If people are dying it's a necessary evil, whether you think it's necessary or not.
How is it "necessary"? It's not necessary at all. People choose to take the risk; they don't actually
need to.
You will never stop people travelling to other countries to better their lives much as you wish they won't. Therefore, any policy has to be carefully thought out to take this into account.
I don't wish to stop people from travelling to other countries to better their lives. I'm all for it! I just think there should be limits on the number of people who enter any given country. Surely that makes sense?
That's like saying that it's not necessary for the citizens of a corrupt dictatorship to die trying to better their lives by starting a civil war. In your view they should choose not to fight, but live in extreme poverty, and stay alive. Humans are more proud than that.
No, it's not like that at all. You're comparing apples with oranges.
Why don't we introduce a police state with the death penalty for all crimes. Therefore if anyone is killed for dropping litter we can explain that they knew the risk and it's their fault, not the dreadful law, that they're dying. Ridiculous.
The punisment would be ridiculous, since it's disproportionate to the crime. But that's not the issue. The issue is that people are responsible for their own actions. Why can't you grasp that?
If a paedophile is imprisoned after raping a child, whose fault is it that he's ended up in prison?
So you support the punishments given out in Saudi Arabia that have caused a furore on the forum recently? I know I don't whether it's their law or not.
No, I don't support them. But that's irrelevant.
Simple as that eh. Makes you wonder why they haven't done it already. And after those points are closed the problem will go away? As it has with guns, drugs, counterfeits, illegal money, etc, etc. It's unworkable, impossible and most people would agree. You could build a wall along the entire coastline and people would still get in. Officials bribed, documents forged, etc. And then we'd almost be living in a police state of course.
Absolute nonsense. I am not saying the problem would go away; but it would certainly be reduced. It's not unworkable or impossible; it's already done by other countries. You don't seem to have the remotest clue about how immigration control operates in the real world. You seem to inhabit some sort of parallel universe in which every social ill can be resolved by legalising the cause.
That isn't a controlled immigration policy like you stand behind. If your Polish you are automatically entitled to enter and work in the UK. There is nothing the UK Government can do to stop you. All you have to do is register and your in. And that's exactly what my policy is!! Except for the whole world. You seem to think uncontrolled immigration is letting everyone in with no checks at all and it isn't. Controlled immigration seeks to control the numbers of the immigrants not simply a registration system.
Can you show me three examples of nations with totally uncontrolled immigration? Can you demonstrate that these nations have prospered as a result?
If they don't get in easily (which I don't agree with anyway) then they definitely won't under my system either where all the focus is on them.
So you claim that your system would totally eliminate immigrants with criminal records? You can guarantee this?
Figures are irrelevant for this argument really. If anything, you've shown that an open border doesn't result in millions migrating. The Polish have an open border with the UK, if they want in to work they have a right in law to come here. Yet only 500,000 came? Of course new houses weren't built for the Polish, the point is that more houses are built when the population increases because of simple supply and demand. There is not a fixed number of houses to go around.
No, 500,000 did not come; it was even fewer. But this does not prove that small numbers would come if the policy was extended to the rest of the world. It merely proves that the Poles did not come in larger numbers. That is all it proves.
That is not controlled immigration for our purposes. It's a form of control but not to the extent that deserves the title controlled immigration. Again, as I've said MigrationWatch support controlled immigration. If we introduced a Worker Registration Scheme for the whole world you think they would support it? No they wouldn't. They seek to control the numbers.
Every Pole capable of work and their family are allowed into the UK if they register. Which of the Polish would be rejected in your view?
That depends on the needs of the nation. Workers required by the UK's job market should be given priority; workers not required should be given lower priority, or excluded altogether unless they can enter by different means (such as family reunion or sponsorship by a prospective employer).
How do you know the number of illegal immigrants have dropped? Most critics of the UK government argue that they have no idea how many illegal are here. I'd love to know how Australia have managed to do it.
It's actually very simple, because the mechanics are completely different to those which exist here in the UK. Over here, people can be smuggled in via the Chunnel; but there is no such option for illegals attempting to enter Australia.
The vast majority of illegal immigrants arrive on boats from Indonesia, having paid large sums of money to people-smugglers for the purpose. The Australia coastguard patrols our northern border, and boats attempting illegal entry are easily identified. For this reason, it is not difficult to keep track of the numbers - and those numbers have definitely been falling:
There has been a significant reduction in the number of maritime people smuggling ventures to Australia since late 2001.
* Six vessels carrying 1212 illegal immigrants reached Australia during 2001-02
* There were no boat arrivals during 2002-03
* In 2003-04, 53 people arrived illegally on one vessel, and another 29 people arrived at offshore excised places, and
* There were no boat arrivals during 2004-05.
