Is control on immigration racist?

quote:

Originally posted by matthewr:
*gives up in face of rank stupidity*

I'd have to agree that while Mick has looked stupid on this forum quite often he's never come over as quite so deeply, deeply dumb as he has on this thread. I hate to descend into name calling but Mick really is making himself look like a fuckwit now.

I'm waiting for his explanation of how our services are supposed to cope with an unlimited influx, and also to see an open invitation to come and live at his house seeing as "anyone should be allowed to live anywhere on the planet".

Steve

If your response is to be offensive, I will quit.

There is no point in continuing.

I knew this thread would end in tears.

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
If you want to stop people coming in because they are not British, then you are racist.

The services in this country could not cope with an unlimited and uncontrolled influx of people, it's as simple as that. It's not racist, it's just common sense.

If you really think that all of the rest of the world should be allowed to move here if and when they want then I can only assume that senility is finally setting in.

Mick's point about freedom of labour is simply a logical conclusion of free market ideology. In practice it's absurd but that's never been a problem for the free market types.

I think he is being stupid with regard to his confusion of xenophobia and racism; but expeirience tells me no matter how many ways we come up with saying nationality <> race Mick will just keep repeating "... it's as simple as that" type non-sequitors.

Matthew

Matthew R has a valid point. Richard Branson, Rupert Murdoch et al are free to move their money across the globe at the press of a keyboard (incidentally, Murdoch saves millions in corporate tax by this method, the scrounging economic migrant). The recent relocation of Dyson to S.E. Asia and the news that the Chinese will now be making Rover cars illustrates how wealth is free to roam the globe as it sees fit, but pity the poor buggers (who made that wealth for the fat cats in the first place) if they try to migrate around the world with the same unrestricted movement.
British immigration officials at Prague airport pulling over only those with dark skin. Racist??

quote:

Originally posted by Steve G:
Rasher - how can anyone think that controlling immigration is not common sense? Please explain.

Well, it depends on what is finally decided on of course, and control itself need not be rascist as it may be an open door anyway. I'm not saying that immigration control is not common sense, but that Howard is using it to put in place something that could easily become rascist. Its the same situation with peoples fears on the ID card, that it may be sense now if we have nothing to hide, but what might happen later down the line. I just think this is hiding something.
In a perfect world I would like to see anyone being able to settle wherever they wanted, ultimately. The reality of course prevents this for obvious reasons. I'm not entirely stupid all the time (don't comment please). And I don't think you should be all kicking Mick like this for stating his ideals - especially as I share his wish.

To me, if you say you don’t want any people from a given country, religion or skin colour coming into the UK then that is clearly racist. If you say you don’t want anyone coming in regardless of these factors then it is not – it might be selfish, it might be unwise but it ain’t racist.

A serious question to Mick – if we decide who to let in based solely on what they can do contribute to the country i.e. looking at their skills/experience but taking no account of race, religion or colour, then is that racist?

Assuming it’s not then there may well be a point when the country says – right, we’ve now got all the immigrants we need, full employment etc. and don’t need anyone else – so the doors are closed and that’s it. By your reckoning, what would seem to be a sensible policy automatically becomes a racist policy once its goals have been achieved. That seems a bit strange to me.

Matt.

Some people need to be clear about the difference between nationality and race before they open their gobs on immigration again - Mick.

Mick isn't being stupid. Pedantic perhaps, but his logic seems sensible enough. But his is also an impractical ideal!

Perhaps everybody should have the right to go everywhere? Provided they can afford the trip there and the return trip back home after their fortnight's holiday. Unless?

The problems start if they are ill, impoverished or hostile to the host country they are visiting. We moan enough about the poor old National Health system in the UK and the European equivalents. There is never enough funding, equipment or staff. Well, wake up to the fact that probably 80% of the rest of the world's 8 billion think otherwise. They'd love to be treated here immediately, free of charge, on demand, for their crippling and chronic medical problems.

If anyone decides they'd like to stay somewhere other than their homeland they need accomodation and an income. Has the visitor the funds to support himself until he finds a job? Can he produce the advance deposit on a rented flat on arrival? How will he support himself until he learns enough of the language not to be dangerous just pushing a broom round a factory(or whatever) Has he the educational skills and recognised qualifications to prove to an employer that it's worth the risk of employing him instead of a "safe" home national?

Language skills are essential to funtion in any "foreign" country. Without which one might as well be deaf and dumb. (No criticism intended of the handicapped)

What if the visitor is a raving anti-Westerner? Should they be allowed free acces to any country or place in that country without hindrance? What about a white supremacist moving to Africa with an attitude? Or whatever extremist you care to name.

Complete freedom of movement is indeed the perfect ideal for the human race. Unfortunately there are 7.5 billion people who would like to make the one-way trip to somebody else's paradise. Without the funds to support themselves when they get there. What about those with aids, dangerous tropical diseases or other medical-intensive treatment needs? Should we have an open-arms policy for everybody?

Those with adequate funds have always had almost complete freedom of movement worldwide. They are not an issue. It isn't racism and denial of entry to specific country's residents we should worry about most. But economic refugees who cannot function on any level in their newly chosen place of residence. Who's going to pay for their every need, until they die of old age?

Nime

quote:

Originally posted by Matt F:
To me, if you say you don’t want any people from a given country, religion or skin colour coming into the UK then that is clearly racist. If you say you don’t want anyone coming in regardless of these factors then it is not – it might be selfish, it might be unwise but it ain’t racist.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be migration, just that it needs to be under control. My view is that each application should be evaluated on a basis of their needs as individuals and our needs as a country. That should apply to everyone no matter what colour they are, what religion they follow or what country they are from.

