Which Dress For My Christmas Party?
Shopping & Style4 mins ago
Net Migration Falls By Over 100,000
39 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kromovaracun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Overcrowding in cities is as much a question of urban management as it is migration. Only about 8% of UK land is settled and of that about 2% is buildings. There is nothing stopping cities from absorbing migrants if they are managed and designed properly. Ours are mostly not.
The main reason for this is a) large landowners - about 6,000 families (
The main reason for this is a) large landowners - about 6,000 families (
Has anyone studied how many of these Europeans fleeing the UK have actually done no such thing. In the same year up until the end of June 145,000 EU citizens made applications for British passports and UK citizenship. Of course this then takes them off the "immigrant" list and allows someone to make a claim that EU immigrants are down ie. fleeing the racist UK. Immigration could actually be up, but being hidden in false statistical interpretation, either deliberately or mistakenly.
I don't think the UK can really be described as "full". Taking the most obvious statistic, population density, shows that the UK is something like the 40th country in the world by population density (as of 2010). Obviously while that's partly because we are behind countries such as Bangladesh, or various tiny places that skew the statistics rather, but we're also behind Japan and South Korea, that are of a similar size to us, and can fit in half as many people again per unit area without exactly suffering that much.
This idea that the UK is "full" right now is a myth, and one that tends to be repeated at pretty much any time despite the population increasing anyway. Obviously there's an upper limit but we are nowhere near it yet.
I'm not saying that we should actively seek to discover what the upper limit is, mind. But there's not really any justification to talk of the UK as "full".
This idea that the UK is "full" right now is a myth, and one that tends to be repeated at pretty much any time despite the population increasing anyway. Obviously there's an upper limit but we are nowhere near it yet.
I'm not saying that we should actively seek to discover what the upper limit is, mind. But there's not really any justification to talk of the UK as "full".
>>>We are all human. We all live on this earth. We constructed boundaries, unrightly so if you ask me. If such boundaries existed before our evolution we would all still be stood in Africa! Who are we to decide who 'comes in and out' of a country in a world that belongs to all of us?
I am sorry but that is liberal waffle.
The house you live in has boundries, when you go out you shut the doors and windows to stop people coming in.
Or maybe you leave the front door open to let anyone who happens to be passing a way in to your house so they can live their with you?
But of course you don't
I assume you pay the bills on your house. Suppose these "new" people who come in to your house refuse to pay for anything, would you be happy to support them while they make no contribution?
No of course you wouldn't.
As an example this country provides a free health service. It has been paid for by all of us, and our parents, and their parents.
If someone comes here (legal or illegal) and gets treatment on the NHS they are getting something for free that they did not contribute to.
There are cases of many people coming here JUST for the treatment.
When I lived near Heathrow airport about 30 years ago many Asian women flew in to Heathrow from Pakistan and India and went straight to the nearest hospital to have their baby.
I remember one case a few years ago where an Egyptian man came here and had £90,000 worth of heart treatment and then went back to Egypt and refused to pay anything towards it.
Another woman came from Nigeria to have a baby (many women come to the UK from all over the world to have their children here). This Nigerian women had a number of babies (3 or 4 I think) and had complications and it has cost the NHS £500,000 so far to treat her and her babies.
The problem is that these people are causing those of us who have lived her all their lives (and paid in the the NHS) to wait longer and longer for treatment, and are pushing up the cost of the NHS.
You have to remember the UK is a BUSINESS, competing against every other country in the world who are also businesses.
Our money does not grow on trees, it has to be earned by people making things and paying taxes.
As a country we are already about 1.5 TRILLION pounds in debt, we can no longer be responsible for every other person in the world.
Our easy going nature is being abused by both legal and illegal immigrants and many people in this country are getting fed up with it.
You only have to read a newspaper or watch the TV or read the internet news to see how many crimes are committed by "immigrants" (or children of immigrants).
Look at the dozens and dozens of Asian men who have been locked up in this country for abusing and having sex with young white girls after plying them with drink and drugs.
But maybe you are happy with that sort of thing, after all your liberal attitude seems content to let anyone and everyone come here.
I am sorry but that is liberal waffle.
The house you live in has boundries, when you go out you shut the doors and windows to stop people coming in.
Or maybe you leave the front door open to let anyone who happens to be passing a way in to your house so they can live their with you?
But of course you don't
I assume you pay the bills on your house. Suppose these "new" people who come in to your house refuse to pay for anything, would you be happy to support them while they make no contribution?
No of course you wouldn't.
As an example this country provides a free health service. It has been paid for by all of us, and our parents, and their parents.