The low rate of boat arrivals confirms the effectiveness of efforts to target people smugglers engaged in this activity.
One vessel carrying 43 first flight Asylum seekers reached Australia in early 2006. This venture was not the result of activities by maritime people smuggling organisers.
Source.
Well according to you it wouldn't be inhumane because those dying on route thanks to the immigration policy had the chance to stay at home and live.
Exactly. The government is not responsible for the actions of people outside the country. Personal responsibility has to begin somewhere!
If I rob a bank and get shot by a security in the process, can I blame the government because it has ruled that robbing banks is illegal?
John Howard's policy was to swap immigrants landing on Australian shores with detainees in Guantanamo Bay. Maybe if he had more time he'd have implemented it.
Well he didn't, so it's a moot point.
And you think the Government can adequately decide exactly what skills are necessary in the whole of Australia at any one time? Fine if you trust Australia's Gov't but I would trust the UK Gov't to do it properly. Industry and business in the UK is so complex and diverse it's the market and the market alone that can dictate need for skills imo.
Yes, the government can adequately decide what skills are necessary because it is advised by the relevant industries! Once again you appear to be completely clueless about the mechanics of immigration control. You don't even understand how the labour market is regulated. It staggers me that you are trying to debate this issue without a proper grasp of the facts.
Plus, with a points system how will unskilled immigrants get in? Something rich western countries are in short supply of.
Unskilled immigrants enter Australia in a variety of ways: (a) the family reunion scheme; (b) the humanitarian programme, and (c) spouse visas. Unskilled workers are not
prohibited from entering Australia; it's just not as easy for them as it is for skilled workers.
If it was so successful why introduce a points system that has the stated aim of reducing the numbers? Why mess with a working system?
Because it no longer met Australia's requirements. Having taken in skilled and unskilled workers for nearly 200 years, Australia finally reached the point at which we had more unskilled workers than we needed, and not enough skilled workers to fill the available places. So a new policy was created to streamline the process, giving priority to skilled workers. Unskilled work is already covered by Australia's own unskilled workers; we don't actually need any more from overseas.
Of course it's irrelevant. Some drugs are legal. What impact does that have on the illegal drugs trade? Nothing. There are no social benefits to hard drugs like those but that doesn't matter.
http://www.legalisedrugs.co.uk/
If you want to know more, but that's a different argument. Although the principles broadly apply to immigration as well.
"It doesn't matter"? Good grief, man! My point about those drugs is that they result in
massive social problems because their effects upon the human body are
massively destructive. The site you've linked to casually argues that addiction could be easily dealt with by the existing healthcare system, subsidised by taxation on drugs. This completely ignores the fact that not everyone can successfully kick their addiction, not everyone
wants to kick their addiction, addiction programmes are notoriously expensive and resource-hungry, and there will always be people who commit crimes to fund their addiction because they've simply run out of cash.
"Legalise all drugs"? Yeah, right. It's a nonsensical pipe dream.
The restriction can only last until 2011 iirc and there was no restriction for the Polish. Do you know what the terms of the WRS are? And once you've been here for 12 months you don't need to register and you can stay in the UK for life. Almost the entire population of Poland could enter the UK through that scheme and there would be no legal way of stopping it. That is not controlled immigration in the controlled v open border debate.
But the restrictions for Bulgaria and Romania
do constitute controlled immigration. So the current system is not entirely uncontrolled.
You say here that "once you've been here for 12 months you don't need to register and you can stay in the UK for life"; but later in this post you claim it is 6 years. Which is it? 6 years or 12 months?
We have enough doctors:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ain.html?in_article_id=482992&in_page_id=1774
That said, since I'm for open borders I support skilled and unskilled immigration. It's just that people have a vendetta against the unskilled when they are most useful in a rich country and won't threaten their jobs.
OK, we have enough doctors
at the moment. But the UK still needs skilled workers, and more of them.
Why can't we base it on that? The polish are an entire nation. How much bigger can we get the control group? We have evidence that when an entire nation is allowed access to the UK most choose not to come and those that do come choose not to live here permanently.
You can't base it on one country because not all countries are the same. That's like Neville Chamberlain saying "Germany would never attack us. Just look at Tanzania; they've never attacked us, so why would Germany do it?" (I am not claiming that he actually said this, by the way).
And the evidence that you have to suggest that if we opened our borders to other countries they would flock here and stay for life is?
I have some evidence, you have none. Unless you can provide some that isn't anecdotal.
Are you mad? Just look at all the illegal immigrants trying to get in! Under your proposal, they would
all be permitted to enter. And once that happens, even more would come because the government would have no right to prevent them. In 2005, the Home Office estimated that the UK currently has 570,000 illegal immigrants (see
here). It is now believed that the number is even higher.
