News3 mins ago
What do you think about this?
40 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by smilingcrow. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
That just about says it all, immigration since the 60s on the scale that we have had to accept in Britain could not possibly be beneficial for such a relatively small Island as ours.
Yes admittedly a certain amount of immigration should be encouraged in all countries, but only to those who can sustain themselves and add their skills and contributions for the benefit of the whole country.
But the whole problem in this country, it has been 'open house' for all the world's peoples who wish to take advantage of our hospitality without contributing anything.
The greatest downfall however has been, that we have accepted these vast numbers of people and settled them in already overcrowded areas of the land, neither have we been able to afford the additional infrastructure which is needed to enable us to cope with these numbers.
And finely we have allowed them to group together and create small mirror images of the countries that they have left, instead of them being prepared to embrace fully, the culture and ways of their newly adopted country.
Yes admittedly a certain amount of immigration should be encouraged in all countries, but only to those who can sustain themselves and add their skills and contributions for the benefit of the whole country.
But the whole problem in this country, it has been 'open house' for all the world's peoples who wish to take advantage of our hospitality without contributing anything.
The greatest downfall however has been, that we have accepted these vast numbers of people and settled them in already overcrowded areas of the land, neither have we been able to afford the additional infrastructure which is needed to enable us to cope with these numbers.
And finely we have allowed them to group together and create small mirror images of the countries that they have left, instead of them being prepared to embrace fully, the culture and ways of their newly adopted country.
Gromit
// If you are anti-immigration you have a democratic tool, just never vote Labour again, Labour set up the current mass migration in 1997. //
/// Anyone who thinks immigration started in 1997 is an idiot. ///
That is not what it is saying, it is not saying "immigration started in 1997" but what it is saying is "Labour set up the CURRENT MASS migration in 1997",
It is a known fact that mass Immigration into this country is historically favoured both by Labour and the Lib/Dems.
Having said that however the present incumbent we have in Westminster does little to address the problem.
// If you are anti-immigration you have a democratic tool, just never vote Labour again, Labour set up the current mass migration in 1997. //
/// Anyone who thinks immigration started in 1997 is an idiot. ///
That is not what it is saying, it is not saying "immigration started in 1997" but what it is saying is "Labour set up the CURRENT MASS migration in 1997",
It is a known fact that mass Immigration into this country is historically favoured both by Labour and the Lib/Dems.
Having said that however the present incumbent we have in Westminster does little to address the problem.
-- answer removed --
infundibulum
/// Not high on factual accuracy-
"England, with much less than an acre of land per head of population, including mountains, lakes and motorways," - it has actually 6.17 acres per head. ( based on mid-2010 population figures Office of National Stastics) ///
Are you sure of your figures? I have found that the population of Britain is 62,262,000 and the area of land is 60,496,640 acres or 244,800 sq km, or 94,526 sq miles.
Roughly one acre per head of population, I'd say.
/// Not high on factual accuracy-
"England, with much less than an acre of land per head of population, including mountains, lakes and motorways," - it has actually 6.17 acres per head. ( based on mid-2010 population figures Office of National Stastics) ///
Are you sure of your figures? I have found that the population of Britain is 62,262,000 and the area of land is 60,496,640 acres or 244,800 sq km, or 94,526 sq miles.
Roughly one acre per head of population, I'd say.
We had a decade of rising immigration (1997-2007) due To the country doing rather well. It was a boom decade and unemployment fell while immigration increased.
During the 1980s immigration was low because we went from one recession to another. Unemployment was rising and no one came because there wasn't any jobs.
// In 1981 when 108,000 British and EU citizens decided to leave and only 28,000 people arrived to settle in the UK. //
During the 1980s immigration was low because we went from one recession to another. Unemployment was rising and no one came because there wasn't any jobs.
// In 1981 when 108,000 British and EU citizens decided to leave and only 28,000 people arrived to settle in the UK. //
From what I can see in my line of work is that there are quite a few 'non uk born' supervisors working with their families here in school nhs etc and we also have UK supervisors at home who can not at the moment find work.
But then again I am sure that this is an isolated case so I am not worried. This country thrives on immigration. I recently visited the park in Keighley where I grew up and my wife got called a '***' in the park and we got told we could not go down a street we were walking if we 'know whats good for us innit'.
From what I have seen I cannot see the benefits of immigration.
But then again I am sure that this is an isolated case so I am not worried. This country thrives on immigration. I recently visited the park in Keighley where I grew up and my wife got called a '***' in the park and we got told we could not go down a street we were walking if we 'know whats good for us innit'.
From what I have seen I cannot see the benefits of immigration.
