Immigration Freedom

**vikingsiddhu** · April 17, 2006, 03:34 PM

What if Immigration became a little more free. No quotas on immigration. Only immigrants are those without crinimal records. All immigrants must register or else felony or deportation. Drop immigration restriction.

When we get past the physcological crap, is it really bad? Are there disadvantages? I see none as of yet.

Taxes will still be paid...I mean isn't that the only fisical problem with allowing illiegal immigration, other than having the person registered?

**wilpuri** · April 17, 2006, 04:17 PM

You see no bad sides in unlimited immigration? Go see an optician.

Europe and the west is wealthy, Africa and the third world (I realize they are not quite synonymous) is dirt poor. I think we can safely assume the majority of the population of 2rd World countries is without criminal records. Now, suddenly they are eligble to come enjoy the benefits of welfare states. Already millions are risking their lives to enter illegal each year. What if it wasn't illegal and completely safe, the number would increase exponentially. You know what would happen? In 10 years, Europe = Africa, except its colder and has a more boring wildlife.

Now this leaves out many other factors, but I'm guessing this would be reason enough to recommend against unlimited immigration.

**StarDreamer** · April 17, 2006, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by wilpuri

You see no bad sides in unlimited immigration? Go see an optician.

Europe and the west is wealthy, Africa and the third world (I realize they are not quite synonymous) is dirt poor. I think we can safely assume the majority of the population of 2rd World countries is without criminal records. Now, suddenly they are eligble to come enjoy the benefits of welfare states. Already millions are risking their lives to enter illegal each year. What if it wasn't illegal and completely safe, the number would increase exponentially. You know what would happen? In 10 years, Europe = Africa, except its colder and has a more boring wildlife.

Now this leaves out many other factors, but I'm guessing this would be reason enough to recommend against unlimited immigration.

I wouldn't exactly put it like this, but there are problems with unlimited immigration. One thing is the language and integration of a much larger group of immigrants. It woud most likely also cause problems such as was caused by the urbanization during the industrialisation. Also many of the immigrants would most likely have low education which would cause them to be poorer then the other population further differenting them from the original inhabitants. High unrestricted(and maybe unprepared) migration can cause severe problems for a long time. It would get better after a long time when the migration has settled down and time has passed but the problems would still last many generations.

**vikingsiddhu** · April 17, 2006, 04:22 PM

And I see no facts or statistics in your arguments. Everything you said is pyscological. Its our view that Africa is dirt poor. Why not allow others to prosper?

In your argument, people in Africa don't deserve to come here. No one said they should quickly get the welfare benefits. That should come after 20 years of citizenship or so...By then, they'll be good in the economy. Come on the point of the topic is to get facts to prove me wrong, not ancedotes.

**wilpuri** · April 17, 2006, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by vikingsiddhu

And I see no facts or statistics in your arguments. Everything you said is pyscological. Its our view that Africa is dirt poor. Why not allow others to prosper?

Because it would ruin all prosperity we now enjoy. What facts/stats do you want?

In your argument, people in Africa don't deserve to come here. No one said they should quickly get the welfare benefits. That should come after 20 years of citizenship or so...By then, they'll be good in the economy. Come on the point of the topic is to get facts to prove me wrong, not ancedotes.

I'm not talking about deserving, I'm talking about the pragmatical side. If they don't get the welfare benefits, there would be a huge class of empoverished people that are in no way part of mainstream society and culture. That's surely a good thing? Even in France, which is a welfare state by all accounts, this is already evident. As for deserving, what have they done to deserve it? How does one deserve the right to enter another country?

Ideological concerns aside, what you are proposing would mean chaos. Millions and millions are already willing to risk their lives to get to Europe. When the borders would be opened to anyone and everyone who hasn't committed a crime that's been recorded, Europe would be swamped. Society would most certainly fracture, splinter and disintergrate, the kind of poverty that has been banished from Europe for nearly a century would return. It would be the end of Europe as we know it.

Multicultural society as it is in Europe is already showing its ugly sides. It creates ethnic strife where it didn't exist, it splinters socities around ethnic and religious lines, it makes for an unsafer world in general. Even a dummy should be able to realize, that inviting millions of uneducated, unskilled and culturally and ethnically distant people to move into a country will most certainly cause huge problems. Tell me why this wouldn't happen?

