h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

my strawberries are picked by my own hand from the PYO farm across from me, when they are in season. Funnily enough, most of the other people you see there doing the same thing are recent (first or second generation) immigrants. Presumably everyone else prefers those watery things you get in the supermarkets...

Hey Novo, maybe we are beginning to agree


<>

The realpolitik is that this isn't a moral question. I'd say that any government is in power primarily to keep the economy going. The cost of getting rid of, say, 90% of all illegal immigrants would go into the billions. At the same time, businesses would have higher wages, higher prices to buy goods, higher prices to sell them at and so on, which would cost 10s of £billions as the economy stumbled. Who cares that much, especially when it's so easy to turn a blind eye? No politician, except maybe extremists like the BNP, would willingly lose office to 'achieve' this.

*That's* why it's the hypocrisy which annoys me so much. All the politicians know this, and none of them will admit it. Here's a current article (from about 2 hours ago) which goes into some of the same issues.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4989874.stm

As it implies in the article (from the Spanish example), there doesn't seem to be much we can do to stop illegal immigration. I personally wouldn't want the kind of police state we'd need to keep them all out. In that sense John Reid did us all a service by indicating the government's lack of power over them.

So, to get back to the original question, it's 4. They're part of our economy and society, and they're here to stay. No easy answers here...

"must beg the question "who is really responsible for the porosity of our borders?""

If people really, really want to come here then it's almost impossible to stop all of them. People come here because we've got a strong economy and they want a slice of it, or because their home country is literally unbearable to live in. It's a waste of time moaning about people doing exactly what we'd want to do in their situation.

"I can see nothing wrong with any country wishing to 'limit' or record or control who comes in. Wholesale acceptance of an open door policy seems foolish to me. Of course we don't KNOW how many illegals are here, by definition - but that was my point."

That's unrealistic, though. It's impossible to completely police any reasonably-large border (or even, much of the time, a small one). Political waffle about how many immigrants we "allow" is just that. The only thing that can restrict the number of people who live here in any serious way is to give them a reason not to and one of the best ways of doing that is take away the reasons they'd want to leave their home countries in the first place.

You really know nothing about the conditions these people live and work under do you ?

They are paid about £2:00 an hour, and work 15 or 16 hours a day, under conditions you wouldn't stand for 10 minutes.

If they complain they are beaten, or just chucked off the gangs, and as they are illegals they they have nowhere to go.

Did you read the evidence given by the cockle picker who was picked up by the lifeboat ? About how they were begging to be allowed to leave the beds, but the gang-master refused to let them.

SO YOU CAN BUY CHEAP FOOD !

You get cheap food because supermarkets force farmers to sell their products for less than they cost to produce.

I didn't wilfully misread that post - frankly I was so disgusted by the suggestion put forward that I couldn't be bothered to formulate a post in reply.

Illegal immegrants take jobs away from people who are entitled to be in this country, they mean you and I have to pay more taxes, to keep the people who could be doing those jobs on the dole. The gang-masters don't sell the products on cheap either, they go to market with the legitimate goods, and force down the prices of people who have to pay NI and wages to their employees.

I could go on about people trafficing and the monies these people pay to get here, and the number that die en-route, but it wouldn't matter would it.

Mckay, I think you should read my posts again, cos you certainly haven't understood what I meant. Of course, that may be my fault but I've re-read them and I think I expressed myself quite clearly. At no time did I say it is a good thing that illegal immigrants are maltreated. What I did say was that it's the hypocrisy of politicians and society at large which wants cheap food and services and largely turns a blind eye to the hidden costs.

<>

So our consumer society functions smoothly, and to hell with the people in the margins. It's good you find this disgusting, but I think it's a fair reflection of our society, and it's certainly *not* my own personal opinion that others should be exploited for my (or anyone else's) welfare. I've stated how I think the govt could stop this and the reasons it won't, and even mentioned their hypocrisy in 3 separate posts.

Frankly, I'm at a loss that you think I'm in favour of all that

"I didn't wilfully misread that post - frankly I was so disgusted by the suggestion put forward that I couldn't be bothered to formulate a post in reply."

