than what they are there for and once it is dried up, they will be out.

An immigrant in that example would look for other similar jobs in the country, not look to leave.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irldnCouple  over a year ago

Brighton


"Oh Seb if I offended you then I apologise. It was humour on my part! Maybe humour only works one way?

The Ex Pat thing has far wider context linked to our media and also how many Ex Pats on the Costas got quite upset when you told them thry were immigrants.

I’m easily hurt. It shows the dangers of typing not talking. Let’s both smile about it.

We do like to beat ourselves up on the ex pat thing, of course the Brits abroad know they are immigrants.

I’m sure we are all lovely people!

I have firsthand experience of friends/family living in Spain who categorically disagreed and were offended when told they were immigrants. They proudly proclaimed “we are ex-pats” insisting there was a difference.

That difference (in their minds) came down to whether you arrive in country with some money “the Spanish economy needs our money or these resorts would all close down in winter”

I thought rightly or wrongly an expat was more a lifestyle choice and immigration is for improving choices.

Not clear on your distinction?

I have friends/relatives who were/are living in Spain.

Some retired out there to improve their lives because at the time a) their money went further (equity from sale of home in UK and also exchange rate meaning pensions and savings bought more). Plus warmer weather.

Some were younger and moved for work. At one point there was a building bonanza in Spain and construction workers/trades were raking it in plus living there came with same benefits as retired (lower cost of living, sun etc). So they were most definitely economic migrants.

Some just did not see the irony.

Some even voted for Brexit!

At a basic level immigration is surely about a better life for you and your family. That applies just as much to someone retiring abroad as it does moving abroad for work.

I think expats are temporally living in a place because the lifestyle is better. Example would be, climate. This is why expats would choose to vote for Brexit, they always have one foot in their homeland.

An immigrant has chosen a new country to better their choices in salary or opportunities and are more likely to become part of the fabric of society because they are working to make ends meet or better themselves.

That is how I see the differences.

To add to the point about the builders who went out to Spain. This in my mind would be the expat way, they are there for a benefit, no commitment other than what they are there for and once it is dried up, they will be out.

An immigrant in that example would look for other similar jobs in the country, not look to leave. "

So an economic migrant following the work/opportunities wherever it took them. Bit like all those Polish builders, plumbers etc who came to the UK.

On the Ex Pat thing hmmmm. The retired people I know had no intention of returning to the UK. In fact their financial situation meant many couldn’t or if they did it would be for a substantially downgraded lifestyle.

I *think* what you are describing does exist but is more akin to communities of Brits living together in the Middle East. Often focused around Embassy staff (all postings are temporary/timebound).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *otMe66Man  over a year ago

Terra Firma


"Oh Seb if I offended you then I apologise. It was humour on my part! Maybe humour only works one way?

The Ex Pat thing has far wider context linked to our media and also how many Ex Pats on the Costas got quite upset when you told them thry were immigrants.

I’m easily hurt. It shows the dangers of typing not talking. Let’s both smile about it.

We do like to beat ourselves up on the ex pat thing, of course the Brits abroad know they are immigrants.

I’m sure we are all lovely people!

I have firsthand experience of friends/family living in Spain who categorically disagreed and were offended when told they were immigrants. They proudly proclaimed “we are ex-pats” insisting there was a difference.

That difference (in their minds) came down to whether you arrive in country with some money “the Spanish economy needs our money or these resorts would all close down in winter”

I thought rightly or wrongly an expat was more a lifestyle choice and immigration is for improving choices.

Not clear on your distinction?

I have friends/relatives who were/are living in Spain.

Some retired out there to improve their lives because at the time a) their money went further (equity from sale of home in UK and also exchange rate meaning pensions and savings bought more). Plus warmer weather.

Some were younger and moved for work. At one point there was a building bonanza in Spain and construction workers/trades were raking it in plus living there came with same benefits as retired (lower cost of living, sun etc). So they were most definitely economic migrants.

Some just did not see the irony.

Some even voted for Brexit!

At a basic level immigration is surely about a better life for you and your family. That applies just as much to someone retiring abroad as it does moving abroad for work.

I think expats are temporally living in a place because the lifestyle is better. Example would be, climate. This is why expats would choose to vote for Brexit, they always have one foot in their homeland.

