The Immigration Solution

[DC]

Immigration in Britain has obviously caused massive problems in recent times, and is at the forefront of political consciousness today. A solution needs to be found to stem the tide of immigrants, and let's be honest here, particularly the ones from Africa and the Middle East and to a lesser extent, Eastern Europe. Here's my solution;

Obviously, we refuse entry of Asylum seekers for whom this is not the first safe port of call. Send them back to the nearest port of call to their origin.

We then impose a quota, something in the region of 50, 000 (move that figure up or down, just as long as there is a clear quota) a year to grant permanent residences to. All others have to remain on whatever visas they currently have. We then divide that figure in two. One half will be based on a points system, if you have skills or qualifications we need, speak English, no disease and so forth, all these things are in your favour and add to your points. If you have enough points, you get in. Any criminal record, or relation to terrorists, you don't get in.

The other half is for those who are wealthy, and will bring a certain net worth to the UK. Basically, if you have enough money, we'll let you in. Why is that you ask? Because Britain should not be a dumping ground for the world's poor. Any serious criminal record or relation to terrorists and you don't get in.

While here without citizenship, if you commit a crime (for the first group), or serious crime (for the second) you are deported immediately.

Furthermore in regards to gaining citizenship, you must speak and read fluent English and have lived in Britain for at least five years.

In regards to illegal immigrants, they are deported back to their home country, in addition their names are taken and identities recorded. If someone is recorded twice as having entered illegally and deported, then it is no longer possible for them to gain Permanent residence visa. Any children of illegal immigrants born in Britain are not British, and are treated the same way as their parents.

[DougieG]

Immigration in Britain has obviously caused massive problems in recent times, and is at the forefront of political consciousness today. A solution needs to be found to stem the tide of immigrants, and let's be honest here, particularly the ones from Africa and the Middle East and to a lesser extent, Eastern Europe. Here's my solution;

Don't believe everything you read on this board. It's a problem but it's not as bad as people suggest. The vast majority of places are still enormously white.

Obviously, we refuse entry of Asylum seekers for whom this is not the first safe port of call. Send them back to the nearest port of call to their origin.

Of course you and people like you don't realise that Spain and France, and Germany to an extent, have much greater problems with immigration than we do. We just moan about it more. How does it make sense not to spread asylum seekers equally across the EU? I'd have thought that would be the best solution, not simply dump the burden onto the countries that are furthest to the East.

We then impose a quota, something in the region of 50, 000 (move that figure up or down, just as long as there is a clear quota) a year to grant permanent residences to. All others have to remain on whatever visas they currently have. We then divide that figure in two. One half will be based on a points system, if you have skills or qualifications we need, speak English, no disease and so forth, all these things are in your favour and add to your points. If you have enough points, you get in. Any criminal record, or relation to terrorists, you don't get in.

The problem with quotas is that they run out (obviously). Look into the failures of the USA's immigration quota system if you want to see why this is a bad idea. It nearly destroyed certain industries - the fashion industry, for instance, where foreign models couldn't get into the country permanently because technically they had no qualifications.

The other half is for those who are wealthy, and will bring a certain net worth to the UK. Basically, if you have enough money, we'll let you in. Why is that you ask? Because Britain should not be a dumping ground for the world's poor. Any serious criminal record or relation to terrorists and you don't get in.

Well this is typical fascism, but whatever. I'm not surprised that you think it acceptable to buy citizenship.

While here without citizenship, if you commit a crime (for the first group), or serious crime (for the second) you are deported immediately.

Yes, I agree with this to an extent. However, as a one-size-fits-all policy it is wrong. Say someone is an asylum seeker fleeing from political persecution and steals a £50 bike. If you know for a fact that they will be executed when they are deported, you are giving them a death penalty for stealing a bike. That is not right. I agree with this point for most immigrants, but not for genuine asylum seekers (who live in absolutely dreadful conditions, by the way).

Furthermore in regards to gaining citizenship, you must speak and read fluent English and have lived in Britain for at least five years.

I agree with this, but then so does the current government, so no surprises.

In regards to illegal immigrants, they are deported back to their home country, in addition their names are taken and identities recorded. If someone is recorded twice as having entered illegally and deported, then it is no longer possible for them to gain Permanent residence visa. Any children of illegal immigrants born in Britain are not British, and are treated the same way as their parents.

Bit harsh on the kids, but I suppose it makes sense as a policy.

See, I have no problem with some tight immigration laws, but not on genuine asylum seekers. I think it's the duty of the developed world to shelter those who are persecuted racially or politically. Otherwise we are no better than the fascists whose ideology you share.

On a side note, I object somewhat to your copious use of 'us' and 'we'. Mainly because you can't actually see what Britain is like and have formed a view based on certain people on this forum as well as bad journalism. The problems here are much more nuanced than it might seem from reading just these sources.

