When you watch this, you wonder; how can LibLab[and the rest of]Con refute this? This isn't just an MP saying these things, these are the anecdotes of nearly every person in the country and things like having an £80p/h interpreter in the back seat for driving tests are indefensible. It's a shame we don't have very many real conservatives (small 'c' intentionally) left to argue the case for people who aren't high on the crack cocaine of multiculturalism. Vote UKIP!
interesting, there is no distinction made here between legal and illegal migration and also no mention about refugees and assylum seekers. it is simply unacceptable to mix these terms and create a confusion, it is counter-productive and misleading.it is up to the government to make sure that wages for foreign and domestic workers are of equal value as the UK has its obligations under the EU Directive on economic migration which stipulates equal treatment.
Brave man ,hes standing up for BRITAIN and BRITISH PEOPLE ,that will never work .Yea i see a labour muppets got up and took the piss ,we all know the mess they have made, hang your head in shame labour muppets
@TheWelshie1 Shocking is his mention that polygamy is now legal. Scandalous is how they are able to breed like flies and do so while sucking on the Public Teat. Absurd is that Brits are therefore paying for their own demise.
@MrStrictlyStock ...........Polygamy is not legal.....it is merely ignored because it involves muslims and therefore their 'cultural sensitivities' need to be respected..ie, ignore them breaking the law.
@Deus2Vexillum This "cultural sensitivity" absurdity appears to be a very contagious plague in European countries and those countries of European stock.
At times, I give pause to the idea that Vladimir Putin has the correct formula to deal with the troublemakers. Serbia certainly did, but NATO intervened on the wrong side.
The reference to 'xenphobic rant' is a tactic often employed. Instead of dealing with the issues the speaker raises, the critic simply resorts to personal attacks.
I'm not a conservative or labour voter but i do share the views of the conservative speaker here, very strict controls on immigration need to be enforced or it needs halting altogether.
Also, as he said at the beginning, the pathetic labour's PC boy was quick to call him xenophobic for opposing mass immigration, i completely oppose mass immigration because i wish to preserve the British people's majority status and culture, this however does NOT make me racist or xenophobic.
29 have been accused of spouse abuse 7 have been arrested for fraud 19 have been accused of writing bad cheques 117 have been directly or indirectly bankrupted at least two businesses 3 have done time for assault 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit 4 have been arrested on drug related charges 8 have been arrested for shoplifting 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits 84 have been arrested for drink driving this year. Who are they? Current members of the House of Commons!
The points system we have introduced makes it just as hard to come to Britain from Russia as it would Asia or Africa
The question is where do we draw the line. Im sure you can understand it is impossible for Britain to accept 100 million immigrants in a short period of time considering our population is only 60 million and are island is small. If its not racist to not allow that, how can it be racist to restrict a lower number, its the same thing
What i can not except is 100,000+ work permits being issued to non EEA citizens each year when we have close to 1 million people claiming unemployment benefits. That is simply crazy and has to be stopped.
I do not support the BNP, i despise their racist views but i agree with them that immigration has been totally out of control. We can not change the past, but we have the power to control the future, which means tough immigration laws are needed in this country.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Why shouldn't jobs be given to the best candidates, who may live in the EEA? That really is actually a miniscule figure in comparision to the UK population, furthermore, many of these migrants do jobs the unemployed would not want to do because of low pay, conditions, etc. Even if that weren't true, we have to have evidence those unemployed are trying to get the jobs immigrants are getting and routinely losing. The evidence for that, my friend, is actually rather sparse.
Im a supporter of the European Union so i also support the right of EEA citizens to live / work in this country. However transitional controls to prevent a flood of people after new countries joined WERE needed. The government grossly underestimated the numbers they expected to come from places like Poland, and this has been damaging.
As we have plenty of workers coming from the EEA, i do not see why we need over 100,000 non EEA citizens getting work permits when we have 2 unemployed
I fully support protecting asylum seekers and allowing them here. i support allowing family to come and live here, i support EEA citizens rights to live / work here (although new EU countries should of faced transitional controls, like Germany and France did for the same countries)
I support letting people come here to study and allowing them to work some of that time. But too many abuse the rights of students. They come stay here and sometimes dont even study, which is unacceptable.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Evidence? Look, we can have a serious discussion if we agree on evidence. If you give me yr email then I can cite you evidence where needed. Then a more profitable discussion will ensue.
You can send me the links via private message if you want. I would like to see the evidence showing unlimited immigration will have no negative impact on the host nation.
There is clear evidence that large levels of immigration has a huge impact on local areas and is damaging.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I dispute it is 'unlimited immigration'. I can only give you evidence that 'unlimited immigration' (as you use it) has no negative impact on the host nation if you define what you mean by the phrase. We can't see that it is unlimited until we have the facts about immigration entry and leave, the unlimited is a moral judgment you make about the facts. I have to enquire into the bases of that before assenting to it as U immigration.