An immigrant has chosen a new country to better their choices in salary or opportunities and are more likely to become part of the fabric of society because they are working to make ends meet or better themselves.

That is how I see the differences.

To add to the point about the builders who went out to Spain. This in my mind would be the expat way, they are there for a benefit, no commitment other than what they are there for and once it is dried up, they will be out.

An immigrant in that example would look for other similar jobs in the country, not look to leave.

So an economic migrant following the work/opportunities wherever it took them. Bit like all those Polish builders, plumbers etc who came to the UK.

On the Ex Pat thing hmmmm. The retired people I know had no intention of returning to the UK. In fact their financial situation meant many couldn’t or if they did it would be for a substantially downgraded lifestyle.

I *think* what you are describing does exist but is more akin to communities of Brits living together in the Middle East. Often focused around Embassy staff (all postings are temporary/timebound). "

The communities are there for sure, Dubai and Singapore being 2 big ones I know about for big money contracts over 12 - 24 months, I have worn the t-shirt.. They also exist in Spain but I think mainly as self employed, saved up some money and making the dream work type.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irldnCouple  over a year ago

Brighton


"Oh Seb if I offended you then I apologise. It was humour on my part! Maybe humour only works one way?

The Ex Pat thing has far wider context linked to our media and also how many Ex Pats on the Costas got quite upset when you told them thry were immigrants.

I’m easily hurt. It shows the dangers of typing not talking. Let’s both smile about it.

We do like to beat ourselves up on the ex pat thing, of course the Brits abroad know they are immigrants.

I’m sure we are all lovely people!

I have firsthand experience of friends/family living in Spain who categorically disagreed and were offended when told they were immigrants. They proudly proclaimed “we are ex-pats” insisting there was a difference.

That difference (in their minds) came down to whether you arrive in country with some money “the Spanish economy needs our money or these resorts would all close down in winter”

I thought rightly or wrongly an expat was more a lifestyle choice and immigration is for improving choices.

Not clear on your distinction?

I have friends/relatives who were/are living in Spain.

Some retired out there to improve their lives because at the time a) their money went further (equity from sale of home in UK and also exchange rate meaning pensions and savings bought more). Plus warmer weather.

Some were younger and moved for work. At one point there was a building bonanza in Spain and construction workers/trades were raking it in plus living there came with same benefits as retired (lower cost of living, sun etc). So they were most definitely economic migrants.

Some just did not see the irony.

Some even voted for Brexit!

At a basic level immigration is surely about a better life for you and your family. That applies just as much to someone retiring abroad as it does moving abroad for work.

I think expats are temporally living in a place because the lifestyle is better. Example would be, climate. This is why expats would choose to vote for Brexit, they always have one foot in their homeland.

An immigrant has chosen a new country to better their choices in salary or opportunities and are more likely to become part of the fabric of society because they are working to make ends meet or better themselves.

That is how I see the differences.

To add to the point about the builders who went out to Spain. This in my mind would be the expat way, they are there for a benefit, no commitment other than what they are there for and once it is dried up, they will be out.

An immigrant in that example would look for other similar jobs in the country, not look to leave.

So an economic migrant following the work/opportunities wherever it took them. Bit like all those Polish builders, plumbers etc who came to the UK.

On the Ex Pat thing hmmmm. The retired people I know had no intention of returning to the UK. In fact their financial situation meant many couldn’t or if they did it would be for a substantially downgraded lifestyle.

I *think* what you are describing does exist but is more akin to communities of Brits living together in the Middle East. Often focused around Embassy staff (all postings are temporary/timebound).

The communities are there for sure, Dubai and Singapore being 2 big ones I know about for big money contracts over 12 - 24 months, I have worn the t-shirt.. They also exist in Spain but I think mainly as self employed, saved up some money and making the dream work type. "

It’s interesting actually (to me at least) that while I am critical of the Brits living in places like Spain who do not make much/any effort to integrate with the Spanish community and insist on recreating the UK in the Costas... I can however understand why Brits on short contracts in Dubai or Singapore etc, do create communities and come together. They often create enclaves (as genuine mixing with locals is hard) and socialise as well as work together.

Maybe it is all about timeframes and permanence?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"God forbid I be racist and say that I like immigration control

Get into the country legally? Great, happy for you

Cross over illegally? Shot out of a cannon to where you came from

Guess im racist, despite the fact I’d equally shoot all races out of a cannon "

Interesting idea, we had a poster on another thread (very confused man , bless him) who wanted refugees to be shot on the beach and you want them shot out of a cannon, why??