It appears very good but doesn't stand up to scrutiny
Firstly it relies on the tied old idea that the country is over-populated.
Nonsense on stilts! - Parts of the country are over populated.
It then says that a key part of using foreign workers is sending them home afterwards.
This is rot! -Temporary workers send money home out of the country and out of the economy - temporary workers make everyone poorer
The country needs worker to come and bring their famillies so they spend their money here and not abroad.
No account is taken of demographic decline and what will happen if there are not enough young people in 30 years
I could go on and on
It's articulate, well written and entirely without numerical or logical foundation
You can dress up a pig but it's still a pig!
Firstly it relies on the tied old idea that the country is over-populated.
Nonsense on stilts! - Parts of the country are over populated.
It then says that a key part of using foreign workers is sending them home afterwards.
This is rot! -Temporary workers send money home out of the country and out of the economy - temporary workers make everyone poorer
The country needs worker to come and bring their famillies so they spend their money here and not abroad.
No account is taken of demographic decline and what will happen if there are not enough young people in 30 years
I could go on and on
It's articulate, well written and entirely without numerical or logical foundation
You can dress up a pig but it's still a pig!
You want to know the benefits of immigration?
1/ It provides British companies with the opportunity to pick workers from a larger pool of candidates. This means the quality of their work force rises which means they compete more effectively in the world.
2/ Native UK population is declining, the work force is getting older and older. Without new young people we will get to a point where the economy is not large enough to support us in our old age - the tax take is struggling now to pay pensions and health care - scroll forward to where 40% of us are over 65 and see what happens!
3/ Thirdly they bring in jobs - yup not all immigrants are state scroungers - look at people like James Caan as just one notable example.
The key is to get the right immigrants, talented and dynamic individuals and get them to bring their famillies and stay
1/ It provides British companies with the opportunity to pick workers from a larger pool of candidates. This means the quality of their work force rises which means they compete more effectively in the world.
2/ Native UK population is declining, the work force is getting older and older. Without new young people we will get to a point where the economy is not large enough to support us in our old age - the tax take is struggling now to pay pensions and health care - scroll forward to where 40% of us are over 65 and see what happens!
3/ Thirdly they bring in jobs - yup not all immigrants are state scroungers - look at people like James Caan as just one notable example.
The key is to get the right immigrants, talented and dynamic individuals and get them to bring their famillies and stay
"And finely we have allowed them to group together and create small mirror images of the countries that they have left, instead of them being prepared to embrace fully, the culture and ways of their newly adopted country ..."
I have to take issue with you on this perception AOG - from what I can see, trhe immigrants in ths country are far more willing - and able - top assimilate the indiginous culture, but that does not mean that they should be forced to do so as a condition of living here.
If that were the case, you would find vast swathes of UK emigrees returning post haste, having to leave their 'little Britain' enclaves behind in which ever country they have settled in.
Yes we have our native culture and customs, bot happily we are not so much of a facist state that we prevent people from the perfectly natural inclanation to bond together with others who speak their language and live as they do, and despite all the right-wing scare mongering, this has had little if any serious impact on our society, if the impact is viewed objectively, and not through over xenopshic-tinted gkasses.
God forbid that we shoule ever be able to prevent people from " grouping together and create small mirror images of the countries that they have left, instead of them being prepared to embrace fully, the culture and ways of their newly adopted country."
That would mean that Nazi Germany is alive and well, and I would be on the next plane out to anywhere - assured of a better welcome and respect for my nationality than would have been apaarent here.
I have to take issue with you on this perception AOG - from what I can see, trhe immigrants in ths country are far more willing - and able - top assimilate the indiginous culture, but that does not mean that they should be forced to do so as a condition of living here.
If that were the case, you would find vast swathes of UK emigrees returning post haste, having to leave their 'little Britain' enclaves behind in which ever country they have settled in.
Yes we have our native culture and customs, bot happily we are not so much of a facist state that we prevent people from the perfectly natural inclanation to bond together with others who speak their language and live as they do, and despite all the right-wing scare mongering, this has had little if any serious impact on our society, if the impact is viewed objectively, and not through over xenopshic-tinted gkasses.
God forbid that we shoule ever be able to prevent people from " grouping together and create small mirror images of the countries that they have left, instead of them being prepared to embrace fully, the culture and ways of their newly adopted country."
That would mean that Nazi Germany is alive and well, and I would be on the next plane out to anywhere - assured of a better welcome and respect for my nationality than would have been apaarent here.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Crosswords18 mins ago
When Did You Last Go To A Newsagents?
ChatterBank22 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles23 mins ago
