A new influx of boat people from france.

[Mister Gee 823]

12 minutes ago, melthebell said:

exactly, western countries have spent centuries poking their noses into other lands, enslaving, killing, destroying...as soon as a few brown faced people arrive here in dinghys out come the snowflakes in force

Well said mel.

[woodview 10]

1 hour ago, Broakham said:

When 'white countries' interfere in the internal politics of 'non-white' countries then they have a moral obligation to assist in the welfare of any resultant refugees.

Ignoring the usual, 'lets play the racist card' tactic, two questions.

The guys who claimed asylum from Iran recently, what way have the UK interfered in Iran to force them to flee?

Are you saying also because of UK efforts in Afghanistan we should accept as many as feel need to come here?

Can you specifically quantify how many people you think is appropriate?

[Longcol 600]

7 hours ago, Branyy said:

@melthebel @Longcol 

Yep, an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

By force? Of course, look at Spain or Calais. Armed? Of course, look at Calais. Large number? Yes.

Nope - you got the context wrong. 

 

Look at the example quoted for "an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain" again - eg "an invasion of privacy".

 

Different from the other two definitions which are invasions by force / armed / large numbers.

 

BTW I've never seen reports of would be immigrants / refugees in Calais being armed or using force which might be associated with an invading army - and numbers are tiny unless you think a couple of hundred could somehow take over Britain

 

 

[redruby 279]

22 hours ago, woodview said:

I never said otherwise.

A tiny proportion are willing or able to come. The easier it is, the more will come.

My question is simply how and where is the line drawn.

There are millions living in starvation and in war zones. All of them are as worthy of refuge as the ones who make it here.

Do you propose no limitation? If you don't how are those limits enforced?

This is a fair point and doesn’t seem to have been answered. It is simply not sustainable to allow uncontrolled immigration.  Can schools, hospitals etc cope with this? I am very concerned about the environment too and building on green field sites to accommodate a growing population. We disregard environment issues around population growth at our peril. Now people say ‘the numbers of immigrants are tiny’ or ‘we could take many more’ or ‘other European countries have taken more’. To this I would say consider the population density of the UK, consider the current problems with the NHS, consider the environment (this is nearly always overlooked in these discussions) and consider would what happen with uncontrolled immigration.  

[despritdan 241]

4 hours ago, redruby said:

This is a fair point and doesn’t seem to have been answered. It is simply not sustainable to allow uncontrolled immigration.  Can schools, hospitals etc cope with this? I am very concerned about the environment too and building on green field sites to accommodate a growing population. We disregard environment issues around population growth at our peril. Now people say ‘the numbers of immigrants are tiny’ or ‘we could take many more’ or ‘other European countries have taken more’. To this I would say consider the population density of the UK, consider the current problems with the NHS, consider the environment (this is nearly always overlooked in these discussions) and consider would what happen with uncontrolled immigration.  

Another environmental concern regarding immigration and the impact on the environment is that people in developed countries consume 30x more than their counterparts in third world countries but have small families, so you have small populations of people who all consume a lot. People in third world countries consume a thirtieth of their counterparts in developed countries but have large families so they have large populations of people who all consume a little. When you allow people from third world countries into developed countries, they begin consuming 30x more than they would if they'd stayed in their own countries and bring their culture of large families with them, so you end up with large populations who all consume a lot which adds to the damage the human race is doing to the planet.

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

Abbott, her of the abacus has the best handle on the numbers that arrive on our shores. Watched her been asked the same question time after time after time. "how many should we allow to come here" Her default answer, is simply not to answer the question.

 

Angel1.

[Baron99 794]

On 13/01/2019 at 12:54, despritdan said:

Another environmental concern regarding immigration and the impact on the environment is that people in developed countries consume 30x more than their counterparts in third world countries but have small families, so you have small populations of people who all consume a lot. People in third world countries consume a thirtieth of their counterparts in developed countries but have large families so they have large populations of people who all consume a little. When you allow people from third world countries into developed countries, they begin consuming 30x more than they would if they'd stayed in their own countries and bring their culture of large families with them, so you end up with large populations who all consume a lot which adds to the damage the human race is doing to the planet.

And we are now touching on the problem of possibly the main cause of mass migration?  Over population.  Even the likes of David Attenborough has touched on this matter in a number of interviews. 

 

https://populationmatters.org/news/2018/10/05/sir-david-attenborough-we-must-act-population

 

Of course, nobody will say a word against 'National treasure' Attenborough for such comments; (even seasoned journalists & certainly not the BBC), but wait until he pops his clogs, all of a sudden, when he's not around to defend & explain his views, his views will be denounced as outdated racism. 

 

Never mind. Naturalist &  environmentalist, Chris Packham has similar views & he'll be around for a few more decades. 

[tinfoilhat 11]

On 13/01/2019 at 08:32, redruby said:

This is a fair point and doesn’t seem to have been answered. It is simply not sustainable to allow uncontrolled immigration.  Can schools, hospitals etc cope with this? I am very concerned about the environment too and building on green field sites to accommodate a growing population. We disregard environment issues around population growth at our peril. Now people say ‘the numbers of immigrants are tiny’ or ‘we could take many more’ or ‘other European countries have taken more’. To this I would say consider the population density of the UK, consider the current problems with the NHS, consider the environment (this is nearly always overlooked in these discussions) and consider would what happen with uncontrolled immigration.  

Governments have total control over non-EU immigration and those numbers aren't dropping.

 

But you make a fair point on overall numbers and the potential impact on services and the environment. Now we are planning to build 3 million homes, I'm interested in knowing where. Is this likely to reduce immigration or relive pressure? Not in the slightest in my view.

[Baron99 794]

44 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Governments have total control over non-EU immigration and those numbers aren't dropping.

 

But you make a fair point on overall numbers and the potential impact on services and the environment. Now we are planning to build 3 million homes, I'm interested in knowing where. Is this likely to reduce immigration or relive pressure? Not in the slightest in my view.

And this is also a point I'm also mentioning to folk when they they bringing up NHS waiting times mentioned on the news.  The current waiting times were introduced around 2005.  Due to increased LEGAL. immigration from the EU, (1 million Poles alone), we've legally added another 6 million to the UK population with around 4.5 in England alone.  Year 2000 - 58.9 million.  Now 66. 7 million. 

 

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/uk-population/

 

The Office for National Statistics predict another 4 million by 2026.

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/overviewoftheukpopulation/mar2017

 

 

Edited January 14, 2019 by Baron99

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

On 12/01/2019 at 17:57, melthebell said:

exactly, western countries have spent centuries poking their noses into other lands, enslaving, killing, destroying...as soon as a few brown faced people arrive here in dinghys out come the snowflakes in force

A quick google gives around 3.7 million people who are non British live here. And of course how many more live here that the authorities do not know of.

 

 

Angel1

[melthebell 863]

26 minutes ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

A quick google gives around 3.7 million people who are non British live here. And of course how many more live here that the authorities do not know of.

 

 

Angel1

define british

Edited January 14, 2019 by melthebell

[woodview 10]

32 minutes ago, melthebell said:

define british

I was interested in that too. he's wrong, the ONS says:

• The non-UK born population increased from 9.2 million in 2016 to 9.4 million in 2017 (up 3%) and the non-British population increased from 6.0 million to 6.2 million (up 4%).