No limits to immigration

[Derrick]

"People should be free to live and work wherever they wish and enjoy all of the same rights as all other residents"

Is the quote under debate.

It means, insofar as it means anything, that all people should be free etc.

Bob argues that some people seeking to settle in another country are criminals and that they should not be free etc.

If that be right then the proposition quoted above is not valid with the interpretation 'People' meaning ' all people'.

A valid proposition therefore is "Some people should be free to live and work wherever they wish and some of them should enjoy some of the same rights as some other residents."

Hi Ron

It all appears to be very Orwellian doesn't it?

Some pigs are more equal than others etc.

Derrick
(Your friendly neighbourhood LibDem, LWL, stochastic ghost, who knows what...)

[TomTomKent]

"People should be free to live and work wherever they wish and enjoy all of the same rights as all other residents"

Is the quote under debate.

It means, insofar as it means anything, that all people should be free etc.

Bob argues that some people seeking to settle in another country are criminals and that they should not be free etc.

So the quote is about people who should be free to live and work.
And your argument is that it does not apply to "all people".
Despite the numerous times it has been pointed out that we are discussing only those who wish to live and work in the country.
Like the danged quote says... Not "all people," not "benefits cheats", not "murderers", not "criminals", those who wish to earn the same rights as anybody else who works for them.


By your interpretation Bob still is not discussing the same people the quote refers to, and you can only justify it by ignoring the caveat in the quote.

[RonIpstone]

"People should be free to live and work wherever they wish and enjoy all of the same rights as all other residents"

Is the quote under debate.

It means, insofar as it means anything, that all people should be free etc.

Bob argues that some people seeking to settle in another country are criminals and that they should not be free etc.

If that be right then the proposition quoted above is not valid with the interpretation 'People' meaning ' all people'.

A valid proposition therefore is "Some people should be free to live and work wherever they wish and some of them should enjoy some of the same rights as some other residents."

[TomTomKent]

Peter Tobin killed at least three, and is suspected of the Bible John murders as well. A thoroughly fine Englishman who considered murder his work. Peter Sutcliffe. Fred West. All "indiginous" inhabitents of this isle.

I assume based on their conduct we must follow the model Bob is advocating and no longer allow white british people in the UK.

Unless of course what Bob is doing is not statistically significant, or a suitable basis on which to base immigration policy. The laws of big number suggest there will be some undesirable elements in any group of people. The good far outweighs the bad,and frankly the best argument Bob can us his "evidence" for is better enforcement of current controls, and not against the right for the majority to contribute peacefully to our economy.

Or that his bigotry is based on a few cases that pale in comparrison to the evils our ownkind are capable of.

[Bob Hinton]

And again...

Jailed for murder, Jaswinder Singh, immigrant who should have been deported in 2002
• In 2000 he was jailed in Germany for smashing a beer glass into his girlfriend's face

Jaswinder Singh who has been found guilty of battering a homeless man to death with an iron bar
An illegal immigrant who made a mockery of Britain’s deportation system was yesterday jailed for life for battering a man to death.
Jaswinder Singh, who was also wanted in Germany, had been in and out of prison and immigration detention centres for almost a decade.
But he was repeatedly freed without being removed and even granted bail by immigration judges.
At one stage, Singh was among 1,000 foreign criminals released from prison without being considered for deportation in a scandal which led to the sacking of Home Secretary Charles Clarke in 2006.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1OlUd4kGm


Another wonderful immigrant who came to this country to work – unfortunately he considered his work to be that of a murderer.

[TomTomKent]

That is a fallacy dreamt up by the LWL to support uncontrolled immigration into this country – something that the previous Government have only recently admitted.

First off the overwhelming number of jobs created in the last ten years have gone straight to immigrants the indigenous population never got a look in. How many of the IP do you see working in Indian restaurants –and why are a lot of these owners importing more illegal immigrants?

Secondly, fruit and veg used to be picked in the countryside by people wishing to make some pin money. When my son as a 12 year old wanted extra pocket money he went brusselling – and so did most of the youngsters in the area. The fallacy that only immigrants can do this type of work is just that. What are the LWL saying? For thousands of years farmers had to watch their crops rot in the fields hoping one day loads of illegal immigrants would turn up and pick them?

In my town there was a programme of refurbishing council houses. When this started the builder had all local men doing the work – and believe you me we needed it. Now eight years later all the local men are on the dole having been replaced with cheaper immigrant labour. It’s not that the Brits didn’t want the jobs – they had them taken away and handed to immigrants.

Which ignores two key facts; limitations on hours worked by school aged children seeking extra pocket money, and as importantly the amount skilled labourers will be willing to work for.