The distribution of immigrants should remain a national issue, it is for a country to define who may enter/live/work within its borders
I accept immigrants from outside the EEA have faced limited controls on migration (although these are far too relaxed and therefor viewed by many as "uncontrolled" The government has recently got tougher with its new points system, but it has a long way to go before we have reasonable controlled immigration
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That is unworkable, especially if you accept that immigration numbers are an issue (I don't), but even from the standpoint of justice; no one country should have to integrate a significantly larger number of immigrants than another when we are considering a political community, such as the EU. That would compromise the ideals on which the EU is based. Non EEA citizens find it almost impossible to get in.That amounts to a racist policy, I believe. I'll supply citation if necessary
Each country should decide how many immigrants from outside the EU they wish to take in, even with the EU proposed immigration policy which we will opt out of they can still set limits.
I am sorry but it is not racist to limit the numbers of workers we let in from outside the EEA. People labelling immigration control as racist is one of the main reasons we are in the mess we are in. For too long government has been afraid to act for fear of being tagged racist. Now we have a crisis, they can
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I don't think it is the state's right to limit immigration unless we have good reason to believe there will be a population crisis which causes starvation and other problems. Since we don't have such a reason we shouldn't limit immigration. It's an infringement of liberty- the liberty of those who want to come here. Infringments of liberty require the onus of proof. It is
indirectly racist, since it means that, being a black person, it is likely you won't be able to emigrate to this country.
I am sorry but we have NO obligation to accept anyone and everyone from the rest of the world into this country, (except legit asylum seekers) The majority of people who pay taxes to build the country we have today and all its services, do not support mass immigration, they want tough limits.
It is going to be just as hard for a white person in Russia as it will be for a black person in Africa, or a hispanic in South America. That is not racism. controlled immigration is a right of ALL states
Good video, the debate this year on immigration was very interesting also. There was actually a consensus by all 3 major parties (including the lib dem spokesman) that mass uncontrolled immigration was a bad thing. Which is huge progress from a few years ago
This guy and there are plenty of other Mps who have been moaning about mass immigration goes to show its not only the BNP that are against such policies.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There's no reason to believe mass and uncontrolled immigration is bad. The Lords report which argue that it wasn't economically beneficial has lots of flaws, one of which is the simplistic way in which it measured that migrants might be beneficial. Better to see the recent IPPR report as a corrective. Furthermore, the Lord's report says nothing about the long term effect of immigration, which most economists believe is economically beneficial. Immigration should rarely be restricted.
5) Uncontrolled immigration makes it impossible for integration into society, which leads to a rise in tensions between communities and ends up with more people supporting parties like the BNP.
6) There are billions of people in the world, im sorry but we can not let them all in. Skilled workers from those places coming here usually HURTS the country of origin because of the skills drain.
I care about people, but more can be helped at their country of origin than allowing a few to come here
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
1.I don't know what you mean by 'uncontrolled immigration', certainly, any perceived 'uncontrolled' features of our immigration policy have been due to chronic underfunding of local authorities and bad planning. That is to say, the uncontrolled effect is not essential to large-scale immigration, it is contingent.
2. There is no evidence to say they'd all come here. In any case, we ought to have a Europe wide agreement on the distribution of immigrants, which the UK has shunned.
1) uncontrolled immigration has been allowing the levels of migrant workers coming to this country to radically increase over the past decade. Uncontrolled immigration was allowing all new EU countries workers to come to Britain to work straight away, where as most EU countries such as france and Germany adopted transitional controls on them. workers from Poland dont have unlimited access to germany till 2011
2) Giving control of our borders to the EU is totally unacceptable and a bad idea
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You still haven't defined 'Uncontrolled immigration', we have very strict immigration control for non-EU residents, and quite unjustified restriction on those from Romania and Bulg. It has increased to the complement of us all. Thing of cleaners, cultural diversity, labour mobility, cheap food, students (often more intelligent). I wasn't suggesting the EU control our borders, I was suggesting we assent to a Europe wide agreement on the distribution of immigrants according to local needs.
Uncontrolled immigration refers to high levels of migrants given the right to come to this country from outside the EEA over the past decade and the failure to impose limits on new EEA citizens like we have done for Romania and Bulgaria
Allowing unlimited numbers of Polish workers to come here is uncontrolled immigration, the transition limits Romania / Bulgaria face were the right thing to do and has been done by some of our European friends for all other eastern / central european countries
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I'm determined we could have a very fruitful discussion if we agreed on the facts. To that end I shall post you non-moralised facts about immigration, together with citation, for any claim you want me to back up. I believe it was unfair to restrict Romanian and Bulgarian citizens in this way, it was the grossest pandering to tabloid hysteria. There is no reason to believe they would have caused problems if the government hadn't prepared. They didn't cause the problems, it is the government.
i know it may seem unfair as we allowed unlimited numbers to come from Poland and the other new EU states which joined in 2004. However we did that because the British government grossly underestimated the numbers they thought would come here. They were right to impose limits on Romania and Bulgaria
Lets not forget the EU includes the rights for transitional controls to prevent mass immigration problems. France, Germany and other European countries imposed it on ALL the new countries
I agree the government did not prepare for the levels of immigration we have had, and if they had funded it then there would be less of a problem.