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I have the strangest feeling of deja vu.

I'm pretty sure the OP has tried a certain tactic a few times on here.

1 Post a topic that mirrors racist talking points.

2 Stir up arguments over race.

3 Claim not to be racist.

4 ????

5 Profit?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I have the strangest feeling of deja vu.

I'm pretty sure the OP has tried a certain tactic a few times on here.

1 Post a topic that mirrors racist talking points.

2 Stir up arguments over race.

3 Claim not to be racist.

4 ????

5 Profit?"

6 pretend his comments were said as a ‘joke’

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Oh Seb if I offended you then I apologise. It was humour on my part! Maybe humour only works one way?

The Ex Pat thing has far wider context linked to our media and also how many Ex Pats on the Costas got quite upset when you told them thry were immigrants.

I’m easily hurt. It shows the dangers of typing not talking. Let’s both smile about it.

We do like to beat ourselves up on the ex pat thing, of course the Brits abroad know they are immigrants.

I’m sure we are all lovely people!

I have firsthand experience of friends/family living in Spain who categorically disagreed and were offended when told they were immigrants. They proudly proclaimed “we are ex-pats” insisting there was a difference.

That difference (in their minds) came down to whether you arrive in country with some money “the Spanish economy needs our money or these resorts would all close down in winter”

I thought rightly or wrongly an expat was more a lifestyle choice and immigration is for improving choices.

Not clear on your distinction?

I have friends/relatives who were/are living in Spain.

Some retired out there to improve their lives because at the time a) their money went further (equity from sale of home in UK and also exchange rate meaning pensions and savings bought more). Plus warmer weather.

Some were younger and moved for work. At one point there was a building bonanza in Spain and construction workers/trades were raking it in plus living there came with same benefits as retired (lower cost of living, sun etc). So they were most definitely economic migrants.

Some just did not see the irony.

Some even voted for Brexit!

At a basic level immigration is surely about a better life for you and your family. That applies just as much to someone retiring abroad as it does moving abroad for work.

I think expats are temporally living in a place because the lifestyle is better. Example would be, climate. This is why expats would choose to vote for Brexit, they always have one foot in their homeland.

An immigrant has chosen a new country to better their choices in salary or opportunities and are more likely to become part of the fabric of society because they are working to make ends meet or better themselves.

That is how I see the differences.

To add to the point about the builders who went out to Spain. This in my mind would be the expat way, they are there for a benefit, no commitment other than what they are there for and once it is dried up, they will be out.

An immigrant in that example would look for other similar jobs in the country, not look to leave.

So an economic migrant following the work/opportunities wherever it took them. Bit like all those Polish builders, plumbers etc who came to the UK.

On the Ex Pat thing hmmmm. The retired people I know had no intention of returning to the UK. In fact their financial situation meant many couldn’t or if they did it would be for a substantially downgraded lifestyle.

I *think* what you are describing does exist but is more akin to communities of Brits living together in the Middle East. Often focused around Embassy staff (all postings are temporary/timebound).

The communities are there for sure, Dubai and Singapore being 2 big ones I know about for big money contracts over 12 - 24 months, I have worn the t-shirt.. They also exist in Spain but I think mainly as self employed, saved up some money and making the dream work type.

It’s interesting actually (to me at least) that while I am critical of the Brits living in places like Spain who do not make much/any effort to integrate with the Spanish community and insist on recreating the UK in the Costas... I can however understand why Brits on short contracts in Dubai or Singapore etc, do create communities and come together. They often create enclaves (as genuine mixing with locals is hard) and socialise as well as work together.

Maybe it is all about timeframes and permanence? "

that cant be it as seasonal workers would be expats.

And if you believe the trope, all the Polish guys were living 12 to a room, and sending money back to their fam. That doesn't feel a permanent arrangement.

I can only think of it being a wealth thing. If I earn / spend more than the locals, I can call myself something different to distinguish myself from the cheap labour. (Slightly /s but also true)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *otMe66Man  over a year ago

Terra Firma


"Oh Seb if I offended you then I apologise. It was humour on my part! Maybe humour only works one way?

The Ex Pat thing has far wider context linked to our media and also how many Ex Pats on the Costas got quite upset when you told them thry were immigrants.

