“Patriotism is a lively sense of collective responsibility. Nationalism is a silly cock crowing on its own dunghill and calling for larger spurs and brighter beaks. I fear that nationalism is one of England’s many spurious gifts to the world.” –
Richard Aldington

Seem to be more silly cocks about of late, must be that time of the century.

If you ask people on the street how they feel about immigration in their answer will be the result of all kinds of factors. For some people, their wages have improved and their local area has been reinvigorated by new arrivals. For others, they will have experienced pressure on local services, housing problems, falling wages, unemployment etc. Some people are just a bit xenophobic or racist, but I don’t think that’s the majority.

So much of it would be influenced by the constant stream of sensationalist BS in the majority of the press though.

True grum (and good to agree for a change 😉 )

Fun article in FT today from Ganesh on the risks from ‘Miserablism’. As Ganesh states most of the negativity is misplaced but that hasn’t stopped Farage (and Salmond!) riding on its coat tales. We might not agree on some of this…..

mogrim – Member
Give it whatever label ye like, but the system isn’t set up so everyone wins. It may be setup so everyone can win, but there’s only a limited number of winning places.
Not sure I agree with that – even including the current Tory government, if you look at the history of the past 50 years most of us have been winning. Of course there is still poverty, but you only have to look at things like these photos to realise just how far we’ve all come.

What is undoubtedly true is that some of us are winning more than others, of course.

I don’t deny how far we’ve come. But that doesn’t mean you can’t criticise, and can’t recognise that there seems to be a reversal going on somewhat.

The system should lead to more collectivism, not the other way about, that can only lead to regression imo.

Incidently, I don’t really need pictures to understand the poverty there was, my auld man came out of the 50/60s gorbals slums, while he came out of well, I’m all too aware of the poverty and the issues that that caused(his brothers are/were a right couple monumental ****). And I understand that my up bringing in the 80s was relatively more prosperous than theirs in comparison.

I think they should all **** off back to where they came from.
Except for the surgeon who has just done my F.I.L’s heart by pass,that girl in the cafe opposite,the girl who works for us and her husband who heads the local traders association,my friend’s wife and kylie.

Whatnobeer- <snip>

Thanks for that. I knew the rules had been changed recently but didn’t know the details.

I totally agree with you on the student visa system being equally as daft. I know there are some problems with sham universities being set up to get people in on student visas, but it can’t be that big of a problem. And as far as I can see the reduction and restrictions put on student visas don’t reduce immigration at all. All they do restrict the quality of international students who can come to the UK and stop the ability of the students to work in the UK and contribute to the economy after the graduate.

(because, for some reason, talking about how nasty immigration is in front of my immigrant wife is a very popular thing to do)

People forget because she’s white and speaks English. That and people are stupid and often don’t realise how these policies can effect people they know.

However again, imigrants tend to send money home. This is a huge drain on the economy as you kill of the multiplier effect as that wage then doesnt go onto suppourt other wages (the plumber doesnt then spend all his money in the pub suppourting the barman, and the fruitpicker who contributed to his cider).

Oh no, brown people in developing countries get to improve their standard of living and trade with us on more equal terms and have the money to buy our exports. Increasing growth and world trade.

Oh the **** humanity of it all!

Immigration is fine. Mass immigration is not.

The UK population is projected to grow by over 9 million (9.4m) in just 25 years’ time, increasing from 64 million in 2013 to 73 million by 2039. Of this increase, about two thirds is projected to be due to future migrants and their children – the equivalent of the current populations of Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, Manchester, Edinburgh, Liverpool, Bristol, Cardiff, Newcastle, Belfast and Aberdeen.

Get a grip, people manage to get by in population dense places like Hong Kong. Centralised population centres with strong economies and good public transport infrastructure are the future. As to some of the other posts from users on here abhorring big cities, just because some of you don’t like the idea or are privileged enough to be able to afford to live outside large cities doesn’t mean to say that these changes shouldn’t take place.

The current situation has now greatly restricted the issuing of spouse visas, to the point where (this is a recalled stat) 47% of the population couldn’t afford it. And, considering that a spouse visa never allowed recourse to benefits, the idea of a lower income limit is a bit daft. People do ask me quite regularly (because, for some reason, talking about how nasty immigration is in front of my immigrant wife is a very popular thing to do) “but what about these Asian families coming over and claiming benefits straight away, I’ve seen it”- the truth is that it is impossible. It can’t happen and never could happen.

So, Dave (or, really Theresa May) has torn apart a few hundred families (most notably Marianne Bailey – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22806941 ) just to be seen to be tackling immigration.