[Midas]

Of course you and people like you don't realise that Spain and France, and Germany to an extent, have much greater problems with immigration than we do. We just moan about it more. How does it make sense not to spread asylum seekers equally across the EU? I'd have thought that would be the best solution, not simply dump the burden onto the countries that are furthest to the East.

Granted that they do, however simply because other countries have a problem I don't see why that means we should make it ours too. This is a problem which isn't going to go away, especially if we see the scale of dislocation caused by global warming and water shortages which are forecast, and the sooner we start to deal with it the better.

The problem with quotas is that they run out (obviously). Look into the failures of the USA's immigration quota system if you want to see why this is a bad idea. It nearly destroyed certain industries - the fashion industry, for instance, where foreign models couldn't get into the country permanently because technically they had no qualifications.

To a large extent that depends on a combination of how carefully the wording for any quota laws are worked out, what policies are used to limit immigration and how strictly they are enforced.

Well this is typical fascism, but whatever. I'm not surprised that you think it acceptable to buy citizenship.

It's got nothing to do with fascism, there are very sound economic reasons why people who have money to invest should be allowed to have priority in the immigration lottery.

Yes, I agree with this to an extent. However, as a one-size-fits-all policy it is wrong. Say someone is an asylum seeker fleeing from political persecution and steals a £50 bike. If you know for a fact that they will be executed when they are deported, you are giving them a death penalty for stealing a bike. That is not right. I agree with this point for most immigrants, but not for genuine asylum seekers (who live in absolutely dreadful conditions, by the way).

You certainly have a point here, however how do you ascertain a genuine asylum seeker - there seems to be an almost wholesale abuse of the system right now - and isn't the fact that you are deporting some people and not others, for perhaps the same offences, likely to cause problems?

[DougieG]

Granted that they do, however simply because other countries have a problem I don't see why that means we should make it ours too. This is a problem which isn't going to go away, especially if we see the scale of dislocation caused by global warming and water shortages which are forecast, and the sooner we start to deal with it the better.

Of course. Immigration does need to be controlled. I was just pointing out why DC's plan to send immigrants back to their first port of call was fundamentally flawed. Other countries obviously wouldn't accept it anyway.

To a large extent that depends on a combination of how carefully the wording for any quota laws are worked out, what policies are used to limit immigration and how strictly they are enforced.

True. I think to be honest, though, we should avoid quotas and instead take good people regardless of the numbers of good people there are.

It's got nothing to do with fascism, there are very sound economic reasons why people who have money to invest should be allowed to have priority in the immigration lottery.

Only to a nationalist. To prevent potentially law-abiding, hard working people like shop owners (as we have seen - asians run excellent shops) from coming in while bringing in the Russian Oligarchs etc would not make Britain a better place. Furthermore, if we try to attract wealth out of other countries we are simply draining money from nations that almost certainly need it more.

You certainly have a point here, however how do you ascertain a genuine asylum seeker - there seems to be an almost wholesale abuse of the system right now - and isn't the fact that you are deporting some people and not others, for perhaps the same offences, likely to cause problems?

Not at all. Already some people are deported for crimes that other people are not deported for, because the law as I stated it is the law that exists. Deporting an asylum seeker to face death is illegal and would mean serious international repercussions. One of many examples where the law is excellent regarding human rights.

The question of determining genuine asylum seekers is a difficult one, I agree. It's not practical to just essentially evacuate a failed state instead of helping it develop. Maybe those against foreign aid could see it as reducing the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK.

[Citizen Smith]

Dougie's right, the vast majority of places are almost completely white. I live on the Yorkshire/lancs border, so I'm in and around some of the more multi cultural places. A fair few people I know moan about it, especially a particularly thick friend of mine, but I've never found it to be problem. Rochdale has a relatively high proportion of Asian people, but I've never even seen anything dodgy happen, I'm sure there is crime there, but I've never seen it, and I've walked its back streets to the train station feeling safe. And its a nice, friendly, lively place.
Its a myth that multiculturalism always brings tension, it really doesn't have to be that way at all. I guess I'm one of those romantic idiots who think we should all be able to just get along.

[Barry]

I agree in principle with DCFGS3's OP.
What puzzles me is the use of the term "we".
Are you in the UK at the moment, or do you spend a lot of time in the UK. I have noticed in previous postings that you refer to the UK as if you are a part of it.

Well this is typical fascism, but whatever. I'm not surprised that you think it acceptable to buy citizenship.

It's a bit early in the thread for the straw man argument, DougieG, - he did not say that at all.
He said that Britain should not be a dumping ground for the world's poor.
Therefore people entering the country should have some means of support.