Now tell me, why should there be unlimited immigration?

**Gwendylyn** · April 17, 2006, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by vikingsiddhu

In your argument, people in Africa don't deserve to come here. No one said they should quickly get the welfare benefits. That should come after 20 years of citizenship or so...By then, they'll be good in the economy.

That would create a legalized second class citizenship. They pay taxes, can vote, can legally work... but they can't reap the benefits? And if they can't find a job, they don't get unemployment? No way would I ever agree to that.

My main question would be: what about unemployment? Speaking of the US here, there are tons of people trying to get in: is there any guarantee that we can afford them all jobs when our own unemployment rate is so high?

**danzig** · April 18, 2006, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by vikingsiddhu

And I see no facts or statistics in your arguments. Everything you said is pyscological. Its our view that Africa is dirt poor. Why not allow others to prosper?

Who said they cant prosper? Explain however how they would prosper if they are basically poor, undereducated, have no real idea of the culture they are entering...just how would they surive? What jobs could they find to support themselves? Are you expecting the state to care for them? Who feeds them? Who pays for their education since even if they do manage to find jobs it will no doubt being low paying ones. Dismiss it as "physiological" all you want but there are very real problems to unrestricted immigration.

In your argument, people in Africa don't deserve to come here. No one said they should quickly get the welfare benefits. That should come after 20 years of citizenship or so...By then, they'll be good in the economy. Come on the point of the topic is to get facts to prove me wrong, not ancedotes.

If they dont get benefits then how are they going to live? If tomorrow 2 million Africans applied came to your country what exactly are they going to do? Are you going to house them? The solution to poverty isnt to make everyone equally poor but to try and make the poor richer but your idea would eventually make everyone poor since few countries could absorb unlimited immigration.

**Custor** · April 17, 2006, 05:07 PM

Everyone expects the right to emigrate for a better job. Everyone *****es and moans about immigrants moving for a better job. Way of the myopic self centered world.

**RusskiSoldat** · April 17, 2006, 05:59 PM

The new population refuses to adapt in western country, effectively creating a separate country within a country.
Any immigrant which refuses to adopt the country's culture should be sent back.
Yes, me included.
God knows I'm doing more harm than good to the states.

**Custor** · April 18, 2006, 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by RusskiSoldat

The new population refuses to adapt in western country, effectively creating a separate country within a country.
Any immigrant which refuses to adopt the country's culture should be sent back.
Yes, me included.
God knows I'm doing more harm than good to the states.

You quoting Oswald Moseley from the 30's. Very new thinking

**Torment** · April 18, 2006, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by Custor

You quoting Oswald Moseley from the 30's. Very new thinking

Your point being? Does this vague, silly comparison somehow prove him wrong?

**Elu Barcino** · April 18, 2006, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by RusskiSoldat

The new population refuses to adapt in western country, effectively creating a separate country within a country.
Any immigrant which refuses to adopt the country's culture should be sent back.
Yes, me included.
God knows I'm doing more harm than good to the states.

But surely sending you back would be against the principles of a liberal democracy like the USA?

Edit: Gwendylyn (sp?): I didn't think you guys had a high unemployment rate. In fact, your low unemployment rate is loudly trumpeted by Americans looking to slag off Europe...

**Gwendylyn** · April 18, 2006, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Elu Barcino

But surely sending you back would be against the principles of a liberal democracy like the USA?

Edit: Gwendylyn (sp?): I didn't think you guys had a high unemployment rate. In fact, your low unemployment rate is loudly trumpeted by Americans looking to slag off Europe...

Eh, you may be right. I really don't know what the unemployment rate is in other countries. I consider the usual 5-6% unemployment rate figure in the US too high, especially since it doesn't take into account unemployed no longer collecting money, not to mention that 15% of our workforce is earning at and below poverty level. Together, that seems a rather precarious system to allow large scale number of immigrants into, with criminal record being the only restriction. IIRC, we currently restrict our quotas to family relatives (whom we assume have some support structure here), skilled workers/professionals (who won't find nearly as hard time getting a job), and asylum seekers (whose needs undoubtedly outweight any other issues).

**vikingsiddhu** · April 18, 2006, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by RusskiSoldat

The new population refuses to adapt in western country, effectively creating a separate country within a country.
Any immigrant which refuses to adopt the country's culture should be sent back.
Yes, me included.
God knows I'm doing more harm than good to the states.

