Open policy on immigration

Post Reply New Topic

Does anyone else believe in this? I think the UK should have an open policy on immigration. I would like to see an open policy on immigration in all countries.

But I also believe in national identity and each country should hold those historical and national values dear. You shouldn't betray your own culture... unless that culture has a negative effect on the country you have immigrated to.

By open policy, do you mean that if 5 million people applied to migrate into the UK tomorrow, then they should all be allowed in?

If you're thinking of applying a quota, then that's pretty much the system we have already.

There are too many people on this little island, already. Why make that worse, and in the process import all of humanities cultural and religous disputes into some multi-cultural melting pot that simmers until it explodes?

Where the hell are they all going to live, anyway? Can't see middle class liberals putting them up for the night!

We'll end up becoming what those people are trying to escape — in fact, we're part way down that road already.

Not sure about the open border, but there are genuine refugees being turned down at the moment, that we have a duty to let in. They are still deporting people to Zimbabwe when we know what an awful regime they have there.

Ascan is right that we don't want a population explosion and we need to be careful, but we shouldn't discriminate against non-white immigrants (most immigrants are actually white!!) and pandering to a Daily Mail agenda will have tragic human consequences just because of a few working-class racists.

Equally, it is best that problems are sorted out in the Third World, so that people don't feel they have to come over here to escape death or torture. That is the responsibility of the West, since western governments and western corporations often collaborate with corrupt dictatorships in places like Africa for trade purposes, whilst ordinary people are worse off.

I'm almost in agreement; it's just knowing where to draw the line.



And we shouldn't let in any more Muslims.



Agreed. But Third World countries have a responsibility themselves. Most of their problems have little to do with the influence of Western corporations. War, starvation and slavery were endemic there long before Western nations started to need their oil and minerals.

tell that to the kosovans.

Why should the Kosovans come all the way to Britain? There are plenty of countries in between.
In fact, they'd be better off going to a Muslim country like the UAE. There's plenty of work for foreigners there.
Maybe the UN could arrange this if they weren't so corrupt and inefficient.

We let a "refugee" in from Somalia recently, and our welfare state paid for him to sit in his London flat and plot Jihad. Why should we take the risk?

Last edited by Klytus on 09 Nov 2005, 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

why do you think France is having riots?

Our great leader, Winston Churchill had the right idea about Islam. This is what he said:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities...but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

'Tis funny that Robert Kilroy-Silk got lambasted for saying much the same words, although not so eloquently?

Not saying that I necessarily agree, just that I see the parallels...

I don't believe in countries. Sure they exist, but so does evil.

I don't believe in borders. If I'm not happy here, I want to go there, wherever there is.

I do believe in nations, tribes, ethnic groups, whatever you want to call them ( or better yet, whatever they wnt to call themselves.

But I believe even more in individuals. If ideas can go anywhere, if money can go anywhere, if goods can go anywhere, if influence can go anywhere, why can't people go anywhere? Isn't everybody saying "globalization is inevidable."

Yes definetly, I support open policy for immigration 100%.

Specially in america, uk, sweden, and other rich countries. Give other people a chance ok?

Yes, why not give them a chance to turn our countries into impoverished war-torn hell-holes, just like theirs. Let's see how many ethnic, political and religous conflicts we can import into one small area of the planet's surface, then just sit back and watch the sparks fly.

Yippee! I just can't wait!

The major globalizers such as Milton Friedman would agree with that, but also argue that if we were to do something like this then we would have to scrap the welfare state as otherwise we will then have people come in to leech off of public services.

It's time we recognised that our immigration problems are due, largely, in part, to, that we have propped up oppressive, cruel dictators and powerful wealthy families who enjoy desperate, starving work forces, in order to better exploit other countries' natural resources and, also to gain strategic military sites in nearby countries to prop of oppressive, cruel dictators or the countries whose resources we want at bargain prices.

If we refused to do business with those people and demanded reforms, we wouldn't have so many desperate people coming to our countries. I think most people would rather stay in their homelands if they weren't wondering where their next meal is coming from or if another family member is going to be "disappeared."

Lots of immigrants are Mexicans and we already work with the Mexican government in terms of policy and Mexico is a relatively stable, albeit corrupt, nation. Frankly, I think the issue with not trading with people is that the usually don't stop doing the thing we don't like, but rather use us as the figure for their national hatred. At least with trade we can encourage economic growth. Finally, I don't think that the issue is really one of refugees but rather job seekers, developed nations have a lot more/better opportunities than less developed nations so people in less developed nations who want to do well go to more developed nations.