[DC]

Ah, getting griped on because I'm not English? Well I use the terms 'we' and such loosely. What's more I both intend to live in the UK as soon as possible, and my parents are for all intents and purposes English. How do I know what's going on? Well you might be surprised how good an indicator people on the forums are. Some are radicals obviously, but those who want stronger immigration and see flaws or outright failure in the multicultural system outnumber those who don't. I also read the BBC regularly.

[Streetwalker]

Immigation to the UK is unlimited from 26 other countries,we no longer control our own borders which can now be found somewhere around the Med,south of Romania and to the east of Usedtoberussiastan (No one is completly sure where).
Though most of the points raised by our colonial cousin are of some interest they are inconsequential whilst our borders and immigration policy remain under the control of the EU

[The Untalented Mr Ripley]

Don't believe everything you read on this board. It's a problem but it's not as bad as people suggest. The vast majority of places are still enormously white.

You assume that colour or race is the central area of concern regarding immigration thereby infering that those who are concerned with immigration are racist. I do not believe that race is the central concern for most; issues of cultural integration, population control, distribution of resources and basic fairness are. To be concerned about immigration is not racist, why even New Labour (same old lies) party have finally stopped automatically accusing those who raise the issue of racism.

Also, and with respect, precisely how would you know how bad things are? Durham is hardly representative of the rest of Britain,

Originally Posted by DCFGS3
The other half is for those who are wealthy, and will bring a certain net worth to the UK. Basically, if you have enough money, we'll let you in. Why is that you ask? Because Britain should not be a dumping ground for the world's poor. Any serious criminal record or relation to terrorists and you don't get in.
Well this is typical fascism, but whatever. I'm not surprised that you think it acceptable to buy citizenship.

Fascism, really? Then why does Canada, one of the most liberal and mutlicultural nations on earth, grant virtually immediate 'settled immigrant' status to those with over $250,000 to invest in Canadian employment creating businesses (for most other catagories of immigrant the processing time is 2-4 years)?

See, I have no problem with some tight immigration laws, but not on genuine asylum seekers. I think it's the duty of the developed world to shelter those who are persecuted racially or politically. Otherwise we are no better than the fascists whose ideology you share.

If you are a genuine asylum seeker, why would not claim asylum in the first safe country you land in, unless of course you are not a genuine asylum seeker? I find it rather a strange that many alleged asylum seekers enter the EU in Greece, travel across that country, through Italy and France before claiming asylum in the UK, I also find it remarkably stupid that the UK doesn't immediately return those seeking asylum to the safe country they left to enter the UK.

As for this duty to shelter those who are persecuted, this may sound like a strange question, but why are we under such a duty? If we are under such a duty are we also not under a duty to politically, economically and militarily intervene the nations who are abusing their citizens?

[Midas]

Of course. Immigration does need to be controlled. I was just pointing out why DC's plan to send immigrants back to their first port of call was fundamentally flawed. Other countries obviously wouldn't accept it anyway.

I accept that to deport immigrants back to their first port of call once they'd been given entry here would be a non-starter for many reasons, however it's a different matter if entry is refused and people are simply turned around for failing to meet entry requirements.

True. I think to be honest, though, we should avoid quotas and instead take good people regardless of the numbers of good people there are.

I favour the points system much as they have in Australia, which can be modified from time to time to reflect any particular skill shortages or to accept more or less immigrants generally simply by changing the number of points required in any or all categories.

Only to a nationalist. To prevent potentially law-abiding, hard working people like shop owners (as we have seen - asians run excellent shops) from coming in while bringing in the Russian Oligarchs etc would not make Britain a better place. Furthermore, if we try to attract wealth out of other countries we are simply draining money from nations that almost certainly need it more.

That depends on what your definition of 'better' is. One Russian Oligarch can be worth several hundred small shopkeepers to the nation as a whole in terms of cash spent or invested in the economy, although I take your presumably implied point concerning social benefits to society on a local basis. But on your last point, if people with money wish to leave their home country for whatever reason, they will do, and we might as well compete to receive it; if we don't someone else will. It's not up to us to stop emigration from other countries regardless of their own financial plight, that's the business of the country concerned.

The question of determining genuine asylum seekers is a difficult one, I agree. It's not practical to just essentially evacuate a failed state instead of helping it develop. Maybe those against foreign aid could see it as reducing the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but anyone claiming to be an asylum seeker must have come here directly from the country which they are fleeing for it to be a legal claim under international law; or rather the law states they must claim asylum in the first country they arrive in after leaving their own. If therefore anyone does arrive here from any other intermediate country and claim asylum, we would be within our rights to refuse them entry as an unwanted immigrant and simply turn them round to whence they came. It might sound harsh, but we have to tackle this problem somehow!