But our governemnt did not have to accept those people in the first place so the investment wouldnt of been needed. Small levels of immigration can be intergrated, but mass immigration of 100,000s in such a short period of time is just impossible to prepare for
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
1. Of the Amnesty's done in countries such as Spain and the US there is no evidence that they act as a pull factor to this country.
2. Large scale immigration in the UK hasn't tended to work because the government repeatedly underfunds integration programmes
3. Suppose that immigration weren't economically beneficial (I dispute this). That wouldn't necessarily mean it should be restricted. Immigrants benefit the country in other ways.
Amnesty is totally the wrong policy to adopt, even many liberals who support mass immigration would tell you that. It is totally wrong to allow people to come to this country illegally and then let them stay here whilst telling others who play by the rules they can not come.
I totally agree problems with immigration in the past have been because of a failure in our government to help immigration, but large scale immigration makes it impossible.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I disagree. People who live in this country illegally aren't criminals. They haven't committed a criminal offence. They are outside of the law, which makes there position extremely vulnerable. Firstly, they find it hard to survive since they're not allowed to work and so get exploited by people illegally. Secondly, if they're seriously injured then they can't receive treatment, unless it's emergency. Thirdly, their children receive very high rates of malnourishment and education, etc.
Im sorry but it is a crime to enter this country without the correct documentation or legal right. It is a crime to remain in this country after a visit visa or work permit expires. It is a crime to hire an illegal or to assist one get into this country. The idea that illegal immigrants are not criminals is a joke. I understand most of them are good people simply wanting a better life but rules are rules.
Those who break the rules must be deported or detained at Her Majestys pleasure.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It may be a crime in the sense of 'breaking the law' but countries don't actually treat illegal immigrants as criminals;compare the procedural protections afforded irregular migrants when they are accused of some criminal offense and the procedural protections provided them with respect to
immigration matters. And, since the term 'criminal' is in large part an expression of how a legal system perceives some behaviour, illegals aren't criminals.
Im sorry but to be in this country illegally is to break this countries laws and those caught will be arrested under the immigration act and deported if possible.
You may like to call them "irregular migrants" but they are illegal criminals. You should be glad we dont class them like the Americans do as "Illegal aliens"
We have very little choice on what to do with these people. First we try to stop them entering in the first place, but if they are here we either deport or have to detain
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Sometimes breaking the law is the right thing to do, with the ban on interracial marriages; going back to a country of origin might be an unfair expectation, especially considered the UK is so strict. Calling them criminals obfuscates the fact that most of them have committed no serious breach of law. Hence they shouldn't be arrested but encouraged to leave, if even that. You might call civil rights advocates criminals, personally i'd call that a category mistake.
If they fear for their life if deported then the British government has an obligation to consider their claim to asylum. However if there human rights will not be infringed they must be removed. You say Britain is strict, but we actually have alot of problems deporting to many countries because we fear for the human rights of those going back to places such as Iran
Again, illegal immigrants will be arrested under the immigration act, this means they are criminals. Right or wrong, its a crime
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Human rights are only the starting point. For example, considerations of how to achieve political equality aren't wholly circumscribed by human rights. Immigration helps to achieve equality by effectively redistributing wealth across borders (immigrants give a lot back financially to their countries), therefore, to achieve political equality, immigration is actually generally a good thing over and above the fact that immigrants may be able to secure human rights.
Indeed many immigrants do spread the wealth back to the home land, but that is another reason why mass immigration isnt economically a good thing for Britain. Instead of wages going to people who will spend all their money in the UK economy it is sent elsewhere.
Limited immigration is a good thing. Mass immigration of millions of people which we have seen over the past 50 years is more problematic
Again if peoples human rights are at risk they can claim asylum, but we can not help everyone
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The argument we should limit immigration because it doesn't benefit the economy I showed to be invalid. So you think that redistribution of wealth in the form of immigrants giving money back to their home country is a reason why we should limit immigration. Without the invalid economy argument there seems no sense to this, since it wouldn't be based on the idea that immigrants don't benefit us economically.
Im sorry but the economic argument is clear. We have 1 million unemployed people claiming benefits. Now i understand there are some jobs that British people do not want to do, but that is part of the problem we have with todays society. We can not simply import poor people to do dirty jobs, with reforms to the welfare state now being introduced and future changes, there will be a need for jobs by those unemployed British citizens.
The costs to services because of immigrant numbers is also clear
Limited immigration does benefit the country economically, mass immigration like we have seen in the past 10 years however does not. There has been a huge drain on services and jobs because of labours failure to control our borders.
I am strongly opposed to the BNP, but on immigration all major parties now see the problems which have been caused by it.
If i am honest, economically we are worse off overall after 50 years of immigration, but we are a more tolerant and there for better society
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I agree, we should allow the people who play by the rules to get in, but that isn't incompatible with providing for the basic living standards of a vulnerable group. Another point to make is that many irregular migrants have been here years and years. It's inhumane simply to rip up their roots of many years here and send them back. Also, it's more cost-efficient to have an amnesty. So what if it doesn't benefit the country, why is that a reason for restricting immigration?
