Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35110673)

It's quite simple,

Immigration does work. Multiculturilism doesn't.

Muslims and Eastern Europeans are quite simply the latest in a long line of fairly recent immigration spikes into this country.

They follow the Irish, Afro-Caribbeans, and Indian immigrants that all have comeinto the country in the couple of hundred years, the last two in the latter half of the 20th Century.

However, those immigrations were nothing on the scale of the recent immigration influx. There is no way the recent immigration influx could assimilate into the UK.

And they I'm not talking about about assimilating facelessly into the UK population. The immigration masses should still be able to retain their identity but be accepted and eventually become part of, and add to, the fabric of the country.

e.g one of the most famous Rugby clubs in the South is London Irish, Curry is our national dish etc.

The UK population is happy to embrace change as long as it not dropped on them like a bomb.

The last governments open door policy is what has caused the problem and is one of the reasons for such tensions between communities.

The flood needs to be a trickle ans it needs to be from now on.

Originally Posted by SMG (Post 35110736)

My point regarding benefits are simple, if someone in Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, is in danger & seeks asylum, why travel through several "safe" european countries, just to get here? The obvious answer is, Britain is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 35110803)

Yes, and in its simplicity it overlooks the fact that it's a bit foolish to market and export British democracy to foreign countries and then act all surprised when they take you up on the offer.

Pierre is right in that the flow needs to be better managed but the fact still remains, as outlined earlier, that successive British governments have historically welcomed immigrants for their skillsets. This didn't happen overnight and certainly isn't simply the fault of the last Government.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 35110803)

... it's a bit foolish to market and export British democracy to foreign countries and then act all surprised when they take you up on the offer...

Originally Posted by TheNorm (Post 35110968)

:D

And long may it continue! This makes the point that instead of concentrating on the negative, a few forum members might like to think about the positive benefits of immigration.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 35110803)

Yes, and in its simplicity it overlooks the fact that it's a bit foolish to market and export British democracy to foreign countries and then act all surprised when they take you up on the offer.

Pierre is right in that the flow needs to be better managed but the fact still remains, as outlined earlier, that successive British governments have historically welcomed immigrants for their skillsets. This didn't happen overnight and certainly isn't simply the fault of the last Government.

Originally Posted by Unedited Government Document

1) The emerging consensus, in both the UK and the rest of the EU, is that we need a new analytical framework for thinking about migration policy if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government's economic and social objectives.

2) Indeed, over the medium to longer term, migration pressures will intensify in Europe as a result of demographic changes. But this should not be viewed as a negative - to the extent that migration is driven by market forces, it is likely to be economically beneficial. On the other hand, trying to halt of reverse market-driven migration will be very difficult (perhaps impossible) and economically damaging.

3) Chapter 4, focusing on the Government's aim to regulate migration to the UK in the interests of social stability and economic growth, argues that it is clearly correct that the Government has both economic and social objectives for migration policy.

4) The more general social impact of migration is very difficult to assess. Benefits include a widening of consumer choice and significant cultural contributions. These in turn feed into wider economic benefits.

5) In practice, entry controls can contribute to social exclusion, and there are a number of areas where policy could further enhance migrants' economic and social contribution in line with the Government's overall objectives.

6) It is clear that migration policy has both social and economic impacts and should be designed to contribute to the government's overall objectives on both counts. The current position is a considerable advance on the previously existing situation, when the aim of immigration policy was, or appeared to be, to reduce primary immigration to the 'irreducible minimum' - an objective with no economic or social justification.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35110978)

Indeed not, though they are the only Government to have intentionally opened up the country to mass immigration as a form of social engineering. Immigration has long been an economic tool, the last Government is the first that I'm aware of to have used it as a social one.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35110978)

...It's kinda odd, the implication in the above post appears to be that people aren't allowed to think anything negative about immigration and should be concentrating on the positive. ...

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 35110986)

That being the case you'll find this, and the associated historical documentation - particulary the British Nationality Act - to be of interest.

Originally Posted by TheNorm (Post 35111010)

Not at all, but many posters seem to start with the view "immigration is bad" and try to push the discussion downhill. A bit of balance would be welcome.

BTW, I was not referring to you when I wrote that. :angel:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35111033)

Yes - I do like this bit from the very first sentence on that page:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35111033)

Economy, economy, economy, as obviously our economy was a mess after the world war and we were in desperate need of bodies to help us rebuild a shattered nation and shattered economy. Nothing to do with the needs of society so I don't get your point there, I specifically referred to social engineering your link doesn't appear to do anything to counteract this so thank you for demonstrating my point.