[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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.

Just because there are positives, which I would hope everyone agrees there are, doesn't mean there are no negatives.

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. It's not all positive and not seeing it as completely positive is a perfectly reasonable point of view.

---------- Post added at 19:56 ---------- Previous post was at 19:51 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

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.

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 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.