If someone comes here (legal or illegal) and gets treatment on the NHS they are getting something for free that they did not contribute to.
There are cases of many people coming here JUST for the treatment.
When I lived near Heathrow airport about 30 years ago many Asian women flew in to Heathrow from Pakistan and India and went straight to the nearest hospital to have their baby.
I remember one case a few years ago where an Egyptian man came here and had £90,000 worth of heart treatment and then went back to Egypt and refused to pay anything towards it.
Another woman came from Nigeria to have a baby (many women come to the UK from all over the world to have their children here). This Nigerian women had a number of babies (3 or 4 I think) and had complications and it has cost the NHS £500,000 so far to treat her and her babies.
The problem is that these people are causing those of us who have lived her all their lives (and paid in the the NHS) to wait longer and longer for treatment, and are pushing up the cost of the NHS.
You have to remember the UK is a BUSINESS, competing against every other country in the world who are also businesses.
Our money does not grow on trees, it has to be earned by people making things and paying taxes.
As a country we are already about 1.5 TRILLION pounds in debt, we can no longer be responsible for every other person in the world.
Our easy going nature is being abused by both legal and illegal immigrants and many people in this country are getting fed up with it.
You only have to read a newspaper or watch the TV or read the internet news to see how many crimes are committed by "immigrants" (or children of immigrants).
Look at the dozens and dozens of Asian men who have been locked up in this country for abusing and having sex with young white girls after plying them with drink and drugs.
But maybe you are happy with that sort of thing, after all your liberal attitude seems content to let anyone and everyone come here.
Guilbert53 The UK isn't a business, it's a country. I do understand your very well made point (no sarcasm here, it's a good point) about shutting the door of your house etc, but to me that's very different to shutting the door to the country.
I have also said in this thread that people who haven't contributed to the NHS should 100% have insurance. But arguably it's our fault for treating them without insurance and then expecting them to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds that we know they can't pay back. But then, what doctor would turn a pregnant woman away?
My point is, if they're fleeing from danger, they should 100% be allowed in. And if they're looking for a better life or simply fancy a change they should contribute to the country and have medical insurance. The answer isn't shutting the door, it's about managing the situation properly.
I have also said in this thread that people who haven't contributed to the NHS should 100% have insurance. But arguably it's our fault for treating them without insurance and then expecting them to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds that we know they can't pay back. But then, what doctor would turn a pregnant woman away?
My point is, if they're fleeing from danger, they should 100% be allowed in. And if they're looking for a better life or simply fancy a change they should contribute to the country and have medical insurance. The answer isn't shutting the door, it's about managing the situation properly.
BA with honours for Guilbert53, great post, but it is going to get worse.
http://
http://
Fender, I 100% agree with people entering this country needing to have insurance, I've never once said not. I just don't think we should bar the gates to our country. What if it was your sister / mother / daughter / brother. We're all human, we need to treat those in need with a bit of humanity. It's not about having a soft touch.
Saying that. I DO realise that we have poverty and suffering in the country too and that should 100% be addressed.
I do quite possibly have my head in the clouds about this, I do understand that too. It just upsets me that we are all the same species yet look at each other with such difference.
Saying that. I DO realise that we have poverty and suffering in the country too and that should 100% be addressed.
I do quite possibly have my head in the clouds about this, I do understand that too. It just upsets me that we are all the same species yet look at each other with such difference.
“Okay, this is going to ruffle some feathers...”
Yes you’ve certainly ruffled mine.
“We constructed boundaries, unrightly so if you ask me. If such boundaries existed before our evolution we would all still be stood in Africa! Who are we to decide who 'comes in and out' of a country in a world that belongs to all of us?”
Nations evolved and developed at different rates and in different ways according to who lived in them. That’s done. To suddenly say, for example, that the wealth and prosperity of European nations should be fair game to be shared among anybody who happens to land on European shores is simply childish drivel and Guilbert has explained why quite succinctly at 12:25.
“What about the 'locals' that commit crimes? Shall we deport them too?”
Unfortunately we’re stuck with home-grown criminals. But those who arrive here (sometimes illegally) and abuse the UK’s hospitality have no place here.
“ I have French family coming over for Christmas, shall I tell them they aren't allowed in?”
Don’t confuse tourism with migration. Nobody is suggesting that tourists – including your family – should not visit the UK. But they should not be permitted to settle here unless they meet criteria laid down by the UK government.
“I have also said in this thread that people who haven't contributed to the NHS should 100% have insurance.”
Whether they have insurance or not is immaterial. They will still consume NHS resources that are scarce, regardless of how their treatment is funded.