A country with strict immigration controls would limit the number of immigrants entering. Just like every country in the world right now. There is always a chance you won't get back in. And that completely ignores the illegal immigrants which you think you can abolish (but can't). So once illegal immigrants get in, which they will, they can never leave. Under my system they can.
I am beginning to think that you just don't understand how controlled immigration works. You seem to believe that it's entirely arbitrary, restricting people willy-nilly and refusing to let in people who have been permitted to enter previously. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you are a skilled worker and your skills are in demand, you will always be allowed in. If you have been allowed in on previous occasions, your chances of getting in again are even higher. This is part of Australia's policy. And it works. It's been repeatedly vindicated, year after year.
In any case, once you had entered a country on a skilled visa, why would you leave? Most Brits who emigrate to Australia on skilled visas, stay for long enough to qualify for citizenship before deciding whether or not they want to go home. This allows them to return as many times as they like after leaving the country. Of course, most actually prefer to stay.
What's wrong with that? Although they would have to survive with no benefits for up to 6 years. How do propose they will manage do that? They would have to work and I have no problem with workers getting citizenship. And once you've been working for 6 years why would you quit and live a life on benefits?
Hang on, you previously said "once you've been here for 12 months you don't need to register and you can stay in the UK for life." Now you're claiming that it's 6 years. Which number are you going to stick with?
Anyway, I didn't even mention unemployment benefits; I said "access to healthcare." Here's the exact paragraph:
OK, so let's assume that we introduce your system. Within months, several million East Europeans have entered the UK. Some of them have just enough money to support themselves for a month or two. Most of them do not have enough money to support themselves for more than a few days. A smaller proportion have no money at all. They all want work, they all want somewhere to live, and they all want access to healthcare. 5% are criminals whose personal data was (a) never passed on by their home country, or (b) passed on but subsequently misplaced or overlooked by the Home Office.
Success story, or potential disaster? You tell me.
This question has not been adequately addressed. The UK currently does not have an entirely uncontrolled immigration system; it has a system under which certain European states have unrestricted access to the UK, while most do not. Countries outside Europe do not have unrestricted access to the UK.
Under your proposal, all of these restrictions would be lifted. There would be no limit to the number of Chinese, African, Australian, American, Chilean, Indian immigrants - to name just a few countries. You claim that this would not result in an unmanageable number of immigrants. I say that this is pure fantasy. As proof, I direct your attention to the current number of illegal immigrants estimated to be residing in Britain, which nearly matches the number of
legal immigrants. And there would be many more if the doors were open because they would not have to enter via dangerous, illegal means.
Who cares. What's to stop people lying? You could say you're here on holiday and then never leave. It's worthless asking your purpose, whether you got asked or not.
You can try doing that, but it's not a good idea since (a) you are required to provide at least one contact address, (b) your entry visa must be consistent with your stated purpose, and (c) if you tried to stay forever, you would be discovered at some stage unless you were prepared to remain in the "black market" of unskilled labour (which for most people would be intolerable).
Again, in case you aren't aware of the position I've previously stated clearly. I support open door through the front door where everyone must prove their identity. Anyone who goes through the back door would be deported instantly and I fail to see why anyone other than criminals would use the back door.
I thought you said the UK's position with EU migrants was controlled? If it's controlled how do we not know how many from the EU are here? It would be infinitely better under my system since you would have no reason not to register and enter through the front door and counted out the front door when you left.
It
is controlled; Bulgaria and Romania are restricted, remember? The doors are only open to countries with access to the Workers' Registration Scheme. All other countries have to follow the usual route. That's controlled immigration. If you had an
uncontrolled system, everyone would be allowed in whether they were EU members or not.
The government currently does not know how many
illegal immigrants are here from the EU (though some estimates exist). That's the point I was making.
I've spent hours reading it and haven't been convinced by their arguments.
Can you give examples?
And you either don't support them or don't know what they stand for because their definition of controlled immigration is not asking the entrants to register. It's actively preventing law abiding people from entering.
I don't support all of their views, no. But I see no reason why law abiding people should not be permitted to enter a country if it has no use for them. No country has an obligation to let
everyone in. And nobody has an inherent
right to enter any country that they choose.
Controlled immigration works. It's the best way to meet the needs of an ever-changing labour market.
Yet the points system is the most restrictive policy ever enacted in Australia. Why do it? What's gone wrong to prompt the policy?
Nothing's "gone wrong"
per se. We simply have more unskilled workers than we currently require, and not enough skilled workers. That is why the points system was introduced: to encourage skilled workers and restrict unskilled workers, which are not needed (since we already have enough unskilled workers in the country).
This system has worked perfectly for the 20 years which have passed since its introduction, and will continue to meet our needs for the foreseeable future.
Labour has now copied our system because it recognises that Britain's previous model was flawed and ultimately unworkable.