I’m easily hurt. It shows the dangers of typing not talking. Let’s both smile about it.

We do like to beat ourselves up on the ex pat thing, of course the Brits abroad know they are immigrants.

I’m sure we are all lovely people!

I have firsthand experience of friends/family living in Spain who categorically disagreed and were offended when told they were immigrants. They proudly proclaimed “we are ex-pats” insisting there was a difference.

That difference (in their minds) came down to whether you arrive in country with some money “the Spanish economy needs our money or these resorts would all close down in winter”

I thought rightly or wrongly an expat was more a lifestyle choice and immigration is for improving choices.

Not clear on your distinction?

I have friends/relatives who were/are living in Spain.

Some retired out there to improve their lives because at the time a) their money went further (equity from sale of home in UK and also exchange rate meaning pensions and savings bought more). Plus warmer weather.

Some were younger and moved for work. At one point there was a building bonanza in Spain and construction workers/trades were raking it in plus living there came with same benefits as retired (lower cost of living, sun etc). So they were most definitely economic migrants.

Some just did not see the irony.

Some even voted for Brexit!

At a basic level immigration is surely about a better life for you and your family. That applies just as much to someone retiring abroad as it does moving abroad for work.

I think expats are temporally living in a place because the lifestyle is better. Example would be, climate. This is why expats would choose to vote for Brexit, they always have one foot in their homeland.

An immigrant has chosen a new country to better their choices in salary or opportunities and are more likely to become part of the fabric of society because they are working to make ends meet or better themselves.

That is how I see the differences.

To add to the point about the builders who went out to Spain. This in my mind would be the expat way, they are there for a benefit, no commitment other than what they are there for and once it is dried up, they will be out.

An immigrant in that example would look for other similar jobs in the country, not look to leave.

So an economic migrant following the work/opportunities wherever it took them. Bit like all those Polish builders, plumbers etc who came to the UK.

On the Ex Pat thing hmmmm. The retired people I know had no intention of returning to the UK. In fact their financial situation meant many couldn’t or if they did it would be for a substantially downgraded lifestyle.

I *think* what you are describing does exist but is more akin to communities of Brits living together in the Middle East. Often focused around Embassy staff (all postings are temporary/timebound).

The communities are there for sure, Dubai and Singapore being 2 big ones I know about for big money contracts over 12 - 24 months, I have worn the t-shirt.. They also exist in Spain but I think mainly as self employed, saved up some money and making the dream work type.

It’s interesting actually (to me at least) that while I am critical of the Brits living in places like Spain who do not make much/any effort to integrate with the Spanish community and insist on recreating the UK in the Costas... I can however understand why Brits on short contracts in Dubai or Singapore etc, do create communities and come together. They often create enclaves (as genuine mixing with locals is hard) and socialise as well as work together.

Maybe it is all about timeframes and permanence? "

Pretty much that. It is short term and so much to learn in a short timeframe, that can either make or break your time out there. The experience others have, accelerate the learning of customs.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ob198XaMan  over a year ago

teleford


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? "

Maybe we should impose enforced migration of wasters to make space for keen, productive migrants that are willing to contribute…

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years?

Maybe we should impose enforced migration of wasters to make space for keen, productive migrants that are willing to contribute…"

Hmmm you could take those you deem wasters off via trains to some sort of work camps where they would be forced to work...

wait...

uh oh...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ob198XaMan  over a year ago

teleford


"God forbid I be racist and say that I like immigration control

Get into the country legally? Great, happy for you

Cross over illegally? Shot out of a cannon to where you came from

Guess im racist, despite the fact I’d equally shoot all races out of a cannon "

Sound like you are not racist, just a psychopath, or would you wish for these projectiles to have a safe landing?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irldnCouple  over a year ago

Brighton

In The Standard...

Brexit supporting MP: "Many Leave voters assumed Brexit would reduce immigration. But since the referendum it’s increased. And people are starting to notice."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *layTimeEssexCouple  over a year ago

Stansted


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? "

Would you ban people emigrating as well? Every year 330,000 people leave the UK. Without some coming in population would shrink rather quickly. And you can't pick which people leave

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *layTimeEssexCouple  over a year ago

Stansted


"In The Standard...