If a farmer wants a 40 hour week of picking covered they can either hire two or three kids, or one minimum wage worker. You get more man hours for less if you go for the minimum wage worker. Oh, an experienced minimum wage worker with a more productive rate. No fallacy needed.

The second point for engineering trade is as simple; you have the choice of tradesmen who are capable of doing the work, but want the rate of pay they have always had, or cheap labour from abroad. I dont remember too many british builders lossing sleep in the eighties when they went to germany to undercut the cost of local labour. There really is no difference. "

Oh, and my local indian restraunt has several white english waiters and delivery boys. Few other family businesses employ outside the family, which I should think has more todo with being a family business than any illegal immigrant conspiracy.

[TomTomKent]

Islamist hatemongers funded by the taxpayer with money earmarked for schools
Attack: Theresa May vowed to end all funding for extremist groups and said that the 'Prevent' group was flawed
Hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money earmarked to counter terrorism was instead handed to extremist groups, it emerged last night.
Radical Islamists were bankrolled with money which should have been used to combat their anti-Western ideology, a Government report concluded.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1OfHHWWMS

I expect it’s against their human rights not to have taxpayer money to kill those taxpayers with. Strange thing is complete silence from LWL.
Now just imagine that money had gone to the BNP – you wouldn’t get them off the boards!

Perhaps the silence is because this still has nothing to do with the issue of migrants having the ability to earn the same rights as anybody else. Or are you under the. Assumption a muslim must be an immigrant? Or that only pesky muslims would mispend money falsely obtained from taxpayers? (Forgetting how many false benefits claims, MP expense accounts, etc). Of course, I assume this means we should ignore any muslims who are not extremists? Like buggery.

Feel free to explain what this has to do with subject at hand, with out resorting to the stupidity of saying "they aren't like us!"

[Bob Hinton]

There is other evidence to support this view. Mostly in farming, which is one of the largest employers of (legal) immigrants from Europe. Despite claims that "those are jobs that could go to brits" it is worth noting that in quite a few cases european fruit pickers are employed precisely because no locals will touch the jobs. (When was the last time any of you seriously considered coming down here to pick hops for your holiday?)
.

That is a fallacy dreamt up by the LWL to support uncontrolled immigration into this country – something that the previous Government have only recently admitted.

First off the overwhelming number of jobs created in the last ten years have gone straight to immigrants the indigenous population never got a look in. How many of the IP do you see working in Indian restaurants –and why are a lot of these owners importing more illegal immigrants?

Secondly, fruit and veg used to be picked in the countryside by people wishing to make some pin money. When my son as a 12 year old wanted extra pocket money he went brusselling – and so did most of the youngsters in the area. The fallacy that only immigrants can do this type of work is just that. What are the LWL saying? For thousands of years farmers had to watch their crops rot in the fields hoping one day loads of illegal immigrants would turn up and pick them?

In my town there was a programme of refurbishing council houses. When this started the builder had all local men doing the work – and believe you me we needed it. Now eight years later all the local men are on the dole having been replaced with cheaper immigrant labour. It’s not that the Brits didn’t want the jobs – they had them taken away and handed to immigrants.

[Bob Hinton]

Really?

Islamist hatemongers funded by the taxpayer with money earmarked for schools
Attack: Theresa May vowed to end all funding for extremist groups and said that the 'Prevent' group was flawed
Hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money earmarked to counter terrorism was instead handed to extremist groups, it emerged last night.
Radical Islamists were bankrolled with money which should have been used to combat their anti-Western ideology, a Government report concluded.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1OfHHWWMS

I expect it’s against their human rights not to have taxpayer money to kill those taxpayers with. Strange thing is complete silence from LWL.
Now just imagine that money had gone to the BNP – you wouldn’t get them off the boards!

[Errata]

Hello Del, nice of you to show up and add your Liberal Democratic weight to the debate. You will of course be able to give us chapter and verse on the stochastic effects on the probability of criminality among the immigrant population, with particular reference to the allele effect on natural population etcetera etcetera.

Wow.. the Allee effect... I haven't thought of that since high school Ecology. Pretty risky applying it socially to humans. It would then follow that separate governments are hazardous to the survival of the species. Of course, available data so far has not proved that they aren't...

[TomTomKent]

Good point, but this is a case where it is mutually convenient for both the host country and the immigrant work force. The problem arises when there is not the work for the immigrants but they still come lured with tales of the streets of Maidstone being paved with gold.

