How to handle illegal immigrants

[SportsTrophy]

The recent mass assaults at Calais have to be met with superior numbers of guards. The desperation of the immigrants could potentially lead to injury or death of an innocent driver or guard so I think it is time to consider lethal force warnings if the situation continues to escalate.

[Halibut]

Its you showing the inability to accept other points of view and humans are not the only species living on the planet, the more space we occupy the less there is for other species.

 

I accept that you have a differing point of view, I'm just pointing out its deficiencies.

[eckby]

Are you a vegetarian ?

 

Nope, I am an omnivore but that doesn't mean that want to see the mass extinction of other species.

 

---------- Post added 04-07-2015 at 21:06 ----------

 

I accept that you have a differing point of view, I'm just pointing out its deficiencies.

 

You didn't point out any deficiencies, you asked a question and I answered it.

[Zamo]

Less racism, great food, music, art, clothes, overall benefit to the economy, diversity, greater ties between differing cultures and nations. All good stuff.

 

I love the fact that I work in a culturally and ethnically diverse workplace; I work with Pakistani Brits, Czech Brits, Black Brits, white Brits, a Macedonian Brit an Aussie and people with roots in various African nations.

 

The area where I live is similarly diverse. It's not without it's social problems, but on the whole it's a thriving, succesful and happy place to live and work.

 

I think you're a prisoner of your own deeply conservative, sour and distrustful nature. Maybe you've a good reason to be so bitter, but I can't see it.

 

People from diverse backgrounds can chug along happily enough providing the conditions are right. The right conditions being a single dominant culture that demands tolerance and people generally not feeling threatened in terms of their wealth and health.

 

The fatal flaw with the multi-culture society is us humans and the fact that our behaviour changes according to different circumstances. When circumstances change (people begin to feel threatened or the dominant culture becomes less dominant) the diversity lines that separate people become divisions along which people split, compete and ultimately fight.

 

Those who supported the idea of a multi-culture society will point the finger and make excuses... "It was the bigots and racists who started it!'... but it won't change the fact that it was a bad idea because of the animal we are. A true multi-culture society (as opposed to multi-race) is unfortunately something we are incapable of sustaining. We can potentially maintain what we currently have but it requires us to wake up to the danger i.e. human nature and the need for one culture to remain dominant. To that end we need to much more robustly manage immigration and the notion that we should allow illegal immigrants to remain just because they slipped the net is a non-starter. Illegal immigrants should be imprisoned and then deported.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Zamo

[tzijlstra]

People from diverse backgrounds can chug along happily enough providing the conditions are right. The right conditions being a single dominant culture that demands tolerance and people generally not feeling threatened in terms of their wealth and health.

 

Stopped reading here. Thought of Australia, the US, London, Amsterdam, Paris and Berlin. Had to laugh.

 

Cya Zamo.

[Zamo]

Stopped reading here. Thought of Australia, the US, London, Amsterdam, Paris and Berlin. Had to laugh.

 

Cya Zamo.

 

The US has a recognisable dominant culture. Cities are not countries.

 

Try thinking about places such as Bosnia and ask yourself if that's funny too. When the dominance of the USSR faded, Yugoslavia tore itself apart as different people competed for control and the wealth. Are we superior beings or, given different circumstances, would we revert to the same beast?

 

Think of the division between the Israelis and the Palestinians. There is literally a wall between them with rockets and bombs tossed both ways. Yet Palestinians living in Isreal, a minority, can coexist in relative peace. Would that be the case if Israel was occupied by equal numbers of Israelis and Palestinians? I think not... dominance of one group results in the subordinance of the other so the two can coexist withou fighting.

 

Diverse cities are not evidence of a quantum leap in human evolution where people no longer split and fight along cultural, religious or racial lines. There were stories in Bosnia of former friends dividing along the cultural lines and killing each other or driving them from their homes... all it took was a change in circumstances and the behaviour changed.

 

Ironically, most of the illegal immigrants are from countries currently tearing themselves apart along cultural and religious lines. Evidence again of what happens when there is not dominance and different groups fight for control and wealth. We are not better humans than them... we are just humans living under different circumstances and we need to maintain those circumstances if we are to continue living in peace. That means controlling immigration and certainly not allowing illegal immigrants to stay.

[tzijlstra]

The US has a recognisable dominant culture. Cities are not countries.

 

Tell the Spanish speaking population of the US about that. I also see very few middle-class white people associate themselves with the same things as lower-class black people in the States. Dismissing cities as examples is short-sighted.

 

Try thinking about places such as Bosnia and ask yourself if that's funny too. When the dominance of the USSR faded, Yugoslavia tore itself apart as different people competed for control and the wealth. Are we superior beings or, given different circumstances, would we revert to the same beast?

 

Former Yugoslavia is an excellent example, a war that was started by people who wanted to achieve what you are propagating here, a unified singular culture. Great example of why I should argue the toss with you here.

 

Think of the division between the Israelis and the Palestinians. There is literally a wall between them with rockets and bombs tossed both ways. Yet Palestinians living in Isreal, a minority, can coexist in relative peace. Would that be the case if Israel was occupied by equal numbers of Israelis and Palestinians? I think not... dominance of one group results in the subordinance of the other so the two can coexist withou fighting.

 

Again, the same as Former Yugoslavia, two intolerant people slinging mud at each other. I'd rather they saw the light and became tolerant instead of continuing to abuse each other, wouldn't you? What do you propose anyway, a huge wall? Because that didn't help, did it?

