Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why do peoples not understand that immigration is currently based on 'pull'?

ViolentPanda said:
More blah blah blah from a person too lazy to present a decent argument, but not too lazy to attempt to denigrate people.

Saddo.


A decent arguement? From what i have seen you yourself have yet to present one on this subject.
You instead dodge direct questions and ignore posted evidence from a variety of sources.;)
Nono is bore number 1. You seem to be in quite a difficult competition for the silver medal with MC5.;)
 
becky p said:
A decent arguement? From what i have seen you yourself have yet to present one on this subject.
You instead dodge direct questions and ignore posted evidence from a variety of sources.;)
Nono is bore number 1. You seem to be in quite a difficult competition for the silver medal with MC5.;)

Yawn.

As a provocateur you make a very good mannequin.

As a wit you make a good drain cleaner.

Care to show me examples of what you're claiming I do, or are you hoping people will just take your bullshit as gospel?

Saddo.
 
No one on here has, i think, discusses the implications of mass migration for the Welfare State, One can argue they no longer need the 'carot of decent welfare provision to keep the social peace, now they can utilise un-exhaustible labour from around the globe, thus the WS is being reduced, made harsher, etc. The Welfare Reform Act which will see millions of disabled people forced into unsuitable work, etc has largely been constructed with reduction of low skill migration in mind. John Hutton was explicit in this, saying how disabled people would be used to fill labour gaps created by the coming restrictions on low skill labour for non EU countires,

What do the far left, etc, think of this then?, they certainly don't seem to care about people on welfare, given their lack of efforts around the WRB
 
oh, It is also revealing how it is only Trotskyists and their fellow travellers and Neo-Liberals who seem to be cheerleaders for untrammeled mass migration, no matter what the cost. The again, both groups never really liked the poor and the under class who are the real victims and really suffer from such policies as the welfare state is withdrawn and minimised, already low wages are pushed down, etc....
 
becky p said:
Whatever anyone says Panda you ignore anecdotal evidence,you ignore reports from the likes of Oxfam and the World Health Organisation.

But the one person you seem to take seriously is nono savatte.:D

Which speaks volumes.:p

This is what passes for "serious discussion" from the anti-immigrationists. :rolleyes:
 
treelover said:
well, answer my point Nino...

What point? You have a reputation for smearing posters who don't conform to your obsessional ideas on immigration.

You continue to trot out emotive and ideologically loaded phrases like "mass migration". You even had the cheek to suggest that I was a liar because I said that I had "worked in housing" and that I knew that "immigrants are not given priority because they happen to be immigrants". You didn't want to know, because, as far you are concerned, I'm just making it all up to get back at you.

Another one of your habits is to label anyone who doesn't share your views "Trots" or "liberals".

Because I have said that there is a great deal of xenophobia and racism lurking behind the calls for tighter controls, you read this as "He's accusing all of us of beiung racists...Grrrrrrrr"!

The trouble with you and your pals is that you want to control the terms of debate and relying on Michael Howard's slogans from the 2004 General Election, you feel emboldened to label those who challenge the myths out out by you and your fellow travellers as "Trots".

Does this look familiar?

It's not racist to criticise the system.

It's not racist to want to limit the numbers.

It's just plain commonsense.
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=121612

So explain how your ideas and those of the Tories differ?
 
treelover said:
oh, It is also revealing how it is only Trotskyists and their fellow travellers and Neo-Liberals who seem to be cheerleaders for untrammeled mass migration, no matter what the cost. The again, both groups never really liked the poor and the under class who are the real victims and really suffer from such policies as the welfare state is withdrawn and minimised, already low wages are pushed down, etc....

A fine point, but one, if you're having a poke at the trots, that is relevant to less than one percent of the board's users.
An honest person would acknowledge that a goodly amount of the so-called "pro-immigration" contributors aren't advocates of "untrammelled mass migration", but are advocates of immigration handled on the basis of choice, equity and non-partiality.
 
ViolentPanda said:
A fine point, but one, if you're having a poke at the trots, that is relevant to less than one percent of the board's users.
An honest person would acknowledge that a goodly amount of the so-called "pro-immigration" contributors aren't advocates of "untrammelled mass migration", but are advocates of immigration handled on the basis of choice, equity and non-partiality.

How did he manage to link neo-liberals and Trots together? That's one hell of a leap! next, he'll be claiming that I'm a neo-con and a Trot. :rolleyes:
 
ViolentPanda said:
An honest person would acknowledge that a goodly amount of the so-called "pro-immigration" contributors aren't advocates of "untrammelled mass migration", but are advocates of immigration handled on the basis of choice, equity and non-partiality.

The two extremes of 'keep everyone out' and 'open borders' have some similarity in motivation, in that people advocate those positions mainly because they don't want to be mistaken for those they and their peers strongly dislike, i.e. 'do gooders' or 'racists'. Lots of huffing and puffing on political issues is a form of impression management, this issue is no exception.

Once those extremes and the self-policing they require are discarded, then the debate can move forward along lines of numbers and criteria.
 
dash_two said:
The two extremes of 'keep everyone out' and 'open borders' have some similarity in motivation, in that people advocate those positions mainly because they don't want to be mistaken for those they and their peers strongly dislike, i.e. 'do gooders' or 'racists'. Lots of huffing and puffing on political issues is a form of impression management, this issue is no exception.