This is not what I was looking for. Lets not discuss Culture here. Remember we once came and removed all of the natives cultures. So that is more of a pyschological argument.

I do like the green text guy's(sorry just had to say that) argument though. So thanks for clarifing one part, and that is some areas with huge immigration population and some without, which would increase rent and whatnot.

But in the overall sense, will there be problems?

**Carach** · April 18, 2006, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by vikingsiddhu

This is not what I was looking for.

well, cant have freedom of immigration if they arent going to respect your culture.

we have enough of those problems here in britain right now. unlimited immigration and 'come one come all! - doesnt matter if your a rapist, terrorist, or a mad man! we will let you in!' attitude our government has is not what anyone needs.

people move in, try to convert the nation...

freedom of migration/immigration/whatever would be a bad thing.

**vikingsiddhu** · April 18, 2006, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Carach

well, cant have freedom of immigration if they arent going to respect your culture.

we have enough of those problems here in britain right now. unlimited immigration and 'come one come all! - doesnt matter if your a rapist, terrorist, or a mad man! we will let you in!' attitude our government has is not what anyone needs.

people move in, try to convert the nation...

freedom of migration/immigration/whatever would be a bad thing.

I made it clear I think that background checks would be taken in case, there would be just as a chance for a terrorist to come in as now.
Respecting culture argument is an unconventional paradox(which I bothered to explain in one of my posts before) At this time, you may view it as evil. But time is a superior influence and that negates any negative effect. Other than that, culture is pyschological. Remember the native americans. Plus, they will respect the culture as we will respect theirs. This is already going on. I wonder what God has to think on this.

**Custor** · April 18, 2006, 11:15 AM

Vague and silly comparison?
If you're saying Mosely didnt say that then say so.
If you're saying it's ok to agree with Mosely then say that.
As you've not said either then vagueness add or edit.

If you are unable to see any comparision between Mosely hatred of teh non integrating "land within land Jews"- then go read a book.

**Torment** · April 18, 2006, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Custor

If you are unable to see any comparision between Mosely hatred of teh non integrating "land within land Jews"- then go read a book.

Oh, I see your point, I just don't understand why you think it's relevent. Do you think you can dismiss an argument, just because it happens to lie in the same direction of Mosley's idea's?

**Freddie** · April 18, 2006, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by vikingsiddhu

What if Immigration became a little more free. No quotas on immigration. Only immigrants are those without crinimal records. All immigrants must register or else felony or deportation. Drop immigration restriction.

When we get past the physcological crap, is it really bad? Are there disadvantages? I see none as of yet.

With all due respect I don’t think you have thought this through very thoroughly. For a start (at least in the UK) we don’t have caps or quotes on how many immigrants we take every year.
Secondly immigration with more background checks or selection criteria would mean we don’t know who we are letting in. It’s obvious I’m referring to terrorists and I appreciate that 99% of immigrants are good honest people with no wish to inflict any sort political scorn on us but it only it only takes one person, just one to set of bomb or blow himself up on bus.
Then again you might feel this is a fair trade off 1 terrorist for say 9,999 good honest migrants is a good ratio and goes a long way to solving some of the employment issues we have in the country today.
The only concern I have with this policy is that migrants tend to go and live with family, and 1st generation immigrants tend to live in town and city centres and there is evidence to suggest that large concentration of legal and illegal migrants is putting huge pressures on finding suitable housing and bigger demands on local services such as clinics, hospitals, public transport etc. Again I must stress this is at a local level and this isn’t a national problem I just feel we need better placement of migrants so the impact of spread around and not just concentrated in one place.

Originally Posted by vikingsiddhu

Taxes will still be paid...I mean isn't that the only fisical problem with allowing illiegal immigration, other than having the person registered?

As I mentioned above we need these workers to come over and start earning money because we have a hge problem with an aging population.

**Sidmen** · April 18, 2006, 01:54 PM

I read somewhere (though too lazy to dig it out) that up to 11% of our population, that could work, arn't. That is very high to me. And yes, 15% of our workforce is what we here call 'poor'. So, thats an amazing 26% of our population that are at or below the poverty level. Sure, its much smaller than some countries, but I still concider it unacceptable.