Donald Trump isn't the only one building a wall.

[Udayana]

So if 5 million came in each year and some parked outside your house or begged in your high street and so on and littered the place up and lived like pigs and smelling like them etc., you'd be quite happy about it?

See... and some people say they don't try and integrate!

[jeremyp]

"This country is built on migrants very few can trace their ancestry back to the original Anglo Saxon occupants, as most are incomers."


All that is irrelevant.  The problems today are unique in our history,

No they aren't. This country has been subject to repeated invasions by illegal immigrants before.

and are fraught with social and economic, not to mention securit, problems, on an unprecedented scale.

Not really no. Compared with the population that is already here, these illegal immigrants are a drop in the ocean.

[BashfulAnthony]

No they aren't. This country has been subject to repeated invasions by illegal immigrants before.
Not really no. Compared with the population that is already here, these illegal immigrants are a drop in the ocean.

This country is absorbing more than 330,000 immigrants every year, quite apart from any count of illegal immigrants, whose real numbers no-one knows.  That is most certainly unique in our history.  The numbers far outway anything seen before, if only in the short space of time we have had to try and assimilate them.  The cultural, social and financial repercussions are enormous.  To accept even more without some kind of control is madness.

[jeremyp]

Not sure about that suggestion.  We have immigrants here from almost every country on Earth, and we certainly didn't colonise them all. If you are a migrant you will choose a country you perceive to be able to offer you the most advantageous options.  I don't think the high number of Syrian or Afghanistan would-be migrants are a throw-back to our colonial past. As I said before, France is a desirable new country for either asylum-seekers or economic migrants, and France has a colonial past, but it doesn't seem to be an over-riding fact with the migrants in Calais, for example.

Unemployment in France is pretty high at the moment. Maybe they don't see any prospects.

[jeremyp]

This country is absorbing more than 330,000 immigrants every year, quite apart from any count of illegal immigrants, whose real numbers no-one knows.  That is most certainly unique in our history.

In absolute terms: maybe. Relative to the existing population: no.

330,000 represents less than 0.5% of the current population. If it carries on at this level (unlikely because this is, as you say, a historic high) in ten years it means that a school with 100 children in it now will have a 105 children. It means a queue that has 10 people in it now, in ten years will have 11 people in it (half the time).

Immigration is a drop in the ocean - as I said before.

[BashfulAnthony]

In absolute terms: maybe. Relative to the existing population: no.

330,000 represents less than 0.5% of the current population. If it carries on at this level (unlikely because this is, as you say, a historic high) in ten years it means that a school with 100 children in it now will have a 105 children. It means a queue that has 10 people in it now, in ten years will have 11 people in it (half the time).

Immigration is a drop in the ocean - as I said before.

Firstly, the 330,000 figure is only for legal immigrants.  There are various estimates as to how many illegals there are, varying from 300,000 to 800,000.  But more importantly, your scenario sounds very reasonable, and would be if the newcomers were spread evenly across the different communities.  It is not so.  We will all be aware of cities where the migrant population in schools outnumbers the indigenous population.  This is a highly dangerous situation in my opinion, and can only lead to social unrest.  It is in such areas where migrants are in large numbers in the community that the Brexit campaign had its greatest success.  Further, though you suggest the incoming numbers can be easily absorbed in schools it is not true. In reality many schools are having the greatest difficulty in integrating migrants, many of whom have little or no English,  and that situation is to the detriment of all.  The large numbers are having a severe effect on housing and in health care, where the numbers are putting an increasingly severe strain on the system.  In your allusion, a correct one of course, that we have always had waves of migration, it was always in a totally different social structure, where things were never equal and in many ways it was a free for all, with an underclass who, largely, were not considered.  But even so, in past times the numbers were never so high over a relatively short period of time.  With respect, I think your attitude smacks of complacency.  I believe we are in the midst of a social crisis not seen in my life-time, or for a long time before.

[Brownie]

Are you happy that all economic migrants who wish to live in the UK, get that wish granted?

On a personal level, that doesn't bother me because people will come and go, maybe stay here for a while and then move on to somewhere else;  some will stay forever if they like it.

The British also go to other countries for economic reasons and set up home.  Always have.

Quote: Road hauliers called the wall a "poor use" of public money.

Couldn't agree more.