Asylum seekers who make it to this country must be protected under the United Nations convention for refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights. I have no problem with all of those legitimate claims to be respected. Theres only about 30,000 a year of them anyway
I accept it is very difficult to deport someone who has been here for over 20 years illegally and has roots / family here. Im a reasonable person, there are cases where compassion should be shown as long as conditions are met
The fact it is so difficult to deport people after they have been here a long time is exactly why we must secure our borders and deport people here illegally as quickly as possible. Those who have been here for say 2 years illegally should be deported. But if someone has lived here for 40 years illegally and has children with British citizenship then they can remain.
There has been a gross failure of government past and present to defend our borders and stop such abuses causing problems.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You say that some irregular migrants should be deported since it is so difficult to deport people after they've been here long. This assumes there is some widespread need for deportation. I reject this. From what I have read I cannot see that deportation needs to be used much. Historically, it is a fairly recent practice in the form it assumes today. It is predicated on a false assumption, namely, that not deporting people leads to significantly higher levels of absconding.
I want illegal immigrants deported from this country who have no right to be here as quickly as possible so they dont end up with roots here and 20 years down the line have family that would be left if they got deported. its fairer
Illegals should be deported because they are not entitled to be in this country. As i said before we are a small island, we can not house the millions of people from the 3rd world who would try to come here if we openly allowed it
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
They may have no legal right to be here but they often have a moral right to be here, that is, going back to the country they came from might cause great misery and harm. Yes, we can't house the millions of people you talk of, but there is no evidence to suggest they would come if we opened our borders, in fact they evidence suggests that countries with weaker borders tend to have immigrants who spend little time in the country they emigrated to.
i said before i support the right of people who claim asylum for legit reasons to stay here. Those that come here on work permits may have harder lives back home but we have no moral duty to accept them into Great Britain.
The US would be a good example, a very weak border has led to a huge illegal immigration problem there with over 10 million illegals making deportations impossible. If the whole of Europe restricted migrant numbers but the UK offered to accept everyone, millions would come
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yes you did, I never thought you didn't.
I disagree that those who come here on work permits shouldn't be allowed to become citizens since I think that it is exploitative to simply let people into the country on the grounds of work and then expel them when the time comes.
The US is a good example of why strong borders are bad. The Bush regime has spent millions on trying to keep out mexicans to little avail and much harm. Look up Wayne Cornelius on google, an academic who writes on this.
Lol the Bush admin may of spent billions but they still have a very weak border, and over 10 million already crossed illegally in the past few decades. Britain as an island could secure our borders far easier than the US who have a HUGE border with mexico.
On citizenship, its too easy to become a British citizen. People shouldnt be allowed to get a work permit or study permit then a few years later apply for citizenship giving them full rights to stay. I am glad its being strenghtend now
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
My example is a case of the hopelessness of trying to make strong borders- you merely prove my point. It would infringe on all sorts of civil liberties to achieve stronger borders, and already is. Think of electronic tagging and detention. That's a myth, it's actually very diff to become a british citizen, and involves tests which ask quite obscure cultural questions which I don't think I could answer. Why shouldn't I be purged of my citizenship since I probably wouldn't pass the test?
Over 150,000 people were granted British citizenship in 2007, thats alot of people and what we have to remember is once they are British citizens they may apply for other family members to join them here
Strong borders does not have to be a myth, wit more investment we could ensure less get past our border controls. It is not a violation of civil liberties to defend our borders from illegals
As for current British citizens, id like some form of test or requirment for them b4 getting all rights
When you watch this, you wonder; how can LibLab[and the rest of]Con refute this? This isn't just an MP saying these things, these are the anecdotes of nearly every person in the country and things like having an £80p/h interpreter in the back seat for driving tests are indefensible. It's a shame we don't have very many real conservatives (small 'c' intentionally) left to argue the case for people who aren't high on the crack cocaine of multiculturalism. Vote UKIP!
Riiye 7 months ago
interesting, there is no distinction made here between legal and illegal migration and also no mention about refugees and assylum seekers. it is simply unacceptable to mix these terms and create a confusion, it is counter-productive and misleading.it is up to the government to make sure that wages for foreign and domestic workers are of equal value as the UK has its obligations under the EU Directive on economic migration which stipulates equal treatment.
oriongirl84 9 months ago
See how empty the Commons is, they are not listening, also many amnesties have already been granted & solved nothing.
TimBrown59 1 year ago
mass immigration is one of the pillars of the communist manifesto, destroy national boundaries
optionsupdate 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well said Mr Davies!! Now do something about it!!
xMattsMusicx 1 year ago
well said Mr Davies!!! Jeremy Corbyn you are a twat.
theuk7yahoo 1 year ago
well said Mr Davies!!!
theuk7yahoo 1 year ago
@edwardtarr1 Yeah, like a toothache is good for my happiness.
