A good result in Blackburn last night?

[Solly]

People ought to be able to live where they please, regardless of national boundaries.

This would be OK if there wasn't the existence of large welfare states. Allowing in millions of refugees to the UK would cripple us, in terms of crime and welfare payments.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ramo
I don't see any need for a line. People ought to be able to live where they please, regardless of national boundaries.

If anyone in the world could live wherever they wanted you would have serious socio-economic problems.

I would dread to think what would happen to the UK if 20-30million more people chose to live here.

[TheStinger]

The definition is:

a person who owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

That defintion is the basis for UK asylum policy

[Ramo]

This would be OK if there wasn't the existence of large welfare states. Allowing in millions of refugees to the UK would cripple us, in terms of crime and welfare payments.

I don't particularly care for large welfare states.

Why do you support the reduction of the welfare state, yet also support extremely authoritarian (BNP, I presume) immigration policies?

If anyone in the world could live wherever they wanted you would have serious socio-economic problems.

In comparison to the world as it currently is? I doubt that. You might temporarily have some more problems in developed states, but you'd also see a more significant reduction of problems in developing states. Furthermore, immigration would help fuel further economic expansion of the West, and remittances and Western education would help fuel economic expansion in the third world. IMO, liberalization of immigration is pivotal in alleviating the socio-economic problems the world currently faces.

[Dauphin]

Take the case of the US... how would opening the southern border advance the socio-economic condition of Mexico? Both in the short and long-terms?

Even within countries free migration does little to advance the poorer regions. In the UK the north suffers from chronic under-investment, and the south east suffers from overpopulation as that is where most people move to.

[Ramo]

Take the case of the US... how would opening the southern border advance the socio-economic condition of Mexico? Both in the short and long-terms?

Remittances from Mexicans who decide to stay in the US, plus an influx of educated Mexicans who decide to move back. IIRC, remittances to people in developing states from relatives in developed states have the effect of several times international aid/charity. Anyways, you'll get much more capital (both human and nonhuman) in Mexico than currently.

[Worthingtons]

Ok, First of all, my apologies for opening another thread on this subject elsewhere, i've just seen this one.

Right, In this thread I'm with boddington's, he is right when he says they get better funding and such. Funding isnt the real issue, it's employment. The govenment pensions department here recently advertised for a job dealing with pension enquiries, in the ad they say 'We would particulary encourage people from asian, and other minority backgrounds to apply' - it's alright having equality but thats going beyond it.

Another thing that annoys me, some people may be aware of the £600,000 GP being created especially for ayslum seekers in Derby. We'll we have a great doctors here, with many GP's having closed thier books, i had to ring round about 6 the last time i needed a doctors. It is just disgusting that they can jump the queue and get special treatment, over the people who pay tax to the city.

Finally, 'Thestinger', you dissapoint, i thought most Yorkshiremen had common sense, you are more like one of these London PC Nerds (No offense).

Cheers
Matt

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Boddington's
One of.

Our taxpayers are being taken advantage of.

Damn straight. My taxes paid for your education and you've turned out a ****ing moron.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Rothy

Finally, 'Thestinger', you dissapoint, i thought most Yorkshiremen had common sense, you are more like one of these London PC Nerds (No offense).

Well why bother promoting a racial line when it looks like you've got a big enough problem with people who live in a different county?

[spartak]

I'm not able to get into a public discussion of immigration policies (PM me to find out why) so I can't really participate in this thread given the direction it has taken. I would have just have left it alone but didn't want Rage to believe that I was not up to countering his response to my post. All I will say on that is that he reveals himself by his willingness to catagorise people by their ethnic background and deny those who don't fit his perception of the right background as undeserving of basic humkan rights. The term for somone who does that is "racist". Sad.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Rothy

Right, In this thread I'm with boddington's, he is right when he says they get better funding and such. Funding isnt the real issue, it's employment. The govenment pensions department here recently advertised for a job dealing with pension enquiries, in the ad they say 'We would particulary encourage people from asian, and other minority backgrounds to apply' - it's alright having equality but thats going beyond it.

How does that go beyond equality? Encouraging sectors of the community to apply does not equate to giving them preference on job selection, and the employer could be breaching employment law if they did so.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Rothy

Another thing that annoys me, some people may be aware of the £600,000 GP being created especially for ayslum seekers in Derby. We'll we have a great doctors here, with many GP's having closed thier books, i had to ring round about 6 the last time i needed a doctors. It is just disgusting that they can jump the queue and get special treatment, over the people who pay tax to the city.

The NHS provides medical care to those who need it, regardless of whether they pay taxes or not. There are many unemployed people in Derby who are, no doubt, grateful for that fact.

The solution to the problem is easy- you need more doctors. How about encouraging more immigrant doctors?

[spartak]

has anyone ever thought that the Government has a duty to ensure that the civil service reflects the community and that in areas where ethnic minorities are already underepresented wenbcourgaing applications in an open competition is a good way to begin to redress that balance?

{Taz waits for lots of pakibashing stupid comments from the Bodalikes of this world.}

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Anyway, Spink, I want an answer from you. Are you a member or supporter of the BNP?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


How does that go beyond equality? Encouraging sectors of the community to apply does not equate to giving them preference on job selection, and the employer could be breaching employment law if they did so.

It seems unlikely that they would encourage certain sections of the community to apply if they didn't have any intention of hiring them over others. To think otherwise is naive.

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
, and the employer could be breaching employment law if they did so.

I would guess that the chances of someone being prosecuted for unfairly hiring a minority are tiny. When was the last time this happened?