Shouls immigration be unlimited?

[monocrat]

Is there any rational reason why it shouldn't be?

In my mind, most opposition to asylum seekers is based on racism.

[Aladdin]

Well I guess there is the concern that since there is inequality between nations hundreds of millions from Third World countries would move to rich countries and 'asphyxiate' them. A country the size of Britain could cope very well with the 100,000 asylum claimants that come or attempt to come here every year- despite what the ultra right wing press might say. But it could not cope with the 10 million or more people that would come if nation borders were abolished.

But I must say that on principle I believe in the right for everybody to live in any part of the world they wish. When you think about it, the concept that you can only work and live in your country unless you get a hard-to-obtain visa or marry a foreigner is a disgusting one. We don't know how lucky we are in the EU that we have the freedom to live and work anywhere we please within the Union.

And I would agree with you that much- although not all- of the opposition to asylum seekers is based on racism.

[dantheman]

I don't believe it is the right of everyone to live where they want, if this was the case we would live in a mad world with overcrowding. The EU is good in that respect but that kind of system wouldn't work worldwide.


I am not racist and I believe that we should let in a decent amount of asylum seekers but the problem we have it what happens to illegal immigrants & those who have have their application turned down. After all, you can't complain about Iraqi asylum seekers if we're fighting in their country.
Dealing with them in a better manner so they can mix into society better, learn English etc so that if they stay they can contribute to society, if they stay, and lead respectable lives.
The thing also that annoys me is the amount being spend catering for people who have no right to apply for asylum who will be rejected anyway when we treat our pensioners like dirt when they have contributed to this country their whole lives.
Also they can easily vanish before they're deported.

[pnjsurferpoet]

Actually, much of the EU can't afford large numbers of people who don't have jobs. If there are jobs for them...that's different. Germany, France and others are already cutting back on retirement, vacation time and other benefits for their citizens. Does anyone with a brain feel sorry for less fortunate people worldwide...yes.

[Clandestine]

And you of course have expert knowledge of every EU country and what they can and can't afford? :rolleyes:

[pnjsurferpoet]

I thought you'd take that the wrong way. Since this is a European site...and I just read something on the expected growth today of European countries...that's why I posted that.

But you must admit, there must be a limit to how many people a country can take in and actually better their lives.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
Actually, much of the EU can't afford large numbers of people who don't have jobs. If there are jobs for them...that's different. Germany, France and others are already cutting back on retirement, vacation time and other benefits for their citizens. Does anyone with a brain feel sorry for less fortunate people worldwide...yes.

Well I suppose of criticism of immigration is that people would seek a 'free ride' regarding welfare if borders were totally open. The solution to that would be to encourage other nations to lessen or reduce the scope of their welfare states.

[Aladdin]

If there wasn't such a difference in wealth between nations then numbers would regulate themselves. For instance, there are scores of Aussies working in Britain (with or without visa), and equally lots of Brits who live and work in Oz for a year or three. If there was to be freedom of residence and work between the two nations chances are that similar numbers of British and Aussies would exchange countries of residence. The overall balance of the workforce in each nation would thus be unaffected.

Obviously Britain and Australia enjoy similar standards of living. I can't think many Britons who would quit life here and move to, say, Ethiopia; whereas a lot of Ethiopians would want to move to a prosperous country if they were allowed to- and who could blame them?

Until equality and prosperity is achieved for everyone (and we all know the chances of that! :rolleyes: ) global 'free' immigration would prove catastrophic for many countries- not least those who are deserted in droves by everyone young and fit to work.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by dantheman
I don't believe it is the right of everyone to live where they want, if this was the case we would live in a mad world with overcrowding. The EU is good in that respect but that kind of system wouldn't work worldwide.

[quote][b]
I am not racist and I believe that we should let in a decent amount of asylum seekers but the problem we have it what happens to illegal immigrants & those who have have their application turned down. After all, you can't complain about Iraqi asylum seekers if we're fighting in their country.
Dealing with them in a better manner so they can mix into society better, learn English etc so that if they stay they can contribute to society, if they stay, and lead respectable lives.
The thing also that annoys me is the amount being spend catering for people who have no right to apply for asylum who will be rejected anyway when we treat our pensioners like dirt when they have contributed to this country their whole lives.
Also they can easily vanish before they're deported.

So simply send the illegal immigrants home. 'Bogus asylum seekers' per se should not stop those who genuinely seek refuge from coming to the UK.