4GooMan 1 year ago
Brave man ,hes standing up for BRITAIN and BRITISH PEOPLE ,that will never work .Yea i see a labour muppets got up and took the piss ,we all know the mess they have made, hang your head in shame labour muppets
TheWelshie1 1 year ago
@TheWelshie1 Shocking is his mention that polygamy is now legal. Scandalous is how they are able to breed like flies and do so while sucking on the Public Teat. Absurd is that Brits are therefore paying for their own demise.
MrStrictlyStock 1 year ago
@MrStrictlyStock ...........Polygamy is not legal.....it is merely ignored because it involves muslims and therefore their 'cultural sensitivities' need to be respected..ie, ignore them breaking the law.
Deus2Vexillum 1 year ago
@Deus2Vexillum This "cultural sensitivity" absurdity appears to be a very contagious plague in European countries and those countries of European stock.
At times, I give pause to the idea that Vladimir Putin has the correct formula to deal with the troublemakers. Serbia certainly did, but NATO intervened on the wrong side.
MrStrictlyStock 1 year ago
@TheWelshie1 ..very true.....a good hard kick in the balls for all the liberal bastards who have tried to ruin our country.
Deus2Vexillum 1 year ago
@Deus2Vexillum It appears they'll literally need at least that to cease and desist.
On second thought, libtardsnever were very good at cause and
4GooMan 1 year ago
We need more MP's like this intelligent man , sadly, the government and opposition seem to be like 'puppets' !!
gazzymodo 1 year ago
A Brave man alone. amongst our tratorus political cowards giving away our country. how the truth hurts the liars......
BREDATOR1 1 year ago 2
Germanic Britain will die. The indigenous population does not have the will to live.
tbg0o 2 years ago
VOTE BNP
sameoldfitup2008 2 years ago 2
The reference to 'xenphobic rant' is a tactic often employed. Instead of dealing with the issues the speaker raises, the critic simply resorts to personal attacks.
WSCLATER 2 years ago
I'm not a conservative or labour voter but i do share the views of the conservative speaker here, very strict controls on immigration need to be enforced or it needs halting altogether.
Also, as he said at the beginning, the pathetic labour's PC boy was quick to call him xenophobic for opposing mass immigration, i completely oppose mass immigration because i wish to preserve the British people's majority status and culture, this however does NOT make me racist or xenophobic.
JackFtheman 3 years ago 7
the anglo-saxon has become emasculated by multinational forces
aswightman 3 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
TheGreenmansWife 3 years ago
The points system we have introduced makes it just as hard to come to Britain from Russia as it would Asia or Africa
The question is where do we draw the line. Im sure you can understand it is impossible for Britain to accept 100 million immigrants in a short period of time considering our population is only 60 million and are island is small. If its not racist to not allow that, how can it be racist to restrict a lower number, its the same thing
Britain has a right to protect its borders
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
What i can not except is 100,000+ work permits being issued to non EEA citizens each year when we have close to 1 million people claiming unemployment benefits. That is simply crazy and has to be stopped.
I do not support the BNP, i despise their racist views but i agree with them that immigration has been totally out of control. We can not change the past, but we have the power to control the future, which means tough immigration laws are needed in this country.
The government partly agrees
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why shouldn't jobs be given to the best candidates, who may live in the EEA? That really is actually a miniscule figure in comparision to the UK population, furthermore, many of these migrants do jobs the unemployed would not want to do because of low pay, conditions, etc. Even if that weren't true, we have to have evidence those unemployed are trying to get the jobs immigrants are getting and routinely losing. The evidence for that, my friend, is actually rather sparse.
bernardwilliams 3 years ago
Im a supporter of the European Union so i also support the right of EEA citizens to live / work in this country. However transitional controls to prevent a flood of people after new countries joined WERE needed. The government grossly underestimated the numbers they expected to come from places like Poland, and this has been damaging.
As we have plenty of workers coming from the EEA, i do not see why we need over 100,000 non EEA citizens getting work permits when we have 2 unemployed
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
I fully support protecting asylum seekers and allowing them here. i support allowing family to come and live here, i support EEA citizens rights to live / work here (although new EU countries should of faced transitional controls, like Germany and France did for the same countries)
I support letting people come here to study and allowing them to work some of that time. But too many abuse the rights of students. They come stay here and sometimes dont even study, which is unacceptable.
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Evidence? Look, we can have a serious discussion if we agree on evidence. If you give me yr email then I can cite you evidence where needed. Then a more profitable discussion will ensue.
bernardwilliams 3 years ago
You can send me the links via private message if you want. I would like to see the evidence showing unlimited immigration will have no negative impact on the host nation.
There is clear evidence that large levels of immigration has a huge impact on local areas and is damaging.