[jeremyp]

Firstly, the 330,000 figure is only for legal immigrants.  There are various estimates as to how many illegals there are, varying from 300,000 to 800,000.

But that is the total number here, not the amount by which the number of illegal immigrants is increasing or decreasing per annum.

But more importantly, your scenario sounds very reasonable, and would be if the newcomers were spread evenly across the different communities.  It is not so.  We will all be aware of cities where the migrant population in schools outnumbers the indigenous population.

So what? Almost everybody in the UK is descended from immigrants.

This is a highly dangerous situation in my opinion, and can only lead to social unrest.

Only because of the hysteria whipped up by people like you.

It is in such areas where migrants are in large numbers in the community that the Brexit campaign had its greatest success.

Which must mean the migrants generally voted for Brexit. Why are you so unhappy?

Further, though you suggest the incoming numbers can be easily absorbed in schools it is not true. In reality many schools are having the greatest difficulty in integrating migrants, many of whom have little or no English,  and that situation is to the detriment of all.

So they need to get better at it.

The migrants are, on the whole, good for the country. In general, they pay their taxes and they work hard. If you count yourself as English, your ancestors were migrants, and I can tell you that migration was a bit more violent than the current one.

[Harrowby Hall]

Which must mean the migrants generally voted for Brexit. Why are you so unhappy?

Only if they had already acquired British citizenship.

[BashfulAnthony]

But that is the total number here, not the amount by which the number of illegal immigrants is increasing or decreasing per annum.

So what? Almost everybody in the UK is descended from immigrants.

Only because of the hysteria whipped up by people like you.

Which must mean the migrants generally voted for Brexit. Why are you so unhappy?

So they need to get better at it.

The migrants are, on the whole, good for the country. In general, they pay their taxes and they work hard. If you count yourself as English, your ancestors were migrants, and I can tell you that migration was a bit more violent than the current one.

You just don't get it.  Firstly, I do not whip up hysteria - a comment which simply shows your lack of appreciation of the issues and others' point of view,  and an unpleasant and personal assertion, and only to be expected from someone as self-important and mired in his own certainties as you.  I am making a reasonable argument, and you have made no intelligent attempt to answer.  You merely resort to being personal.  As for your throw-away comment that migrants voted Brexit:  any figures to back that up, or is it another of your, "I said it, so it's true" assertions. As to all immigrants being hard-working tax-payers:  no doubt you have figures to back that up. No doubt most are, but I have no corroboration.  And why mention violence?  You seem to be the one dealing in hysteria.  You are a most closed-minded, self important debater, merely throwing out one-liners. Have you ever debated without becoming abusive to some extent or other?  Don't answer: it's self-evident, and no doubt you will supply ample evidence yet.

Have a good day.

[Udayana]

...  With respect, I think your attitude smacks of complacency.  I believe we are in the midst of a social crisis not seen in my life-time, or for a long time before.

Whatever. We may be in a social crisis but it is nothing compared to the crises in the ME and Africa at the root of the migrations.

[BashfulAnthony]

Whatever. We may be in a social crisis but it is nothing compared to the crises in the ME and Africa at the root of the migrations.

I am fully aware of that, and this country does more than every one else, apart from the US, in providing money and resources to help:  we have a basic foreign aid budget of ｣12 billion a year!  We give more than all the rest of the precious EU put together, and we are, after all, bankrupt.  We cannot be everything to every one.  We do a great deal, and I care as much as the next about the needy, but there is such a thing as being realistic, and we still have poor and needy here; we are still seeing food banks growing in number; we still have many homeless.  We do a lot for those in trouble.

[Udayana]

er .. yes., but it is obviously not working!

Just because we spend all that money does not mean that migrants that want to come here must be taken care of by France or Spain!

[BashfulAnthony]

er .. yes., but it is obviously not working!

Just because we spend all that money does not mean that migrants that want to come here must be taken care of by France or Spain!

What do you mean, "not working"?  What do you suggest?  We give a billion pounds a year in foreign aid; we even give half a million a year to France to pay for the Calais camp. We have to absorb 330,000 migrants from around the world every year.  We do a great deal.  Should we simply open our doors to unlimited migration?  Surely you don't suggest that.  So how would you make it work?

What France and Spain do is their concern: they certainly don't do more than us. We are simply being realistic and doing what we can.  Do you suggest we follow Merkel's lead and open our doors without restriction?  She regrets it now.