The real ideal is for a single global political system, where we can all go where we want, and tie into a political system of support that we choose. Almost like buying a mortgage. We shop around for the political policy that we subscribe to and that applies to us wherever in the world we are. Therefore you can enjoy whichever political system suits you best, but not at the cost of others.
Now I really am talking bollocks. It seems to me that it has to be a global situation and not seperate countries acting alone.

Near to where I live there is a nightclub and on the door a signs says:

Capacity 280.

As people are permitted to enter they are given a rubber stamp on the back of their hand enabling them to leave and come back in as they see fit during the course of the night.

The nightclub would only be deemed racist regarding its admissions policy if it refused entry to someone purely on the basis of their ethnic origins.

UK:

Capacity - 60 million.

SteveG said "My view is that each application should be evaluated on a basis of their needs as individuals and our needs as a country. That should apply to everyone no matter what colour they are, what religion they follow or what country they are from"

Which has of course been the broad policy of successive governments for as long as anyone can remember.

The "immigration policy" aspect of this election is:

a) How we stop and get rid of illegal immigrants

b) The "asylum problem". Although exactly what this problem is appears to be very flexible depending on where on the spectrum that runs from Sane Person to Labour Home Secretaries to The Daily Mail to BNP you sit.

Matthew

Didn't see that one coming.
There am I thinking I have some idea of who the regular posters here are, when someone starts an Immigration thread, and Mick Parry (of all people) arrives wearing beads and a kaftan!!
It's like done my head in man.....
Cliff

Well done Mick

I always remember a terribly racist person where I used to live, his slogan in the pub of a Friday night was 'I am not a racist I am a realist'

The tory slogan kinda rings that bell as well, I particularly like they way Howard referred to his mother to declare he was not racist the whole thing smacked of bullshit.

Is wanting Scottish MPs expelled from the UK Parliament racist ?

.... a matter a little closer to home.

quote:

Originally posted by long-time-dead:
Is wanting Scottish MPs expelled from the UK Parliament racist ?

.... a matter a little closer to home.

If you include Blair & Brown it's bloody brilliant idea Jim

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Matthew

If you wish to stop people coming into this country because they were born abroad, you are a racist pure and simple.

This is a moral question which transcends nationalism. Everyone should be allowed to go where they want to improve themselves without any restrictions what so ever.

Regards

Mick

Being racist implies that you judge someone according to their racial origins. Immigration is a separate issue - by that I mean the fact that immigrants are often racially different from the indiginous population is not really the point, although it does have important implications.

It's clear to a pig that we have a problem with immigration. Too many bogus asylum seekers (read, economic migrants) are coming over, shitting the place up, lowering the tone, and costing us a bastard fortune. Some people clearly take the view that this is all fine and dandy; I don't.

That's to say nothing of swamping indiginous populations when hords of immigrants descend upon small communities.

We need to control immigration and asylum carefully and actively, or we'll end up in even deeper shit than we're in now. And that's nothing to do with racism.

Think through what you're saying, Mick. I wonder if you really share your own view?!

EW

Hang on a minute ........

Isn't Mick going to retire to the Costa Del Crime ?

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:
We need to control immigration and asylum carefully and actively, or we'll end up in even deeper shit than we're in now. And that's nothing to do with racism.

I'll vote for that man !

Earwicker said "Too many bogus asylum seekers (read, economic migrants) are coming over, shitting the place up, lowering the tone, and costing us a bastard fortune"

That's just not true:

-- The last figures I have is 2nd Quarter 2004 when the total number of Ayslum Seekers was 9,210.

-- The highest ever figure for a single quarter is 25,000 in 2002.

-- The most common countries of origin in Q2 2003 were, in descending order, Iran, Somalia, China and Iraq.

-- In the same period 3725 failed asylum seekers were removed.

-- 11,720 decisions were made with 355 granted asylum, 855 granted discretionary leave to stay and 40 granted humanitarian protect. That leave 10,470 who were refused.

-- Single asylum seekers in the UK have to survive on £37.77 a week – 30pc below the poverty line – while couples without children and single adults under 25 receive less than £30 a week each.

-- At he end of 2002 (the peak period for asylum applications in the UK the total number of asylum seekers receinvg subsistence only support was 33,810 with a further 49,085 supported in NASS accomodation.

-- In the entire North West, which econpasses Earwicker's part of the world as well as Manchester and Liverpool the total numbers on benefits were 690 (subsitence) and 9,500 (NASS). It's therefore extremely unlikely that he has ever actually seen an asylum seeker let along observed one long enough to determine their effect on "the tone".

-- The cost to the UK is insignificant compared to, say, benefits abuse, tax avoidance, etc. e.g. the budget for supporting asylum seekers during 2002-2003 was £434 million or about 0.1 per cent of total projected public spending. In 2001, government subsidies to the UK arms export industry cost UK taxpayers up to £990 million.

Matthew

PS I have met some asylum seekers and my overwhelming impression is that if you randomly swapped 100 of them for 100 people who moan about "bogus asylum seekers" the UK would be on balance much better off.

Dare I say it a good post Our Mat ! a few spelling mistakes mind, but nuffink Our Mick wouldn't put you right with after a few years tuition like, innit.

Fritz Von "England is a Bitch, there's no mistakin it"

'Economic migrant' seems to be shorthand for something nasty. Why?

The average educational attainment of immigrants is higher than the UK average.

The NHS currently depends on such migrants at all grades of nursing and medicine, let alone support staff. 40% of SHO grade junior doctors are overseas trained. If the next Govt continues to want thousands more doctors and nurses (whilst slashing training budgets) then the need for overseas staff will continue to rise. We could also debate the ethics of stripping trained staff from countries with struggling health care systems; but that is another debate entirely.

Bruce