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I dispute it is 'unlimited immigration'. I can only give you evidence that 'unlimited immigration' (as you use it) has no negative impact on the host nation if you define what you mean by the phrase. We can't see that it is unlimited until we have the facts about immigration entry and leave, the unlimited is a moral judgment you make about the facts. I have to enquire into the bases of that before assenting to it as U immigration.
bernardwilliams 3 years ago
The distribution of immigrants should remain a national issue, it is for a country to define who may enter/live/work within its borders
I accept immigrants from outside the EEA have faced limited controls on migration (although these are far too relaxed and therefor viewed by many as "uncontrolled" The government has recently got tougher with its new points system, but it has a long way to go before we have reasonable controlled immigration
workers from new EEA countries were uncontrolled
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That is unworkable, especially if you accept that immigration numbers are an issue (I don't), but even from the standpoint of justice; no one country should have to integrate a significantly larger number of immigrants than another when we are considering a political community, such as the EU. That would compromise the ideals on which the EU is based. Non EEA citizens find it almost impossible to get in.That amounts to a racist policy, I believe. I'll supply citation if necessary
bernardwilliams 3 years ago
Each country should decide how many immigrants from outside the EU they wish to take in, even with the EU proposed immigration policy which we will opt out of they can still set limits.
I am sorry but it is not racist to limit the numbers of workers we let in from outside the EEA. People labelling immigration control as racist is one of the main reasons we are in the mess we are in. For too long government has been afraid to act for fear of being tagged racist. Now we have a crisis, they can
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't think it is the state's right to limit immigration unless we have good reason to believe there will be a population crisis which causes starvation and other problems. Since we don't have such a reason we shouldn't limit immigration. It's an infringement of liberty- the liberty of those who want to come here. Infringments of liberty require the onus of proof. It is
indirectly racist, since it means that, being a black person, it is likely you won't be able to emigrate to this country.
bernardwilliams 3 years ago
I am sorry but we have NO obligation to accept anyone and everyone from the rest of the world into this country, (except legit asylum seekers) The majority of people who pay taxes to build the country we have today and all its services, do not support mass immigration, they want tough limits.
It is going to be just as hard for a white person in Russia as it will be for a black person in Africa, or a hispanic in South America. That is not racism. controlled immigration is a right of ALL states
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago 2
Good video, the debate this year on immigration was very interesting also. There was actually a consensus by all 3 major parties (including the lib dem spokesman) that mass uncontrolled immigration was a bad thing. Which is huge progress from a few years ago
This guy and there are plenty of other Mps who have been moaning about mass immigration goes to show its not only the BNP that are against such policies.
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There's no reason to believe mass and uncontrolled immigration is bad. The Lords report which argue that it wasn't economically beneficial has lots of flaws, one of which is the simplistic way in which it measured that migrants might be beneficial. Better to see the recent IPPR report as a corrective. Furthermore, the Lord's report says nothing about the long term effect of immigration, which most economists believe is economically beneficial. Immigration should rarely be restricted.
bernardwilliams 3 years ago
Im sorry but there are many reasons why immigration must be limited and controlled.
1) Security, with the rise of terrorism we must ensure we dont allow those who would do us harm the right to live and work here.
2) Space, we have a small island. This is not the USA where they have huge land available, We are limited in space
3) our public services have limits, they are over stretched as it is meeting current demand.
4) Immigration does increase unemployment of British workers which costs
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
5) Uncontrolled immigration makes it impossible for integration into society, which leads to a rise in tensions between communities and ends up with more people supporting parties like the BNP.
6) There are billions of people in the world, im sorry but we can not let them all in. Skilled workers from those places coming here usually HURTS the country of origin because of the skills drain.
I care about people, but more can be helped at their country of origin than allowing a few to come here
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
1.I don't know what you mean by 'uncontrolled immigration', certainly, any perceived 'uncontrolled' features of our immigration policy have been due to chronic underfunding of local authorities and bad planning. That is to say, the uncontrolled effect is not essential to large-scale immigration, it is contingent.
2. There is no evidence to say they'd all come here. In any case, we ought to have a Europe wide agreement on the distribution of immigrants, which the UK has shunned.
bernardwilliams 3 years ago
1) uncontrolled immigration has been allowing the levels of migrant workers coming to this country to radically increase over the past decade. Uncontrolled immigration was allowing all new EU countries workers to come to Britain to work straight away, where as most EU countries such as france and Germany adopted transitional controls on them. workers from Poland dont have unlimited access to germany till 2011
2) Giving control of our borders to the EU is totally unacceptable and a bad idea
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You still haven't defined 'Uncontrolled immigration', we have very strict immigration control for non-EU residents, and quite unjustified restriction on those from Romania and Bulg. It has increased to the complement of us all. Thing of cleaners, cultural diversity, labour mobility, cheap food, students (often more intelligent). I wasn't suggesting the EU control our borders, I was suggesting we assent to a Europe wide agreement on the distribution of immigrants according to local needs.
