Britain Has Too Many Phony Immigrants

[Graag]

Look at the history of the United States. All that has happened is because of immigration and the 'melting pot'.

All this has happened because all the other world powers got rightously ****ed in WW1 and WW2.

Anyone got any evidence? Facts? Ideas?

[Sandman]

Is Britain really that overcrowded? It could probably take double the current population, if urbanisation was intensified and suburbanisation curbed.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

No it isn't that overcrowded. That's Malthusian hyper-bollocks.

And while there is unemployment in Britain (though well down on what it was 15 years ago), there's also a net skills shortage.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The Lubbers article is bollocks in this context too. Ruud has just taken the following principle-

"If you could go for one person per thousand citizens there would be no refugee problem in the world at all," he said. "

....which requires application on a world-wide scale to work, then the issue is not that Britain is taking too many refugees, but that China, India, Indonesia, North Korea etc aren't taking enough.

It's still crap. I'd struggle to believe that the fact that Nigeria has a far larger population than the UK means that it's far more able to seamlessly accommodate a much larger number of refugees. Lubbers has managed to fit both his entire legs in his mouth.

[Sandman]

That's Malthusian hyper-bollocks.

That's funny for so many reasons.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
No it isn't that overcrowded. That's Malthusian hyper-bollocks.

And while there is unemployment in Britain (though well down on what it was 15 years ago), there's also a net skills shortage.

Ah, you're probably right.

I just don't think endless immigration is the answer to all economic problems. Although it still doesn't mean you shouldn't let them in... notice I never said that. I just said its not the answer to Britain's problems.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by The Viceroy
I say build several more cities, and take more immigrants in ! because as it stands, the housing situation in the UK is terrible .. we need more cities.

Where are you going to build the cities? If no-one else the environmentalists will have a field day.

[Ned]

If a flood of asylum seekers are fleeing oppression and extreme poverty, such as we have seen in the case of Cuba, Haiti and Mexico in our own hemisphere, I think the best course of action is to "fix" the problem at its source. The people who left Castro in power (Kennedy) were pretty muddled thinkers, IMHO. They may have kept the peace, but the people of Cuba have suffered for it.

If Europe is being overwhelmed by refugees from Islamic North Africa, why doesn't Europe act? Stop waiting for the US to fix all the world's problems. We can't.

[Imran Siddiqui]

All this has happened because all the other world powers got rightously ****ed in WW1 and WW2.

Um... no. The United States, before WW1 was an economic power. Look at the amount of steel production for one. It is only AFTER WW2 that the US became a military power as well.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Graag
Its a mystery why the EU doesn't simply divide allocation of asylum seekers between it's members according to population (or GDP or whatever).

The UK has around a ~0.5 per 1,000 persons net immigration, which compares to Germany's ~10 per 1,000.

[Imran Siddiqui]

My main question is how can one become a 'phony' immigrant?

[Graag]

If Europe is being overwhelmed by refugees from Islamic North Africa, why doesn't Europe act? Stop waiting for the US to fix all the world's problems. We can't.

No sh*t sherlock

Um... no. The United States, before WW1 was an economic power. Look at the amount of steel production for one. It is only AFTER WW2 that the US became a military power as well.

An economic power. Not the economic power. The US' domination of world trade can be see to increase markedly and constantly since WW2, and it is fairly obvious the UK, France etc. was in little position to trade sh*t.

The UK has around a ~0.5 per 1,000 persons net immigration, which compares to Germany's ~10 per 1,000.

Interesting. Good for the Germans then. I'm surprised by that figure to be honest, but then thats what you get for reading the Telegraph. Also surprised the Germans aren't showing more right-wing anti-immigration tendancies.
Though I imagine if you look at London alone the figure is probably closer to the German figure than .5 per 1000

[Imran Siddiqui]

An economic power. Not the economic power.

We aren't the economic power NOW either. Does that mean we aren't strong?

[Graag]

Um, no. You are indeed very very strong. If you want to be pedantic, you are quite right that the US is not the only economic power in the world, but they are a looong way ahead of the pack.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually, the EU is just about equal in terms of economic power.

Japan and China are not that far either, when you compare their GDP per capita in a Purchasing Power Parity comparison.

And also, if we are talking about after WW2, by the 1970s, the USSR was about 75% of the way to the US GDP with less people.

--

It is obvious that the US's economic strength comes partly from the US's willingness (at least in the past) to admit massive numbers of immigrants into the country.