This.

munrobiker – Member

Similarly the idea of reducing the number of student visas is something Theresa is very keen on to get down immigration. Now, I don’t want to seem stupid, but surely reducing the number of student visas won’t actually affect net immigration after 3 or 4 years? Say, before the new policy, 180,000 students came in (which is roughly correct). Those 180,000 would, 4 years later, leave. Net immigration = 0. Theresa says “nope, there must only be 60,000 maximum”. So, one year 60,000 in then 180,000 out. Net migration = -120,000. But then, 3 years later, 60,000 in and 60,000 out- voila, Net migration = 0 again.

And the stupidest thing about that policy is that a lot of UK universities depend on the overseas students to make money! 180,000 students each paying £15,000-£20,000 a year is of vital importance to the UK’s higher education sector. To reduce that income then try and boost the numbers by charging UK students more seems like a really good way of reducing the amount universities have to invest in the service they offer.

You are me, and I claim my £5.

And it’s not just about numbers, it’s about just making things harder and more expensive. Here on a student visitor visa for a short? Want to get a tier 4 student visa to do a degree? You need to go home, apply for the visa in your home country, then come back. Lollercopters. You need ATAS clearance but it takes so long to get your ATAS that your course starts before it arrives. You decide to do an english course before your degree course starts (and pay to do so) but you can’t get a combined CAS for both courses because your english is already too good- so you either have to go into the course cold and unconfident in your english, or you have to go through the whole bollocks twice, and nobody benefits at all

All to please microcephalic Daily Mail reading imbeciles.

The free movement of people in Europe isn’t a problem.

I lump people who make comments like that with climate change deniers. It’s ‘not a problem’ because doing anything about it is simply not an option for them.

I lump people who make comments like that with climate change deniers. It’s ‘not a problem’ because doing anything about it is simply not an option.

Ya know, except for the fact that climate change has incredibly large piles of evidence to back up the theory whilst the issues created by immigration don’t – in fact the data tends to support the notion that free migration has been good for us and Europe economically speaking.

The people who seem to support anti-immigration policies seem to think that they are entitled to jobs because they or their ancestors supposedly made Britain great, whilst denying the right of many to marry who they choose. So **** them, they have no automatic right to the UK’s prosperity. Did they personally play a major role in the prosperity of the UK? I think not.

I think I’m slowly turning into a fully blown neocon/libertarian with some vestiges of left wing ideology left behind.

And it’s not just about numbers, it’s about just making things harder and more expensive. Here on a student visitor visa for a short? Want to get a tier 4 student visa to do a degree? You need to go home, apply for the visa in your home country, then come back. Lollercopters. You need ATAS clearance but it takes so long to get your ATAS that your course starts before it arrives. You decide to do an english course before your degree course starts (and pay to do so) but you can’t get a combined CAS for both courses because your english is already too good- so you either have to go into the course cold and unconfident in your english, or you have to go through the whole bollocks twice, and nobody benefits at all

You sound exactly the same as our admissions officer. The whole situation is a joke and needs sorting.

I think I’m slowly turning into a fully blown neocon/libertarian with some vestiges of left wing ideology left behind.

Nowt wrong with that!!

Once we ban all those nasty foreigners, we can ban their nasty companies as well. How very dare they come over here? They will be making our cars next….. 😉

(as an aside, interesting to see how many manufacturing companies are starting to re-locate production back to (low cost) Europe. Cheaper than producing in the developing world now. Heard from one major FTSE100 company recently that it was cheaper to produce in Norway than Brazil!)

Cost of shipping is probably part of it, the cost of fuel will probably drive down immigration in the not to distant future as well as people will be less willing to fly to see their families during the holidays. Hence things like less Filipino care staff that we pay a shit wage to so that we can just about afford to look after the increasing amount of old people we have in this country.

I think the world will become more interconnected but at the same time I think manufacturing is going to become localised, through better and cheaper automation – meaning that big multinationals will open smaller plants all over the world. Although I’m not an engineer or involved in that industry, it’s just a hunch.

Get a grip, people manage to get by in population dense places like Hong Kong. Centralised population centres with strong economies and good public transport infrastructure are the future. As to some of the other posts from users on here abhorring big cities, just because some of you don’t like the idea or are privileged enough to be able to afford to live outside large cities doesn’t mean to say that these changes shouldn’t take place.

Were you ever employed as a Stalinist speechwriter in the 1930s? You’d have been able to dream up an endless number of New Economic Plans.

Basically, you are saying – this is how I think it should be. And sod you if you disagree.

It seems a growing majority of the population standing up against mass immigration, both in traditional Labour heartlands as well as conservative ones.

Not everyone who disagrees with you has been brainwashed by the Daily Mail.

Were you ever employed as a Stalinist speechwriter in the 1930s? You’d have been able to dream up an endless number of New Economic Plans.