Firstly: It is slightly more complex than a simple number of jobs compared to those who are unemployed. It is an issue of ensuring employment has been arranged before migration, wich tends to be the case in most examples.
Secondly: It is not the only example. I have, unfortunately, known far too many "good indiginous" folks who have refused jobs that are beneath them, where automation is not an option. There are some jobs that are going to be hard to fill by anything short of "take this or lose all benefits". If you are an employer, the chances are you will be happy to pay the same price for a willing employee than one who feels they are "settling".
Thirdly:When the streets of Maidstone look like Nirvana you probably need a little help.

[RonIpstone]

They just get a better return for importing short term labour for a season than they would for employing locals.

Good point, but this is a case where it is mutually convenient for both the host country and the immigrant work force. The problem arises when there is not the work for the immigrants but they still come lured with tales of the streets of Maidstone being paved with gold.

[TomTomKent]

I don't think that anybody would argue that there are literally hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants in the UK at the moment.

Many of these are under the control of human trafficking pimps who take most of the money that they may earn. And these poor bastards have to earn some sort of income or they take to the streets, or else......

So what work are these people actually doing?

I imagine a sizeable minority are working in the fast food restaurant trade.

Some, sadly are sex trade slaves satisfying the needs of predatory kerb crawlers.

But most are probably working in the agricultural industry.

Those farmers that pay minimum wage are struggling to compete with others who are perhaps knowingly employing low wage workers. In this situation who are Tesco, Asda etc going to deal with? Well thats obvious. It's going to be the producers who can produce the goods at the lowest price.

Who benefits from this situation?

Well, certainly for one the major supermarkets seem to be able to keep making profits that are larger than the GDP's of the economies of many of the worlds smaller nations.

Secondly it is the people of this country who also definitely benefit from the low prices that these companies charge for groceries.

If these people were being paid at least minimum wage then what whould happen to the prices of the food we buy after the supermarkets have lumped their extortionate margin on it? It was only until the Tory Tony Blair Government that a minimum wage was finally established. Farm workers were hitherto paid very little and still are.

How much collusion is there on the part of the megamarts, who have great lobbying power over law makers, and the Government's agencies to make it look like they are combatting illegal immigration on the one hand whilst still providing enough low paid labour to satisfy this countries competitively priced food needs?

All great empires have relied on slavery to prosper and that is a fact.

Eric Schlosser wrote a very good book, Reefer Madness, in which he exposes the dependence of the California economy on low paid migrant Mexican labour to produce cheap foods, especially and strangely strawberries.

It's happening in the States and it's happening here.

Derrick

There is other evidence to support this view. Mostly in farming, which is one of the largest employers of (legal) immigrants from Europe. Despite claims that "those are jobs that could go to brits" it is worth noting that in quite a few cases european fruit pickers are employed precisely because no locals will touch the jobs. (When was the last time any of you seriously considered coming down here to pick hops for your holiday?)

At the risk of using annecdotal evidence (so feel free to do any research you feel required to prove or disprove this) some farmers have told me that if they offered the prices local kids wanted to pick the veg, it would simply be cheaper to mechanise and not employ anybody. They just get a better return for importing short term labour for a season than they would for employing locals.

[TomTomKent]

Hello Del, nice of you to show up and add your Liberal Democratic weight to the debate. You will of course be able to give us chapter and verse on the stochastic effects on the probability of criminality among the immigrant population, with particular reference to the allele effect on natural population etcetera etcetera.

Well, nobody has proven that the rate of criminal behaviour among immigrants is any higher than among the general population, with the obvious exception of border crimes.

[TomTomKent]

I find the above a bit muddled.

Does the clause "who you assume to be dangerous criminals" refer to both "those who wish to emigrate legally and contribute to society" and to "those who enter a country by illegal means" or to just the latter?

If it be just the latter, then by definition their actions are illegal which would make them criminals whether dangerous or not would be a moot point.

I also do not understand to what the word "unless" relates. Why not stop your first sentence after the word "criminals" with a question mark, and then begin a second sentence with the word "Do" in place of "unless".

The slant of your question then posed by your second sentence will depend on what you mean in your new first sentence.

Overall I think that Bob is on topic here. The debate is whether all who want to come should be welcome on board the good ship Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the article shows how many 'asylum seekers' our French neighbours are letting through the doors illegally. How many more would come were entry into the UK unrestricted? How many more can we accommodate? How many more are needed? What skills, if any, should new entrants possess?

These serious questions and more should be debated, not questions of semantics.

Well, Bob keeps posting stories about criminals entering the country illegally.
What has that got to do with a discussion about those who enter legally, to work and pay tax, unless he is trying to imply the two groups are actually the same?

If they are not, then the majority of the news stories posted, about illegal immigrants and criminals are non sequitors.

You can describe as many kinds of people entering, or leaving the country as you like. But the original statement being discussed was only about one kind.