Brexit supporting MP: "Many Leave voters assumed Brexit would reduce immigration. But since the referendum it’s increased. And people are starting to notice." "

It's almost like they didn't really understand what they were voting for - assumed "control" meant "reduce"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"In The Standard...

Brexit supporting MP: "Many Leave voters assumed Brexit would reduce immigration. But since the referendum it’s increased. And people are starting to notice."

It's almost like they didn't really understand what they were voting for - assumed "control" meant "reduce""

Also the leave campaign made no commitment to reducing immigration numbers whatsoever in fact they barely referenced it as a possibility

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oan of DArcCouple  over a year ago

Glasgow


"In The Standard...

Brexit supporting MP: "Many Leave voters assumed Brexit would reduce immigration. But since the referendum it’s increased. And people are starting to notice."

It's almost like they didn't really understand what they were voting for - assumed "control" meant "reduce"

Also the leave campaign made no commitment to reducing immigration numbers whatsoever in fact they barely referenced it as a possibility"

................................

Maybe not everybody sees it as a problem?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *rDiscretionXXXMan  over a year ago

Gilfach


"... finding that their UK registered car is actually illegal in France when they hold French residency papers. Likewise the UK citizens finding that even if they do hold official residency in one EU country, it does not allow them freedom to work in a different EU country. Likewise UK musicians finding that they can no longer afford to tour and play concerts in EU countries, because it costs thousands of pounds for customs paperwork to be able to move their instruments across borders.

Every single one of these things are the results of the demands made by the UK."


"Are they?

Did the UK demand that France refuse to recognise UK registered cars? Did the UK demand that UK citizens' work visas be limited to one country and not the whole EU? Did the UK demand that customs paperwork for musicians must cost thousands of euros?

Or are all of these things decisions made by EU countries?"


"The brexit agreement was written by Johnson and his people. ... All that the EU is doing is abiding by the legally binding brexit agreement."

Do you really think that the intricate details of how the French authorities react to French residents owning non-French registered cars is part of the Brexit agreement?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oo hotCouple  over a year ago

North West


"... finding that their UK registered car is actually illegal in France when they hold French residency papers. Likewise the UK citizens finding that even if they do hold official residency in one EU country, it does not allow them freedom to work in a different EU country. Likewise UK musicians finding that they can no longer afford to tour and play concerts in EU countries, because it costs thousands of pounds for customs paperwork to be able to move their instruments across borders.

Every single one of these things are the results of the demands made by the UK.

Are they?

Did the UK demand that France refuse to recognise UK registered cars? Did the UK demand that UK citizens' work visas be limited to one country and not the whole EU? Did the UK demand that customs paperwork for musicians must cost thousands of euros?

Or are all of these things decisions made by EU countries?

The brexit agreement was written by Johnson and his people. ... All that the EU is doing is abiding by the legally binding brexit agreement.

Do you really think that the intricate details of how the French authorities react to French residents owning non-French registered cars is part of the Brexit agreement?"

The agreement was to divorce from all aspects of EU alignment and become a “third country.” That was the deal that the U.K. negotiated and we now see the consequences.

It is just not credible to suggest the British negotiators did not understand the consequences of the deal that they negotiated… is it?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oubleswing2019Man  over a year ago

Colchester

As I said to a friend of mine who voted for Brexit purely from a restricting immigration stance, "you have done more to raise workers wages in the UK than most other socialist and liberal programs have achieved for decades. So for that, you are to be commended for your true socialism in helping native workers. The restriction on influx has created a labour shortage and scarcity, which coupled with high demand for staff has driven up wages. A genius idea and very altruistic of you.

In addition, to compensate for the increased costs in staff, businesses are are having to raise their prices as well, so you've helped them too. It's lifted everybody up a few notches, as a rising tide often does.

Admittedly, some industries are still facing shortages and having to bring in staff from non-EU countries, but there are plenty of other countries with trained staff we can use who earn a pittance in their country but are able to earn a fortune in ours. You've helped them too.

So whilst I was never keen on Brexit, I can see that it has, in some cases, helped a lot of non-EU people out with new lives and earnings in our country and raised earnings across the board for many folks."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

So silly to argue over immigration unless they not vetted and not carrying a unknown virus. " Sarcasm".