bernardwilliams 3 years ago
Uncontrolled immigration refers to high levels of migrants given the right to come to this country from outside the EEA over the past decade and the failure to impose limits on new EEA citizens like we have done for Romania and Bulgaria
Allowing unlimited numbers of Polish workers to come here is uncontrolled immigration, the transition limits Romania / Bulgaria face were the right thing to do and has been done by some of our European friends for all other eastern / central european countries
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm determined we could have a very fruitful discussion if we agreed on the facts. To that end I shall post you non-moralised facts about immigration, together with citation, for any claim you want me to back up. I believe it was unfair to restrict Romanian and Bulgarian citizens in this way, it was the grossest pandering to tabloid hysteria. There is no reason to believe they would have caused problems if the government hadn't prepared. They didn't cause the problems, it is the government.
bernardwilliams 3 years ago
i know it may seem unfair as we allowed unlimited numbers to come from Poland and the other new EU states which joined in 2004. However we did that because the British government grossly underestimated the numbers they thought would come here. They were right to impose limits on Romania and Bulgaria
Lets not forget the EU includes the rights for transitional controls to prevent mass immigration problems. France, Germany and other European countries imposed it on ALL the new countries
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Give me evidence the UK wouldn't have been able to cope with better preparation.
bernardwilliams 3 years ago
I agree the government did not prepare for the levels of immigration we have had, and if they had funded it then there would be less of a problem.
But our governemnt did not have to accept those people in the first place so the investment wouldnt of been needed. Small levels of immigration can be intergrated, but mass immigration of 100,000s in such a short period of time is just impossible to prepare for
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
1. Of the Amnesty's done in countries such as Spain and the US there is no evidence that they act as a pull factor to this country.
2. Large scale immigration in the UK hasn't tended to work because the government repeatedly underfunds integration programmes
3. Suppose that immigration weren't economically beneficial (I dispute this). That wouldn't necessarily mean it should be restricted. Immigrants benefit the country in other ways.
bernardwilliams 3 years ago
Amnesty is totally the wrong policy to adopt, even many liberals who support mass immigration would tell you that. It is totally wrong to allow people to come to this country illegally and then let them stay here whilst telling others who play by the rules they can not come.
I totally agree problems with immigration in the past have been because of a failure in our government to help immigration, but large scale immigration makes it impossible.
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I disagree. People who live in this country illegally aren't criminals. They haven't committed a criminal offence. They are outside of the law, which makes there position extremely vulnerable. Firstly, they find it hard to survive since they're not allowed to work and so get exploited by people illegally. Secondly, if they're seriously injured then they can't receive treatment, unless it's emergency. Thirdly, their children receive very high rates of malnourishment and education, etc.
bernardwilliams 3 years ago
Im sorry but it is a crime to enter this country without the correct documentation or legal right. It is a crime to remain in this country after a visit visa or work permit expires. It is a crime to hire an illegal or to assist one get into this country. The idea that illegal immigrants are not criminals is a joke. I understand most of them are good people simply wanting a better life but rules are rules.
Those who break the rules must be deported or detained at Her Majestys pleasure.
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It may be a crime in the sense of 'breaking the law' but countries don't actually treat illegal immigrants as criminals;compare the procedural protections afforded irregular migrants when they are accused of some criminal offense and the procedural protections provided them with respect to
immigration matters. And, since the term 'criminal' is in large part an expression of how a legal system perceives some behaviour, illegals aren't criminals.
bernardwilliams 3 years ago
Im sorry but to be in this country illegally is to break this countries laws and those caught will be arrested under the immigration act and deported if possible.
You may like to call them "irregular migrants" but they are illegal criminals. You should be glad we dont class them like the Americans do as "Illegal aliens"
We have very little choice on what to do with these people. First we try to stop them entering in the first place, but if they are here we either deport or have to detain
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sometimes breaking the law is the right thing to do, with the ban on interracial marriages; going back to a country of origin might be an unfair expectation, especially considered the UK is so strict. Calling them criminals obfuscates the fact that most of them have committed no serious breach of law. Hence they shouldn't be arrested but encouraged to leave, if even that. You might call civil rights advocates criminals, personally i'd call that a category mistake.
bernardwilliams 3 years ago
If they fear for their life if deported then the British government has an obligation to consider their claim to asylum. However if there human rights will not be infringed they must be removed. You say Britain is strict, but we actually have alot of problems deporting to many countries because we fear for the human rights of those going back to places such as Iran
Again, illegal immigrants will be arrested under the immigration act, this means they are criminals. Right or wrong, its a crime
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Human rights are only the starting point. For example, considerations of how to achieve political equality aren't wholly circumscribed by human rights. Immigration helps to achieve equality by effectively redistributing wealth across borders (immigrants give a lot back financially to their countries), therefore, to achieve political equality, immigration is actually generally a good thing over and above the fact that immigrants may be able to secure human rights.
bernardwilliams 3 years ago
Indeed many immigrants do spread the wealth back to the home land, but that is another reason why mass immigration isnt economically a good thing for Britain. Instead of wages going to people who will spend all their money in the UK economy it is sent elsewhere.
