Immigration- A Proper Debate

Zombrex

bob2000 wrote:

Everyone who disagrees is simply rascist.

LOL :rolleyes:

Everyone who disagrees with no facts, figures or actually any rational argument or reason is simply talking nonsense.

I wouldn't call you racist, I've no idea why you feel the way you feel towards multiculturalism, except to say that judging by the rather hysterical nature of your posts it isn't because you have calmly and rationally assessed the issue

Maybe come back to us when you actually have an argument. This is after all a thread sub-titled "A Proper Debate"

bob2000

sorry, were you not the guy who posted some nonsense to the effect that it would be impossible to define success?

by your criteria, why are you even posting any more ?

what is your argument ? what are your figures ?

Zambia

Bob I have debated wicknight from your side of the agrument , and in this case I agree with him. Your posts come across as overly vehement.

I support a increase in restrictions and a controled migration policy but posts like yours do not help. They make us a look like we have swastika screen savers... for example your comments on people spreading into Ireland thinking the women are sluts and Irish men drunks. That is zenophobic and unhelpfull...

Zombrex

bob2000 wrote:

sorry, were you not the guy who posted some nonsense to the effect that it would be impossible to define success?

Define success in relation to immigration, and then explain how this is achievable

bonkey

bob2000 wrote:

I think that if we do not change our approach we will run into problems.

I agree.

There are parts of our approach (notably the efficiency and funding of the parts of our system which deal with asylum claims) which need improvement.

I also think that one of the greatest challenges to success is the lack of acceptance by even a small minority of the country (depending on how vocal they are). People shouting "it'll never work, mark my words" are part of the problem that needs dealing with.

There are clear and not-so-clear lessons to be learned from many other countries in the world. While its easy to point out the problems, it takes a little more work to identify and look at the successes, particularly because there's rarely (if ever) a 100% success story (which is what I'm guessing is what Wicknight was alluding to).

There will always be teething problems. There will always be a malcontent few, just as there are in indigenous society.

I couldn't help but smile earlier when someone made the point (I think it was in this thread) that the problem wasn't immigrants, but rather their kids. Here's the thing though...an immigrants child, born in Ireland is Irish. Thus, the problem is with the Irish. I know a number of English of Indian descent and every single one of them would be gravely insulted to be called anything but English. But when the English children of immigrants in England cause problems...who's blamed? Those damned foreigners.

That's the root of the problem right there. Lack of acceptance. It comes from both sides, I grant you, but while people stand on their pedestals and demand that those foreigners make the first move by integrating because its our country, dammit....they seem to forget that we are the ones with the most to lose by not making the first move because....well....its our country, dammit.

Was not familiar with the situation in Switzerland,

As is often the case. I wish I could add "surprisingly", but I'd be misleading you if I did.

As a matter of interest...did you look for success stories?

maybe they know something that the Uk, France, Spain, Norway, Germany etc do not.

They know acceptance. They know where to draw the line. They have a strict system where you're accepted if you play by the rules, and given SFA sympathy (to the point of being kicked out, should you be a non-citizen) if you don't. They are not ex-empires, who carry a lot of historical baggage. They are a culture who accept foreigners in large numbers, allowing a reasonable but not unlimited amount of leeway on cultural issues, but expect those who wish to make a life here to make a life here.

They're also not without their problems....don't get me wrong. There's a growing sense of Islamophobia (albeit from a vocal minority) which frankly is going to cause more problems than it purports to be trying to prevent.

The point I was making is that its wrong to assume that there have been no successes anywhere and that the only lessons we can learn from abroad are that its time to prepare for the bad times. Indeed, even if you look at nations such as England, you'll find that many cultures have successfully integrated. Its not all bleak.

Listen to this for wannabe right-on hysteria, can almost hear the sobs

People who advocate some sort of locking of the doors might not want to admit it, but locking the doors leaves two options :

1) Those who would otherwise seek asylum remain in their home country and take their chances.
2) Those who would otherwise seek asylum go to refugee camps and take their (slightly better) chances.

There is no third option, unless you want to take a country like Ireland where you can realistically interpret "first safe country" to mean "anywhere but here".

The "first safe country" notion is a polite way of saying "first bordering country not part of the problem", which in turn is a polite way of saying option 2 of the above.

If it sounds like its bordering on hysteria, its because I've no time for people who want to hide the ugliness of their preferred solutions behind reasonable-sounding terminology....so I take the opposite approach and put it as bluntly as possible.

If someone, on the other hand, wishes to honestly describe both the pros and the cons of a proposed solution - the costs and the benefits - both to "member" nations and asylum seekers, then I'm perfectly willing to debate rationally...to have a proper debate, like the title says.

sob...i never realised.....you mean the world isn't fair ? We aren't all one happy family after all ? But doesn't that mean that there are cultural differences between people, and countries have borders for a reason ?
Must be some flaw in my reasoning

There is a flaw. There are several. One is called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There are also the various (relevant) protocols of the Geneva Convention. There is the Dublin Accords.

If you think we should accede from all of these, then have the honesty to say so. If you think thats too extreme, then explain why the requirements that we, as signatories, are beholden to are not the flaw in your reasoning.

OPENROAD

I know a number of English of Indian descent and every single one of them would be gravely insulted to be called anything but English.


Exactly and the same could be said of West Indians also, having lived in the England it is a very tolerant country, yes problems exist in certain parts of Northern England but not to the extent that is sometimes reported.