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

If you disagree with others on immigration isn't it more prudent to vette potential citizens ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

You must enjoy the lockdowns if you disagree.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Go look at the virus thread and get back to me on immigration.1 person can ruin a entire way of life.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *layTimeEssexCouple  over a year ago

Stansted


"As I said to a friend of mine who voted for Brexit purely from a restricting immigration stance, "you have done more to raise workers wages in the UK than most other socialist and liberal programs have achieved for decades. So for that, you are to be commended for your true socialism in helping native workers. The restriction on influx has created a labour shortage and scarcity, which coupled with high demand for staff has driven up wages. A genius idea and very altruistic of you.

In addition, to compensate for the increased costs in staff, businesses are are having to raise their prices as well, so you've helped them too. It's lifted everybody up a few notches, as a rising tide often does.

Admittedly, some industries are still facing shortages and having to bring in staff from non-EU countries, but there are plenty of other countries with trained staff we can use who earn a pittance in their country but are able to earn a fortune in ours. You've helped them too.

So whilst I was never keen on Brexit, I can see that it has, in some cases, helped a lot of non-EU people out with new lives and earnings in our country and raised earnings across the board for many folks."

"

But real wages are broadly falling and considerably in many cases. You've displayed what economists called Money Illusion - a cognitive bias in favour of nominal rather than real values. While not the only factor Brexit has been a big factor in pushing up prices with increased admin costs and weak pound (weak pound is big factor in energy cost rises as globally priced in dollars).

As an example we sell adult good via a website and monitor wholesale prices closely. Some of the increases to imported goods are huge and driven by increased admin cost of imports from EU and generally weak pound for products imported from say US. Also we are rarely competitive selling elsewhere in Europe as customers now have to pay import duties/VAT.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"As I said to a friend of mine who voted for Brexit purely from a restricting immigration stance, "you have done more to raise workers wages in the UK than most other socialist and liberal programs have achieved for decades. So for that, you are to be commended for your true socialism in helping native workers. The restriction on influx has created a labour shortage and scarcity, which coupled with high demand for staff has driven up wages. A genius idea and very altruistic of you.

In addition, to compensate for the increased costs in staff, businesses are are having to raise their prices as well, so you've helped them too. It's lifted everybody up a few notches, as a rising tide often does.

Admittedly, some industries are still facing shortages and having to bring in staff from non-EU countries, but there are plenty of other countries with trained staff we can use who earn a pittance in their country but are able to earn a fortune in ours. You've helped them too.

So whilst I was never keen on Brexit, I can see that it has, in some cases, helped a lot of non-EU people out with new lives and earnings in our country and raised earnings across the board for many folks."

But real wages are broadly falling and considerably in many cases. You've displayed what economists called Money Illusion - a cognitive bias in favour of nominal rather than real values. While not the only factor Brexit has been a big factor in pushing up prices with increased admin costs and weak pound (weak pound is big factor in energy cost rises as globally priced in dollars).

As an example we sell adult good via a website and monitor wholesale prices closely. Some of the increases to imported goods are huge and driven by increased admin cost of imports from EU and generally weak pound for products imported from say US. Also we are rarely competitive selling elsewhere in Europe as customers now have to pay import duties/VAT. "

I would have to digress on your standards I am a pharmacist.i care everything about my inner circle. Look up the difference in pay scales for my supposedly ignorant behavior for others . No offense if you have 0 effective behavior in my life I have 0 empathy for your decisions in yours. some people will cry about " it's not a fair socialism behavior". To be honest I do not give shite. If you have my back I have yours.yet everyone needs a demon to feel that they are special.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

No because we are not full and we need "low skilled" workers it's a simple as that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"No because we are not full and we need "low skilled" workers it's a simple as that. "
you willing to not vette for others I am fine with your presumption. But you have to accept that risk .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"No because we are not full and we need "low skilled" workers it's a simple as that. you willing to not vette for others I am fine with your presumption. But you have to accept that risk . "
deadly disease ) virus / terror. I see slot of the liberals there screaming shutdowns 2 years ago. Yet acceptable to un vetted people is a priority. Isn't it better to be vetted for citizens? Instead of blindly crying over the very same thing over and over something you literally created?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Lol immigration someone mentions it your wrong on protecting your population. 2 years you shut your borders to the same thing people want to protect you from that you all screamed about. Now immigration a issue how convenient. I bet If ebola ran rampant there you would be singing a different tune .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"No because we are not full and we need "low skilled" workers it's a simple as that. you willing to not vette for others I am fine with your presumption. But you have to accept that risk . "

What are you talking about? Where did I mention not vetting anybody?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"No because we are not full and we need "low skilled" workers it's a simple as that. you willing to not vette for others I am fine with your presumption. But you have to accept that risk . deadly disease ) virus / terror. I see slot of the liberals there screaming shutdowns 2 years ago. Yet acceptable to un vetted people is a priority. Isn't it better to be vetted for citizens? Instead of blindly crying over the very same thing over and over something you literally created? "

You seem to have made a lot of assumptions based on my post.