 

Diverse cities are not evidence of a quantum leap in human evolution where people no longer split and fight along cultural, religious or racial lines. There were stories in Bosnia of former friends dividing along the cultural lines and killing each other or driving them from their homes... all it took was a change in circumstances and the behaviour changed.

of course they are, we are living in ever growing urban conurbations, tolerance in these conurbations is scientifically proven to be far higher than it is in rural/monocultural areas. It is no coincidence that UKIP does well in the rural South-East where the diversity ration is less than 1 in 10.

 

Ironically, most of the illegal immigrants are from countries currently tearing themselves apart along cultural and religious lines. Evidence again of what happens when there is not dominance and different groups fight for control and wealth. We are not better humans than them... we are just humans living under different circumstances and we need to maintain those circumstances if we are to continue living in peace. That means controlling immigration and certainly not allowing illegal immigrants to stay.

 

The irony here is that you are arguing that one dominant culture is somehow preferable whilst continuing to give examples of the fact that is a failed thought.

[Harrystottle]

Immigration is about money. Always has been, always will be. The immigrant can hopefully make a better life for themselves in a richer country.

 

The richer country benefits as well, in the form of the "economic benefits of immigration". Ah, that phrase! So often said, and so little explained! Who benefits from mass immigration? It's never said.

 

The market forces on employment are pretty well understood. As in, if there are 300 jobs available and 299 workers available, the power lies with the workers. Employers have to offer higher wages to attract the workers. If there are 300 jobs available and 3000 workers available then the power lies with the employers, and vastly so. People end up scrapping for low paid jobs.

Who benefits from this? Big business.

 

But also, and much less talked about is the fact that as far as modern capitalism is concerned, there is no such thing as a population that is too big. 80 million people will buy more food, use more gas and electric, buy more cars, use more petrol, need more homes to live in than will a population of 40 million.

 

More people = more profit.

 

So who benefits from this? Big business.

 

The primary beneficiaries of mass immigration have always been big business. So next time you hear the phrase "the economic benefits of immigration", remember that the primary beneficiaries of mass immigration are who they have always been. Big business.

 

The downsides to mass immigration, the overcrowding, strain on public services, increased cost for the welfare state in terms of more unemployment benefit, are borne by the state, not by business.

 

You can even see an echo of this in the way that "migrants" from Africa are been ferried across the Med by EU countries. Why spend money keeping them out, when big business makes money by letting them in?

Edited July 5, 2015 by Harrystottle

[tzijlstra]

Immigration is about money. Always has been, always will be. The immigrant can hopefully make a better life for themselves in a richer country.

 

The richer country benefits as well, in the form of the "economic benefits of immigration". Ah, that phrase! So often said, and so little explained! Who benefits from mass immigration? It's never said.

 

The market forces on employment are pretty well understood. As in, if there are 300 jobs available and 299 workers available, the power lies with the workers. Employers have to offer higher wages to attract the workers. If there are 300 jobs available and 3000 workers available then the power lies with the employers, and vastly so. People end up scrapping for low paid jobs.

Who benefits from this? Big business.

 

But also, and much less talked about is the fact that as far as modern capitalism is concerned, there is no such thing as a population that is too big. 80 million people will buy more food, use more gas and electric, buy more cars, use more petrol, need more homes to live in than will a population of 40 million.

 

More people = more profit.

 

So who benefits from this? Big business.

 

The primary beneficiaries of mass immigration have always been big business. So next time you hear the phrase "the economic benefits of immigration", remember that the primary beneficiaries of mass immigration are who they have always been. Big business.

 

The downsides to mass immigration, the overcrowding, strain on public services, increased cost for the welfare state in terms of more unemployment benefit, are borne by the state, not by business.

 

And big business is terrible, as we all know. Every country with a massively undeveloped economy obviously has far better standards of living than countries that have big businesses.

 

You can even see an echo of this in the way that "migrants" from Africa are been ferried across the Med by EU countries. Why spend money keeping them out, when big business makes money by letting them in?

 

Can you tell me which EU countries are ferrying African migrants across the med?

[Zamo]

Tell the Spanish speaking population of the US about that. I also see very few middle-class white people associate themselves with the same things as lower-class black people in the States. Dismissing cities as examples is short-sighted.

 

That would be the Spanish speaking minority?

 

Former Yugoslavia is an excellent example, a war that was started by people who wanted to achieve what you are propagating here, a unified singular culture. Great example of why I should argue the toss with you here.

 

Again, the same as Former Yugoslavia, two intolerant people slinging mud at each other. I'd rather they saw the light and became tolerant instead of continuing to abuse each other, wouldn't you? What do you propose anyway, a huge wall? Because that didn't help, did it?

 

You can't argue the toss with me because I haven't argued for a single culture. I have said that having a dominant culture can prevent culture clashes and potential division along cultural lines.

 

of course they are, we are living in ever growing urban conurbations, tolerance in these conurbations is scientifically proven to be far higher than it is in rural/monocultural areas. It is no coincidence that UKIP does well in the rural South-East where the diversity ration is less than 1 in 10.

 

Diverse cities are not evidence of a quantum leap in human evolution. They are evidence that people of different cultures, religions and races can coexist when the circumstances are right and there is plenty for all. Prosperity keeps the beast within us dormant but if London, Amsterdam or Berlin sudden fell into a prolonged depression, do you really think the diverse population would remain so friendly? I don't think so. The beast has not been expunged and simple lies dormant awaiting a change in circumstances... and circumstances change.

 

The irony here is that you are arguing that one dominant culture is somehow preferable whilst continuing to give examples of the fact that is a failed thought.

 

The examples I gave evidence the failure of humans to control both circumstances and the beast within.