Assuming that was aimed at me, what was the "suggestion" you think I put forward?

I am trying to show you that illegal labour doesn't result in cheap products - it results in exploited people. I think you're wrong to say that politicians in this country are being hypocritical about illegal immegrants - in this country they don't pay direct taxes, in the main neither do the people who employ them.

Your cheap consumer products come into this country on the back of lower living standards in less developed countries.

Illegal migrants end up (usually) as being virtual slave labour, or running illegal businesses - or keeping other workers from a job. Except of course the ones who come here as criminals, running people trafficing and drug running gangs.

And before someone twists my words I am not against immigrants to this country.

No Zagreb - if you look back that was a quote from Blues Shark about my earlier post.

Sorry for the confusion.

They come to this country, though, because they get more working as "slave labour" than they would working legit in their home countries. It's also worth pointing out that their home countries often have poor or non-existant labour laws and so they have as much protection from dangerous working practices as here.

I don't think this is a good thing either. I think exploitation and profit without responsibility shouldn't exist anywhere but I think your argument is a classic example of failing to look at the totality of the problem.

The way to end to immigration issue and all the problems associated with it is to end the reasons people want to leave their homes and come to richer countries and the way to do that is to reduce the poverty there and the repressive gangster governments they're often running from. That requires both fair, properly-free trade from Western nations as well as interventionist politics.

"No Zagreb - if you look back that was a quote from Blues Shark about my earlier post.

Sorry for the confusion."

Ah, no worries.

<>

One of the many ways illegal immigrants (and some legal ones too, I'm sure) affect our economy is that they depress wages, and keep costs down for businesses. This may be as likely to be an Anzac barmaid as somebody who's been trafficked from the 3rd world. When was the last time you heard any politician ask for higher costs for businesses? I'm not denying for a second that it results in exploited people, just that this fact won't change anything, and isn't really a factor in the equation. You might find it cynical, but I just find it depressing.

I suggested that putting the onus on firms to not employ illegal workers would be a far better way to cut down on illegal migrants. There are far fewer businesses than people, after all. Why do you think that nobody has suggested this?

Actually Tony has touted that as being one of the benefits of his id card system.

Zagreb - I know that conditions in their home country is equally appalling, but these people are trying to live in this country. Many are duped into believing they can apply for citizenship if they stay for a certain period (5 years seems to be favourite) others know that some countries do not accept back illegal immigrants, so if they can just get here, they will eventually be allowed to stay.

>>"others know that some countries do not accept back illegal immigrants, so if they can just get here, they will eventually be allowed to stay."

Well, apart from trying to get the countries concerned to take people back, what can we do in that situation - is there a humane way to ensure that messages sent back to source countries say "Don't bother coming here!"?

Not that I can think of - especially as the main offender is China. The only way is to stop them coming in.

Hmm, I thought that was precisely the news paper headlines this morning? 'We give up on chasing asylum seekers' was a (sensationalized) reference to the immigration service's decision to instead crack down on illegal employers.

The more telling part was that they have no idea how many are in the country.

Now obviously nobody knows - but to admit it in the terms they did was to admit that thir policy on policing and immigration had failed.

Though I do think the title of this piece is rather unfair, you need to go back to Jack Straw to place the blame for this one.

This article from today's Indy has all the elements we have been debating. Not sure if my head or my heart wins the argument.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article485917.ece

I suppose there are problems wherever a line is drawn with regard to health services.
If you are trying to prevent people coming to Britian for treatment, how do you investigate any particular case to be sure someone didn't already know they were ill when they arrived?

I guess in the article in question, the young mother aspect is probably responsible for *some* of the emotional effect - would people feel differently if the person had been a 60-year old single man?

>Now obviously nobody knows - but to admit it in the terms they did was to admit that thir policy on policing and immigration had failed.<

As opposed to the opposite policy odf saying 'Yes, there are 45,671 illegal immigrants in the country and when we get to 50,000 we're going to give that lucky one honorary citizenship.'

How are you going to stop it McKay? Or more to the point, how is Darling Davy going to stop it?