Firstly if we don't want to have any diseases from other countries then we don't let anyone in or out and I don't want to live in North Korea. Secondly The vast majority of people that pose a threat to this country were born here.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Lol immigration someone mentions it your wrong on protecting your population. 2 years you shut your borders to the same thing people want to protect you from that you all screamed about. Now immigration a issue how convenient. I bet If ebola ran rampant there you would be singing a different tune . "

This country never shut its borders ever!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Your lockdown has been more restricted than mine. Has it not ? Is a vetted immigrant paramount to everyone's well being yes or no ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Your lockdown has been more restricted than mine. Has it not ? Is a vetted immigrant paramount to everyone's well being yes or no ? "

OK I think you need to look up what you are talking about because you're not making a lot of sense. I will repeat we never ever shut the borders in this country and allowed travel although it was restricted, America's travel restrictions were a lot tighter than ours actually. Secondly why are you banging on about unvetted immigration? We need immigration in this country, We currently have 1.35 million job vacancies in this country, We have 1.28 unemployed people.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Texas bordertowns are literally sending immigrants by buses to to new York city. Expressing their choices at this is wrong not to vette. New York city is a sanctuary city aka immigration policies are paramount in the general understanding . Yet NYC doesn't want the immigration influx. The Texas governor keeps sending them to make a point what is right.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Your lockdown has been more restricted than mine. Has it not ? Is a vetted immigrant paramount to everyone's well being yes or no ?

OK I think you need to look up what you are talking about because you're not making a lot of sense. I will repeat we never ever shut the borders in this country and allowed travel although it was restricted, America's travel restrictions were a lot tighter than ours actually. Secondly why are you banging on about unvetted immigration? We need immigration in this country, We currently have 1.35 million job vacancies in this country, We have 1.28 unemployed people. "

I'll be simple should immigration be vetted yes or no ? They need to wait.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Texas bordertowns are literally sending immigrants by buses to to new York city. Expressing their choices at this is wrong not to vette. New York city is a sanctuary city aka immigration policies are paramount in the general understanding . Yet NYC doesn't want the immigration influx. The Texas governor keeps sending them to make a point what is right."

OK you have totally lost me with that I've no one to do what you're talking about.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Your lockdown has been more restricted than mine. Has it not ? Is a vetted immigrant paramount to everyone's well being yes or no ?

OK I think you need to look up what you are talking about because you're not making a lot of sense. I will repeat we never ever shut the borders in this country and allowed travel although it was restricted, America's travel restrictions were a lot tighter than ours actually. Secondly why are you banging on about unvetted immigration? We need immigration in this country, We currently have 1.35 million job vacancies in this country, We have 1.28 unemployed people. I'll be simple should immigration be vetted yes or no ? They need to wait. "

Where did I say they didn't need to be vetted? And what other points make no sense whatsoever.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ebjonnson OP   Man  over a year ago

Maldon


"I have the strangest feeling of deja vu.

I'm pretty sure the OP has tried a certain tactic a few times on here.

1 Post a topic that mirrors racist talking points.

2 Stir up arguments over race.

3 Claim not to be racist.

4 ????

5 Profit?"

Please explain why a discussion on immigration is racist?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *L RogueMan  over a year ago

London


"... finding that their UK registered car is actually illegal in France when they hold French residency papers. Likewise the UK citizens finding that even if they do hold official residency in one EU country, it does not allow them freedom to work in a different EU country. Likewise UK musicians finding that they can no longer afford to tour and play concerts in EU countries, because it costs thousands of pounds for customs paperwork to be able to move their instruments across borders.

Every single one of these things are the results of the demands made by the UK.

Are they?

Did the UK demand that France refuse to recognise UK registered cars? Did the UK demand that UK citizens' work visas be limited to one country and not the whole EU? Did the UK demand that customs paperwork for musicians must cost thousands of euros?

