Britain Has Too Many Phony Immigrants

[Graag]

The EU is not a state.

Japan and China are a million miles off.

USSR in the 70's was a crock.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The EU is not a state.

So what, we aren't talking about states. It is a political entity that is unified enough to be a competitor, economically to the US.

Japan and China are a million miles off.

Hardly. They are closer than you think.

USSR in the 70's was a crock.

And yet they weren't that far off from the US economically.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn


Their political views aren't relavent in my opinion. Thats discrimination. Either you take them or you don't.

Discrimination based on ideology is ok if it can save lives.

[Dr Strangelove]

Until the USSR dissolved it had a larger population than the US. By 1980, when the US population reached 250 million, the population of the USSR was 275 million.

I notice that the article grossly underestimates the immigrant population of the US. Evidently Spanish speaking peoples don't rate mentioning in Europe.

[molly bloom]

How to make an unpleasant beverage called Boddington's:

press the sour grapes of wrath, until they emit a sour whine.

Somehow, in the Newspeak world of his, genuine asylum seekers become 'phony immigrants'.

More than ever, when I see his name attached to a new post, I feel a sense of shame at being British.

And a sense of relief at being in Australia. As a non- 'phony immigrant', of course.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Until the USSR dissolved it had a larger population than the US. By 1980, when the US population reached 250 million, the population of the USSR was 275 million.

I notice that the article grossly underestimates the immigrant population of the US. Evidently Spanish speaking peoples don't rate mentioning in Europe.

But most Spanish speaking people in the US aren't exactly immigrants. There are many, but just as many, if not more, have been in the US since before annexation.

Although I could just be making a fool of myself since I don't know which article you're refering to

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by 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.

Great suggestion, Ned. Given the numbers of Falun Gong followers being oppressed and fleeing, do you suggest that the answer is to invade China?

I bet even the big ol' US of A would pass on that one...

[Sten Sture]

The relative attractiveness of allowing immigrants into your country is partly attributed to the economic level of socialized health and retirement programs compared. The other major factor should be the free movement of labor and economic mobility.

In countries where the social programs are large relative to the economy, the cost of immigrants to the country may outweigh the potential benefits of new workers. It may also influence the type of immigrants a country attracts. Consider Sweden's former policy of open immigration, low labor mobility, and expensive government programs. They got a lot of good working immigrants, but they also got a lot of folks from countries with poor social services who were looking to retire. (Buck Birdseed may be able to shed some corrective insight on this.)

The States on the other hand is somewhat well known on these boards as a place where govt programs are zero, but everyone has the chance to make their big fortune. While our programs are certainly not zero, and making a fortune is a tough multi-generational task - we still get a core entreprenuerial group of immigrants that give 'them', as a group, top billing as the primary reason behind the success of the USofA.


(cue: Immigrant Song)

[Solly]

...so if we got rid of our over-generous and -socialised health, welfare and pension payments, we could start to see the real benefits of accepting immigrants.

We would also see the number of sponging free-loaders fall.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Exactly. Now reimburse me for the money wasted on your education.

[*End Is Forever*]

What do you think about the Eastern enlargement of the EU Stew? What about the significant economic migration that will result from this? Is it a good idea?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn


But most Spanish speaking people in the US aren't exactly immigrants. There are many, but just as many, if not more, have been in the US since before annexation.

Although I could just be making a fool of myself since I don't know which article you're refering to

I was referring to the article that the top post in this thread links to. The article has a bar graph at the bottom comparing the relative number of asylum seekers per thousand capita over a five year period for a number of countries. The graph puts the US down near the botom, way below most European countries. It evidently ignores the fact that the US gets about one million immigrants/year, which would give the US about 18 immigrants/thousand population over a five year period. This would place the US at the top of the chart, something no European would ever want to do. You can argue that most of the immigrants to the US are not political asylum seekers, and that most have entered the US outside the law and therefore do not count in this survey. If the point of the article is the economic impact of immigrants on the host nation then they should count.

[Solly]

That retort is getting tired Lax.

Eastern enlargement - depends wholly on the conditions, on reform, on whether Britain will be expected to stump up even more cash.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Though apt, seeing as you failed to spell the three letters of "Laz" correctly.

[Solly]