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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4428517.stm

I happen to think that controlled immigration is a *good idea*. Immigrants bring something fresh to a country's culture. Britain would be a much more boring place if we hadn't accepted any. Anyway, I'm sick of the way this non-issue is being stoked up into something of supposedly momentous import. I don't see us being overrun by immigrants of any kind.

There are people trying to smuggle themselves into Europe, but are there that many? Have we figures?

I think that this leader sums it up pretty well.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/comment/0,15803,1456656,00.html

When I was a schoolkid, I met and became friends with an asylum seeker. Her family was fleeing persecution by that murderous old thug Pinochet. Tory proposals would mean that any asylum application made in *this* country would be refused flat. Under those rules, she and her family would have been deported to face torture and death. But then, as Thatcher once pinted out, Pinochet had been a 'good friend to Britain', so that's OK, then.

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'User-journal' to 'UK General and Local Elections 2005'.

Thank you for moving this as I requested.

Good morning H.H

There has been a thread running previously on this topic, but briefly
of course immigration is humanitarian and enriches our society It has been going on since the Danes, the Vikings , the Romans, the Normans etc etc. Latr we had smaller groups escaping persecution both from Europe and other parts of the world, all welcomed because they ultimately 'merged' to creat what we now are.

All OK. Until it becomes uncontrolled, then you generate places like Bradford, Blackburn Birmingham, parts of which are barely reognisable as British towns. The real problem is that uncontrolled arrivals lead to non-integration, and it is the accidental, or perhaps deliberate non-integration which causes the problems. Witnesss Rochdale last year.

Novo

Hi HH

Try the thread on Election Issues for a load of posts on this topic

I don't think that anyone would disagree that the establishment of racial enclaves within our cities is something we don't want. However, the Tory approach is to (a) fail to distinguish between asylum seekers and economic migrants, (b) to flatly refuse applications for asylum from anyone who applies once they come into the country and (c) to withdraw from the UNHCR in order to be able to take this kind of action. We would be the first country to have done so.

Quite how this incredibly prejudicial and indiscriminate approach would alleviate some of the problems that already exist is beyond me. We already have strict controls, and any problems arising from the isolation of ethnic communities could be better addressed by citizenship classes and language education rather than demonising their members.

Hi HH

I don't think that I have been "demonising" people, see my posts on Election Issues Thread as suggested by Pixel.( My Hindu colleague especially)

What I have tried to do is suggestthat controlled acceptance, as opposed to uncontrolled is surely better for both sides of the ethnic divide?. I have not read the Tory proposals, if they are as you claim then they warrant a look at; but I feel that once we dropped the entrance controls, and saw the efforts of largely economic migrants to get into the UK by any means possible,it became obvious that we had to do something.

By the way, doen't the USA have some pretty draconian entry rules?

Novo

Is the acceptance uncontrolled? I hardly think so. Huge numbers of asylum seekers were turned down last year. This is from the commissioner from the UNHCR: "The number of people claiming asylum in the UK has dropped 61% over the last two years, back to levels not seen since the early 1990s."
We *have* been doing something. The Tory proposals are a step too far. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the facts of the situation before you jump to any further conclusions.

It is the most revolting tactic being played out in this election so far. Whipping up a xenophoic rant for the purposes of securing power is only one step away from repatriations or genocide.

The economy demands that this country needs an influx of immigration over the next 30 years in order to maintain the current standard of living. As our indigenous population is growing older and people are having fewer children, without an immigrant workforce, who is actually going to fill jobs and pay the taxes to keep us going.

Regards, GG.

Good afternoon FM

I sugest you pick up my posts on the Election Issues Thread ( Suggested by Pixel) before suggesting that I have jumped to any conclusions at all, and come to that before YOU jump to any. Frankly I found you post offensive, since I have said to HH that the proposals warranted further looking at.
Keep your powder dry!

Nov0

You say " I feel that once we dropped the entrance controls"

We haven't 'dropped the entrance controls'. Where is your evidence for this? And when you say that the proposal warranted futher looking at, are you encouraged or dismayed by them?

A poor defence FM

You clearly haven't read my previous posts.

The semantics of 'dropping' or 'relaxing', or 'not operating' can be argued. What cannot be argued is that apparenly the Official figure for nett inflow has trebled. I do not have the actual figures perhaps you have?
If you are privi to information about Customs and Immigration activity (at say Dover, )in the last 8 years I would be pleased to see it.
Similarly if you have any figures on exactly how many people have come into the country, legally and illegally, I would be pleased to see them also
As to the Tory proposals, when I have read them I will tell you what I think of them, .. meanwhile please consult my posts on the Election Issues Thread. You might get an insight into how I currently feel.

Novosibirsk ( and where is that ? )

This post has been removed.

"It is the most revolting tactic being played out in this election so far. Whipping up a xenophoic rant for the purposes of securing power is only one step away from repatriations or genocide."

Noone has ever mentioned either repatriations or genocide ~ this kind of ridiculous language is just as revolting and dangerous as any racist comments.

You will never change anyones mind about immigration by subjecting their beliefs to this kind of vitriolic abuse.

There must be a move in this country away from the deep divisions caused by this emotive issue and we can only do this by answering peoples concerns not by making them feel that they are not allowed to have an opinion.

The kind of inflammatory language that both sides of this debate tend to use only serves to make the problem worse.Noone likes to be told what to think and you change minds with reasoned debate not by telling them that they have no right to have concerns.

Good Afternoon all..
Yes we do have to move away from that kind of vitriol, but part of the problem is that we have to be mindful of where Michael Howards arguments lead. He should know better than to act as if we were about to drown under this massive human tidal wave, given his family history.
We are not about to be swamped, we already have restrictions in place as to who can settle here, and implying that we have none, or next to none, is dangerous to say the least. You really would have thought he'd know better...
Well, a fearful population is more biddable, as Tony and Dubya will testify, I suppose

Thanks for your post FM

I think that we should drop this NOW

My nickname has an obvious connection, it wasn't a geography test.

Novo

Damn i got yanked again ~ i thought i was calling for people to be more tolerant of eachothers views ~ must have been the language
Oh well i'll just have to keep trying

I got yanked too. I basically said that my original argument, taking issue with the fear tactics behind this campaign, was still valid regardless of what the statistics actually say. It's an attempt to make saloon-bar politics matter more than other critical issues, such as health, education, pensions etc. I think that point is irrefutable.