[jeremyp]

You just don't get it.  Firstly, I do not whip up hysteria

But you've even been doing it here.

a comment which simply shows your lack of appreciation of the issues and others' point of view,  and an unpleasant and personal assertion, and only to be expected from someone as self-important and mired in his own certainties as you.

No I understand the issues far better than you appear to.

I am making a reasonable argument, and you have made no intelligent attempt to answer.

Wrong. I demonstrated why your fear of immigrants is misplaced.

I see no attempt by you to engage in  a rational discussion as you seem to have descended into insult. Your absence hasn't improved your intellect.

As for your throw-away comment that migrants voted Brexit:  any figures to back that up, or is it another of your, "I said it, so it's true" assertions.

It was you who made that claim. You said areas with lots of migrants voted Brexit. Who was doing the voting if not the migrants?

As to all immigrants being hard-working tax-payers:  no doubt you have figures to back that up. No doubt most are, but I have no corroboration.

I didn't say they all were, I said "in general".

And why mention violence?  You seem to be the one dealing in hysteria.

I brought up the violence of the Anglo Saxon migration as a contrast to the present one.

 

You are a most closed-minded, self important debater, merely throwing out one-liners.

The irony. Absence hasn't diminished your insult skills. I guess that is what comes of not having an argument worth shit.

[BashfulAnthony]

But you've even been doing it here.
No I understand the issues far better than you appear to.
Wrong. I demonstrated why your fear of immigrants is misplaced.

I see no attempt by you to engage in  a rational discussion as you seem to have descended into insult. Your absence hasn't improved your intellect.
It was you who made that claim. You said areas with lots of migrants voted Brexit. Who was doing the voting if not the migrants?

I didn't say they all were, I said "in general".


I brought up the violence of the Anglo Saxon migration as a contrast to the present one.

 The irony. Absence hasn't diminished your insult skills. I guess that is what comes of not having an argument worth shit.

A few corrections to your shabby and deceitful post:

Firstly, it is both an untruth and a pretty despicable slur to accuse me of whipping up hysteria.  I make reasonable and debatable points.  To make such a comment by you simply demonstrates that you have no answers, and so resort to accusations, in the age-old manner of those who have nothing substantial to say.

You allege you know more about the situation than I.  Then why don't you answer my points regarding  the NHS, housing, and schools with regard to immigration?

 Then you say you have demonstrated my fear of immigration: nonsense:  you cannot demonstrate an untruth - I have no fear of immigration at all, but only a sensible and realistic approach to a difficult situation.

You have not debated anything, only resorted to your usual denunciation of anything you disagree with.  It's a joke!

I spoke of areas of high immigrant population being mainly out-voters.  You made the absurd comment that how could they  be as  presumably migrants would have voted Remain.  Well, clearly the rest of the areas concerned didn't - it's not quite rocket science.  And my point was that in high immigrant areas the population is more concerned about such things as housing, schooling, employment, and the NHS.  What is your answer to that?

And, as usual, you accuse me of insulting you.  Take a look at yourself and try very hard to see yourself as others do:  arrogant, self-important, supercilious, and a self-appointed expert on all things: religion, politics, sport, science.  You confuse insult with truthfulness.  And finally, the hypocrisy:  to accuse me of insult and yet finish your appalling post with your habitual obscenity.  Try and see how ridiculous your arguments appear.  Of course, it is plain that your bile is down to the fact that the majority did not follow your learned example, and vote Remain.  In other words: you're a sore loser!

[floo]

Without the help of incomers this country would be in a very sorry state. They often do jobs Brits don't want to do, or not enough have the skills needed. Our hospitals would be in a much worse state if the only staff were Brits.

I think a lot of people who voted to leave the EU using the migrants as an excuse, are racists at heart, especially those who support the ghastly UKIP mob.

[Brownie]

I certainly agree with you on that one, floo.

So - if all illegal or/and legal immigrants are sent away, the Brit pop will pick turnips, wait tables, mend fences, valet cars, work for cleaning companies, iron ..... yeah right, some might.

[BashfulAnthony]

To dismiss UKIP as a "mob" shows a certain level of political ignorance. To dismiss some 4,000,000 voters is foolhardy.   You see, Cameron did, and too late realised his mistake.  It cost him his job.  So, UKIP had their use.  They got rid of Cameron's "mob."