Or are all of these things decisions made by EU countries?

The brexit agreement was written by Johnson and his people. He signed it. He was the one shouting about it being a fantastic deal, that he had got brexit done and that it was a wonderful brexit.

All that the EU is doing is abiding by the legally binding brexit agreement. So yes, it was the UK government that asked for every one of these things. And it's no use them now saying "we didn't mean it to be interpreted that way" and "we didn't think they would do this". Johnson's government refused to allow proper detailed scrutiny of the agreement by parliament, and refused to listen to the people that did point out the gaping holes in it. The totality of the change in the UK's relationship with the EU was demanded by the UK conservative government, nobody in the EU told us that we had to leave, and in fact right until the last moment the EU kept telling us that we had made a mistake and that we could just reset everything back to how it was.

Every single problem now occurring with the UK relative to the EU is the direct result of the agreement that Johnson wrote, Johnson signed and Johnson claimed to be a brilliant deal.

I think many people fell into the if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is trap.

That’s what happens when you trust a Con Artist."

Don't you mean a CONservative?

Sorry not sorry!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *L RogueMan  over a year ago

London


"Is it time to say “no more, we are full”.

A total immigration ban for say 20 years? "

Guess I better comment too...

No.

For me, it's laughable that a country that has benefitted so much from immigration (and colonialism) should think that it's a good idea to clamp down. Also, after the Windrush scandal, do I think the Home Office could effectively do this?

I'll say it again...No.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *otMe66Man  over a year ago

Terra Firma

These threads have made for an interesting read.

Some people want to fill all the jobs that the great British public don't want with immigrants, looking for work.

Some people can't talk about immigration without making it about racism.

Some people want open borders.

Some people want closed borders.

Very few are willing to discuss the subject with an open mind.

Here is a thought, what would happen to the jobs nobody wants to do, if we didn't allow them to be filled by a foreign workforce?

Would pay increase for the roles? Would conditions need to be made better for the roles? Are the jobs the British don't want to do going to remain poorly paid, with poor conditions as long as we fill them with foreign workers?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ophieslutTV/TS  over a year ago

Central

It would go against the needs of the country and the economy, if we were to do so. So seems madness.

It's a working country, not a static museum piece. Feeding the population is no easy task, for starters

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"These threads have made for an interesting read.

Some people want to fill all the jobs that the great British public don't want with immigrants, looking for work.

Some people can't talk about immigration without making it about racism.

Some people want open borders.

Some people want closed borders.

Very few are willing to discuss the subject with an open mind.

Here is a thought, what would happen to the jobs nobody wants to do, if we didn't allow them to be filled by a foreign workforce?

Would pay increase for the roles? Would conditions need to be made better for the roles? Are the jobs the British don't want to do going to remain poorly paid, with poor conditions as long as we fill them with foreign workers?

"

There are more jobs vacancies than people who are ‘capable ‘ to do them. Work conditions and pay are protected by law (currently )

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I have the strangest feeling of deja vu.

I'm pretty sure the OP has tried a certain tactic a few times on here.

1 Post a topic that mirrors racist talking points.

2 Stir up arguments over race.

3 Claim not to be racist.

4 ????

5 Profit?

Please explain why a discussion on immigration is racist? "

Would you ban all immigration for 20 years?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

  

By *otMe66Man  over a year ago

Terra Firma


"These threads have made for an interesting read.

Some people want to fill all the jobs that the great British public don't want with immigrants, looking for work.

Some people can't talk about immigration without making it about racism.

Some people want open borders.

Some people want closed borders.

Very few are willing to discuss the subject with an open mind.

Here is a thought, what would happen to the jobs nobody wants to do, if we didn't allow them to be filled by a foreign workforce?

Would pay increase for the roles? Would conditions need to be made better for the roles? Are the jobs the British don't want to do going to remain poorly paid, with poor conditions as long as we fill them with foreign workers?

There are more jobs vacancies than people who are ‘capable ‘ to do them. Work conditions and pay are protected by law (currently ) "

We have 1.29 million people currently unemployed, do you think there would be more people who would become "capable", if the pay was increased from the minimum wage to something more substantial? Or would it be better to fill vacancies with foreign workers willing to work for a minimum wage?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

0.7187

0