Basically, you are saying – this is how I think it should be. And sod you if you disagree.

Nope, industry will see to it that this is what happens. Industry and business needs large centralised cities and will need it even more when personal cars and long commutes become less viable.

Real right wing pro industry policies would make your brain implode.

The people who seem to support anti-immigration policies ……

Except that being opposed to an open door policy does not automatically dictate that you “support anti-immigration policies”. Despite the claims of waffling guardian readers.

The open door policy only applies to EU countries and nowhere else. The UK has plenty of immigrants entering from countries outside the EU. There is nothing wrong with that.

So why aren’t waffling guardian readers up in arms about no open door policy with regards to immigrants from the rest of the world, why only Europeans ? Sounds racist to me, to make a much banded about allegation.

So why aren’t waffling guardian readers up in arms about no open door policy with regards to immigrants from the rest of the world, why only Europeans ? Sounds racist to me, to make a much banded about allegation.

I would love to see a borderless market driven new world order, a lot of Guardian readers wouldn’t though for reasons that are not to dissimilar to UKIPers. Balls to all of them.

Lot of young struggling to buy a home might not be too excited by that idea.

Build more houses then. Lots of big futuristic towers Hong Kong style.

Tom_W1987 – Member

I would love to see a borderless market driven new world order

I’m fairly sure you’ve argued quite passionately on here against the free movement of Palestinians into Palestine, have you had a change of heart ?

I’m fairly sure you’ve argued quite passionately on here against the free movement of Palestinians into Palestine, have you had a change of heart ?

I just like arguing sometimes for the sake of trying to defend whatever is the total opposite to what everyone else is saying.

Build more houses then

Not happening enough now so already struggling, no-one seems to know where to put them; maybe UK needs to become a big NYC with a green bit in the middle around the Peak District?

So why aren’t waffling guardian readers up in arms about no open door policy with regards to immigrants from the rest of the world, why only Europeans ?

Because we do over half of our trade with the EU in a free trade market which depends on multinational Eu companies moving staff around.

Even as someone with a possible vested interest in global immigration I do not support an international open door policy. There just needs to be a reasonable middle ground and even that’ll never happen because the majority of the voting public are misinformed bigots.

Who is it claiming that we live in a global economy?

…..our trade with the EU in a free trade market which depends on multinational Eu companies moving staff around.

😆 I had low expectations for this thread but suggesting that “multinational EU companies moving staff around” is what is behind the large number of EU migrants in the UK really is astonishing !

Fairly well off people in secure, professional jobs benefit as they don’t face any new competition for work

Not in my line of work. Loads of foreigners applying for the same jobs as me. Not all of them European either for that matter.

Most people I meet in Oracle EBS world seem to be from India.

So why aren’t waffling guardian readers up in arms about no open door policy with regards to immigrants from the rest of the world, why only Europeans ? Sounds racist to me, to make a much banded about allegation.

Well the economic arguments don’t stack up quite so well. Immigrants from non EEA countries tend to be a significant net ‘drain on resources’.

Immigrants from non EEA countries tend to be a significant net ‘drain on resources’.

Is that a wind up or are you serious ? Can’t tell.

I had low expectations for this thread but suggesting that “multinational EU companies moving staff around” is what is behind the large number of EU migrants in the UK really is astonishing

That isn’t actually what I said. I explained why we have the policy, not why there is so much migration.

Is that a wind up or are you serious ? Can’t tell.

Ernie, he is correct. EEA immigrants had a net contribution of £8.8bn. Non EEA immigrants a net contribution of -£6bn.

Yeah alright, I’m not going down that road.

The road of facts?

Where are the facts? Is nothing without a source.

By 2011, non eea immigrants contributed more.

Recent immigrants certainly do…

The lesson here is that the British are the biggest drain on Britain, probably because lots of them are old and unable to work.

Not happening enough now so already struggling, no-one seems to know where to put them; maybe UK needs to become a big NYC with a green bit in the middle around the Peak District?

Because no one has the guts to open up planning laws or encourage companies to turn London, Birmingham or Manchester into towering metropolises. We have pretty poor city planning in the UK and we could do a lot better before we had to start expanding cities outwards.

Mudshark, the facts I stated on this page are sourced in my link to the migration observatory (Oxford University) on Page 3.

Revenue/expenditure doesn’t really do the job there because it only covers taxes paid, not total economic value added.

What’s with this shite that if you want to be in EU you have to abide by the EU rules? As every bureaucrats know rules are there to be bent so what’s this shite about non-negotiation eh?

FFS! Can’t they (EU) remember that once there was a time in their previous generation or two that the entire EU nearly become a province of Germany/CCCP and to have German/Russian language as their national language?

🙄