[floo]

I certainly agree with you on that one, floo.

So - if all illegal or/and legal immigrants are sent away, the Brit pop will pick turnips, wait tables, mend fences, valet cars, work for cleaning companies, iron ..... yeah right, some might.

If all the migrants left our shores, the disgusting racist UKIP mob would really have something to moan about when the jobs they do were left undone.

[BashfulAnthony]

/quote] author=Floo link=topic=12512.msg633835#msg633835 date=1473579315]
If all the migrants left our shores, the disgusting racist UKIP mob would really have something to moan about when the jobs they do were left undone.

Strange:  all those jobs were done in the past, before the large numbers of migrants were allowed in because of the EU.  The point is, these EU workers are very often working here on wages which are undercutting people here.  I do wish some of you people would look more closely into the facts, and get a grip on what is actually happening.

[Aruntraveller]

Strange:  all those jobs were done in the past, before the large numbers of migrants were allowed in because of the EU.  The point is, these EU workers are very often working here on wages which are undercutting people here.  I do wish some of you people would look more closely into the facts, and get a grip on what is actually happening.

But the past is a long time ago.

Farmers repeatedly bang on about the fact that they cannot get English people to work in the fields even though they pay the minimum wage. They can't afford to pay more because our big supermarkets demand prices are kept low for all of us dear consumers. When the migrants go (if) then prices will either go up because farmers will be forced to pay more to English people - or we will see farming go into decline and we will have to import more. Quite a lot of those imports will come from an economic block we have decided to leave thus cutting us out of favourable trading terms for that produce - with higher costs for us the consumer again.

This isn't rocket science its the way the market works.

[floo]

But the past is a long time ago.

Farmers repeatedly bang on about the fact that they cannot get white English people to work in the fields even though they pay the minimum wage. They can't afford to pay more because our big supermarkets demand prices are kept low for all of us dear consumers. When the migrants go (if) then prices will either go up because farmers will be forced to pay more to English people - or we will see farming go into decline and we will have to import more. Quite a lot of those imports will come from an economic block we have decided to leave thus cutting us out of favourable trading terms for that produce - with higher costs for us the consumer again.

This isn't rocket science its the way the market works.

Good post.

[Udayana]

What do you mean, "not working"?  What do you suggest?  We give a billion pounds a year in foreign aid; we even give half a million a year to France to pay for the Calais camp. We have to absorb 330,000 migrants from around the world every year.  We do a great deal.  Should we simply open our doors to unlimited migration?  Surely you don't suggest that.  So how would you make it work?

What France and Spain do is their concern: they certainly don't do more than us. We are simply being realistic and doing what we can.  Do you suggest we follow Merkel's lead and open our doors without restriction?  She regrets it now.

There is no single simple answer. What is needed is establishing better governance and successful businesses in those countries. Corruption needs to be eliminated. Aid does not help except when resources are needed for relieving disasters and emergencies. Trade would be much better.

Ultimately there is no solution unless the standard of life is pretty much even across the world. But for this to even be a remote hope, global warming and climate change need to be reduced to a minimum and the rich need to start trading fairly with everyone else.

You have mentioned how badly off we are - poor health services, education, unemployment and so on - but in fact the country is immensely rich, we just choose to limit the benefits to a few percent here and abroad. Even during the height of the empire, when the wealth of the world was pouring into Britain, the streets were packed with unemployed, starving and unhoused.

[floo]

There is no single simple answer. What is needed is establishing better governance and successful businesses in those countries. Corruption needs to be eliminated. Aid does not help except when resources are needed for relieving disasters and emergencies. Trade would be much better.

Ultimately there is no solution unless the standard of life is pretty much even across the world. But for this to even be a remote hope, global warming and climate change need to be reduced to a minimum and the rich need to start trading fairly with everyone else.

You have mentioned how badly off we are - poor health services, education, unemployment and so on - but in fact the country is immensely rich, we just choose to limit the benefits to a few percent here and abroad. Even during the height of the empire, when the wealth of the world was pouring into Britain, the streets were packed with unemployed, starving and unhoused.

The British Empire was of no credit to the UK whatsoever. It treated the citizens of the countries it acquired as lesser mortals, if not slaves, and plundered their assets.

Compared to third world countries Britain is immensely rich even when there is a recession on.