Limited immigration is a good thing. Mass immigration of millions of people which we have seen over the past 50 years is more problematic
Again if peoples human rights are at risk they can claim asylum, but we can not help everyone
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The argument we should limit immigration because it doesn't benefit the economy I showed to be invalid. So you think that redistribution of wealth in the form of immigrants giving money back to their home country is a reason why we should limit immigration. Without the invalid economy argument there seems no sense to this, since it wouldn't be based on the idea that immigrants don't benefit us economically.
bernardwilliams 3 years ago
Im sorry but the economic argument is clear. We have 1 million unemployed people claiming benefits. Now i understand there are some jobs that British people do not want to do, but that is part of the problem we have with todays society. We can not simply import poor people to do dirty jobs, with reforms to the welfare state now being introduced and future changes, there will be a need for jobs by those unemployed British citizens.
The costs to services because of immigrant numbers is also clear
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
Limited immigration does benefit the country economically, mass immigration like we have seen in the past 10 years however does not. There has been a huge drain on services and jobs because of labours failure to control our borders.
I am strongly opposed to the BNP, but on immigration all major parties now see the problems which have been caused by it.
If i am honest, economically we are worse off overall after 50 years of immigration, but we are a more tolerant and there for better society
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I agree, we should allow the people who play by the rules to get in, but that isn't incompatible with providing for the basic living standards of a vulnerable group. Another point to make is that many irregular migrants have been here years and years. It's inhumane simply to rip up their roots of many years here and send them back. Also, it's more cost-efficient to have an amnesty. So what if it doesn't benefit the country, why is that a reason for restricting immigration?
bernardwilliams 3 years ago
Asylum seekers who make it to this country must be protected under the United Nations convention for refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights. I have no problem with all of those legitimate claims to be respected. Theres only about 30,000 a year of them anyway
I accept it is very difficult to deport someone who has been here for over 20 years illegally and has roots / family here. Im a reasonable person, there are cases where compassion should be shown as long as conditions are met
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
The fact it is so difficult to deport people after they have been here a long time is exactly why we must secure our borders and deport people here illegally as quickly as possible. Those who have been here for say 2 years illegally should be deported. But if someone has lived here for 40 years illegally and has children with British citizenship then they can remain.
There has been a gross failure of government past and present to defend our borders and stop such abuses causing problems.
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You say that some irregular migrants should be deported since it is so difficult to deport people after they've been here long. This assumes there is some widespread need for deportation. I reject this. From what I have read I cannot see that deportation needs to be used much. Historically, it is a fairly recent practice in the form it assumes today. It is predicated on a false assumption, namely, that not deporting people leads to significantly higher levels of absconding.
bernardwilliams 3 years ago
I want illegal immigrants deported from this country who have no right to be here as quickly as possible so they dont end up with roots here and 20 years down the line have family that would be left if they got deported. its fairer
Illegals should be deported because they are not entitled to be in this country. As i said before we are a small island, we can not house the millions of people from the 3rd world who would try to come here if we openly allowed it
Deportation is the only option
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
They may have no legal right to be here but they often have a moral right to be here, that is, going back to the country they came from might cause great misery and harm. Yes, we can't house the millions of people you talk of, but there is no evidence to suggest they would come if we opened our borders, in fact they evidence suggests that countries with weaker borders tend to have immigrants who spend little time in the country they emigrated to.
bernardwilliams 3 years ago
i said before i support the right of people who claim asylum for legit reasons to stay here. Those that come here on work permits may have harder lives back home but we have no moral duty to accept them into Great Britain.
The US would be a good example, a very weak border has led to a huge illegal immigration problem there with over 10 million illegals making deportations impossible. If the whole of Europe restricted migrant numbers but the UK offered to accept everyone, millions would come
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes you did, I never thought you didn't.
I disagree that those who come here on work permits shouldn't be allowed to become citizens since I think that it is exploitative to simply let people into the country on the grounds of work and then expel them when the time comes.
The US is a good example of why strong borders are bad. The Bush regime has spent millions on trying to keep out mexicans to little avail and much harm. Look up Wayne Cornelius on google, an academic who writes on this.
bernardwilliams 3 years ago
Lol the Bush admin may of spent billions but they still have a very weak border, and over 10 million already crossed illegally in the past few decades. Britain as an island could secure our borders far easier than the US who have a HUGE border with mexico.
On citizenship, its too easy to become a British citizen. People shouldnt be allowed to get a work permit or study permit then a few years later apply for citizenship giving them full rights to stay. I am glad its being strenghtend now
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
My example is a case of the hopelessness of trying to make strong borders- you merely prove my point. It would infringe on all sorts of civil liberties to achieve stronger borders, and already is. Think of electronic tagging and detention. That's a myth, it's actually very diff to become a british citizen, and involves tests which ask quite obscure cultural questions which I don't think I could answer. Why shouldn't I be purged of my citizenship since I probably wouldn't pass the test?
bernardwilliams 3 years ago
Over 150,000 people were granted British citizenship in 2007, thats alot of people and what we have to remember is once they are British citizens they may apply for other family members to join them here
Strong borders does not have to be a myth, wit more investment we could ensure less get past our border controls. It is not a violation of civil liberties to defend our borders from illegals
As for current British citizens, id like some form of test or requirment for them b4 getting all rights
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago