Immigration - social trouble on its way

[BobTheCrate]

Who has proprietary rights on the world? I was under the impression we were free to go wherever (in the free world anyway).
So why shouldn't someone be able to work or live in any country they fancied?

So you wouldn't have any limit then Bagpus ? There are many 100,000's of peoples from the African continent, South America, and Indo China who would love to come here as well but for the visa requirement. Your policy means we should scrap that visa requirement in the interests of free peoples being free to go anywhere they choose.

And in so doing you believe there would not be, and should not be any social problems caused as a result whatsoever ?

Oh dear.

[Bagpuss]

My policy is it's a free world, why should you or I have rights over one Island just because we were born there?

[ratewhore]

Would you clean toilets for £4 per hour?

Thats less then NMW - which is illegal - surely?

[Pondlife]

My policy is it's a free world, why should you or I have rights over one Island just because we were born there?

So what happened to the Aboriginies and Native Americans was okay then?

[Bagpuss]

"Thats less then NMW - which is illegal - surely?"

Maybe they take the extra £1 as dividend

So what happened to the Aboriginies and Native Americans was okay then?

according to the Americans it was fine

[snaw]

What are your principals Snaw? And how do you know that any one section of the media is any more biased than another. I agree that the Mail is a right wing paper but how do you know that their reporting is less accurate in this instance than the BBC (very pro Bliar and co IMHO). What would you say is a balanced view of the immigration issue?

Many and varied, but I'd like to think they're a touch more true than the NL ones ...

I had no comment to make on the accuracy of the Mail's reporting, just the spin they themselves put on pretty much everything they write, which as I stated is of the hysterical reporting variety. In my mind the Mail is for people who think they're a touch better than Sun readers but with the overall same level of intelligence. I wouldn't wipe my arse with either paper.

The BBC I would agree leans left, but I would also correct your pro-Blair comment, I'd have to disagree and say the BBC is very anti-government (Suits me, I can't stand the b'stards either).

The Government publically does nothing but praise to the sky the benefits of immigration. These articles provide the balance you claim you want. Rather than the same New Lie spin all the time that only states what it believes to be the benefits and never mentioning, let alone acknowledging the disadvantages.

It does? Can't remember the government doing that, underestimating the numbers maybe, praising nope.

On the balance question I think you might have to go back and revist the dictionary for balance - your selection was far from it. Four articles on immigration, one an opinion piece (Very right wing one at that), three on a leaked memo which basiaclly states the obvious - increased immigration from Eastern Europe will put a strain on our resources and a possible issue if the courts overturn the current restrictions on immigrants getting benefits or council houses. Hardly earth shattering. For balance I personally read a variety of news sources, but the Mail would never make it onto that list, cause quite simply anytime I do read it, it reminds me what a pile of tulipe it is.

[snaw]

So what happened to the Aboriginies and Native Americans was okay then?

I reckon we'd be within our rights to stop people immigrating here who wanted to nick all our land, give us deadly diseases and think it was ok to hunt us down, exterminate us and collect our ears to exchange for cash ...

[Viktor]

I think the truth is somewhere in between...to often people debate over immigration on the basis of some articles and posts in forums like this one...
After all everything depends on how you integrate new ones into your existing society; have a look at Canada, they actually DEPEND on immigration and seems that no one complains about new arrivals; Canadian economy benefits on the long term and everyone is considered "Canadian" after 3 years by law. But they control the education level, language and health of the would-be immigrants BEFORE a visa is granted.
In UK so far I've seen the opposite: everyone pops in with a visa (FFS do you know how many countries were allowed to send people here on "holidaymaker 2 year visas"? http://www.workpermit.com/news/2006_...on_closure.htm
if you were thinking that only Aussies and Kiwis use this visa, you are wrong - read the link ) and after there are ways to circumvent, extend or bribe some Home Office twat in order to be declared "legal". After several years, when all the damage has been done, you begin to scream "no more immigration" and of course all new immigrants are hit, no matter the circumstances.
In the end, the goal would be to have indeed a free labour market in EU, with the same laws in place across borders. But until that far away moment, you can read about the latest trend in immigration here :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5151740.stm

Victor

[Bagpuss]

I reckon we'd be within our rights to stop people immigrating here who wanted to nick all our land, give us deadly diseases and think it was ok to hunt us down, exterminate us and collect our ears to exchange for cash ...

Bloody savages those Pakistanis!

[John Galt]

I had no comment to make on the accuracy of the Mail's reporting, just the spin they themselves put on pretty much everything they write, which as I stated is of the hysterical reporting variety

Really? or is it just a case that you don't like what they print? As far as your native american indian post goes - do you think that everyone coming into this country legal or illegal wishes us well as a nation?