“I do quite possibly have my head in the clouds about this,…”
You certainly do but I admire your integrity for suggesting you might.
“I don't think the UK can really be described as "full". Taking the most obvious statistic, population density, shows that the UK is something like the 40th country in the world by population density”
Population density is not a good measure of sustainability, Jim. A few years ago (when the global population was around 5bn) the entire human race could be accommodated on the Isle of Wight. Not ideal. Of course you could cram many more people into the UK but the nation’s services and infrastructure cannot cope now, and that’s the issue.
“…but we're also behind Japan and South Korea, that are of a similar size to us, and can fit in half as many people again per unit area without exactly suffering that much.”
I don’t know much about South Korea but I’ve been to Japan. To say that they do not suffer that much is incorrect. Their cities are horrendously crowded and although not so prevalent now they still employ professional “pushers” to cram people into trains (I know – I’ve been professionally pushed) and they have hotels that resemble battery hen cages. Japan’s population has actually ceased to grow and is expected to decline considerably over the next 50 years. It will be interesting to see how they cope with what many in the UK would consider such an unthinkable phenomenon.
Yes the reduction in net migration is to be welcomed but it is still unsustainably high and the “net” figures hide the “population swap” that has been going on for the last couple of decades.
Yes you’ve certainly ruffled mine.
“We constructed boundaries, unrightly so if you ask me. If such boundaries existed before our evolution we would all still be stood in Africa! Who are we to decide who 'comes in and out' of a country in a world that belongs to all of us?”
Nations evolved and developed at different rates and in different ways according to who lived in them. That’s done. To suddenly say, for example, that the wealth and prosperity of European nations should be fair game to be shared among anybody who happens to land on European shores is simply childish drivel and Guilbert has explained why quite succinctly at 12:25.
“What about the 'locals' that commit crimes? Shall we deport them too?”
Unfortunately we’re stuck with home-grown criminals. But those who arrive here (sometimes illegally) and abuse the UK’s hospitality have no place here.
“ I have French family coming over for Christmas, shall I tell them they aren't allowed in?”
Don’t confuse tourism with migration. Nobody is suggesting that tourists – including your family – should not visit the UK. But they should not be permitted to settle here unless they meet criteria laid down by the UK government.
“I have also said in this thread that people who haven't contributed to the NHS should 100% have insurance.”
Whether they have insurance or not is immaterial. They will still consume NHS resources that are scarce, regardless of how their treatment is funded.
“I do quite possibly have my head in the clouds about this,…”
You certainly do but I admire your integrity for suggesting you might.
“I don't think the UK can really be described as "full". Taking the most obvious statistic, population density, shows that the UK is something like the 40th country in the world by population density”
Population density is not a good measure of sustainability, Jim. A few years ago (when the global population was around 5bn) the entire human race could be accommodated on the Isle of Wight. Not ideal. Of course you could cram many more people into the UK but the nation’s services and infrastructure cannot cope now, and that’s the issue.
“…but we're also behind Japan and South Korea, that are of a similar size to us, and can fit in half as many people again per unit area without exactly suffering that much.”
I don’t know much about South Korea but I’ve been to Japan. To say that they do not suffer that much is incorrect. Their cities are horrendously crowded and although not so prevalent now they still employ professional “pushers” to cram people into trains (I know – I’ve been professionally pushed) and they have hotels that resemble battery hen cages. Japan’s population has actually ceased to grow and is expected to decline considerably over the next 50 years. It will be interesting to see how they cope with what many in the UK would consider such an unthinkable phenomenon.
Yes the reduction in net migration is to be welcomed but it is still unsustainably high and the “net” figures hide the “population swap” that has been going on for the last couple of decades.
(??? Re density: Antarctica is even more sparse than the thinly populated UK. Maybe the third world migrant should be heading there.)
Re "Net migration". A weasel phrase deployed by the Home Office, possibly (as one poster has suggested) to deceive. Don't know what "home" means to the office of that name, but it doesn't seem to correspond closely to my understanding of the word.
Does "the fall" mean that 100,000 people I might want on the whole to stay have chosen not to leave? Or that 100,000 I might want on the whole to stay away have chosen not to come?
Re "Net migration". A weasel phrase deployed by the Home Office, possibly (as one poster has suggested) to deceive. Don't know what "home" means to the office of that name, but it doesn't seem to correspond closely to my understanding of the word.
Does "the fall" mean that 100,000 people I might want on the whole to stay have chosen not to leave? Or that 100,000 I might want on the whole to stay away have chosen not to come?
Latest Posts
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Body & Soul7 mins ago
Jokes14 mins ago
Food & Drink19 mins ago
TV24 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.