Once those extremes and the self-policing they require are discarded, then the debate can move forward along lines of numbers and criteria.

That's a very sensible post, d-t.
 
I see Hazel Blears is at it now. Reported this weekend in The Independent:

She has suggested that immigrants were engaged in anti-social behaviour and street drinking. They were also less willing to pay tax. Where she gets this information from is anyone's guess.

There has been a dramatic change in communities. We have got people living in Salford now from every country under the sun. We used to be 93 percent white working class. Our community's changing before our eyes...

Get back to the good old days of Salford eh Hazel,

Typhus, that universally diffused affliction, is attributed by the official report on the sanitary condition of the working- class , directly to the bad state of the dwellings in the matters of ventilation, drainage, and cleanliness. This report compiled, it must not be forgotten, by the leading physicians of England from the testimony of other physicians, asserts that a single ill-ventilated court, a single blind alley without drainage, is enough to engender fever, and usually does engender it especially if the inhabitants are greatly crowded. This fever has the same character almost everywhere, and develops in nearly every case into specific typhus. It is to be found in the working-people's quarters of all great towns and cities, and in single ill-built, ill-kept streets of smaller places, though it naturally seeks out single victims in better districts also. In London it has now prevailed for a considerable time; its extraordinary violence in the year 1837 gave rise to the report already referred to. According to the annual report of Dr Southwood Smith on the London Fever Hospital, the number of patients in 1843 was 1,462, or 418 more than in any previous year.
...
p.129 That the dwellings of the workers in the worst portions of the cities, together with the other conditions of life of this class, engender numerous diseases, is attested on all sides.

p.159: Thus the social order makes family life almost impossible for the worker. In a comfortless, filthy house, hardly good enough for mere nightly shelter, ill-furnished, often neither rain-tight nor warm, a foul atmosphere filling rooms overcrowded with hum an beings, no domestic comfort is possible. The husband works the whole day through, perhaps the wife also and the elder children, all in different places; they meet night and morning only, all under perpetual temptation to drink; what family life is possible under such conditions?

From the annual criminal tables of the Home Secretary, it is evident that the increase of crime in England has proceeded with incomprehensible rapidity. The numbers of arrests for criminal offences reached in the years..
http://www.mdx.ac.uk/WWW/STUDY/xeng1845.htm#37

Glad to see there are others in Salford who are doing something useful.

http://www.kickitout.org/index.php?id=9&StoryID=3228
 
treelover said:
er, not me guv, NIno, i have never commented on your work, i know fuck all about you...

Did you not suggest that I wasn't telling the truth, just because I happened to take an opposing position to you? I think you did. Not on this thread but on another.
 
dash_two said:
The two extremes of 'keep everyone out' and 'open borders' have some similarity in motivation, in that people advocate those positions mainly because they don't want to be mistaken for those they and their peers strongly dislike, i.e. 'do gooders' or 'racists'. Lots of huffing and puffing on political issues is a form of impression management, this issue is no exception.

Once those extremes and the self-policing they require are discarded, then the debate can move forward along lines of numbers and criteria.

The problem being that some people may find it easier/more useful to polarise the debate into a simplistic either/or equation, rather than to acknowledge the need to move the debate forward.
It's certainly ideologically beneficial to both the "do-gooders" and the "racists" to put the brakes on any progress.
 
Fruitloop said:
Because it's interesting but ultimately not that surprising? What is so notable about it?

It demonstrates that the whole debate about immigration controls is something of a red herring when it comes to immigrants filling low skill jobs. It shows that a regulated labour market and equality for immigrants can control immigration much better than border controls. I think this is would be a surprise to most people in this debate whatever side they are taking.

I am inclined to think that the best point made in this entire debate has been the OP of this thread. The fact that it is about pull factors rather than push factors and the idea of preventing immigration or freeing up immigration is not the main issue. I am inclined to say that the purpose of immigration controls is mainly to undermine the status of immigrants and therefore boost low skill immigration.

In this light open borders is not as bad as it seems. Its still has a wiff of the ideologically wonky, but basically its a good aim.
 
Knotted said:
It demonstrates that the whole debate about immigration controls is something of a red herring when it comes to immigrants filling low skill jobs. It shows that a regulated labour market and equality for immigrants can control immigration much better than border controls. I think this is would be a surprise to most people in this debate whatever side they are taking.

I am inclined to think that the best point made in this entire debate has been the OP of this thread. The fact that it is about pull factors rather than push factors and the idea of preventing immigration or freeing up immigration is not the main issue. I am inclined to say that the purpose of immigration controls is mainly to undermine the status of immigrants and therefore boost low skill immigration.

In this light open borders is not as bad as it seems. Its still has a wiff of the ideologically wonky, but basically its a good aim.

Oddly enough, I agree with you, particularly your first paragraph. There are people in this country who are working for less than the minimum wage. It is illegal but it does happen.
 
ViolentPanda said:
The problem being that some people may find it easier/more useful to polarise the debate into a simplistic either/or equation, rather than to acknowledge the need to move the debate forward.
It's certainly ideologically beneficial to both the "do-gooders" and the "racists" to put the brakes on any progress.

So how do you suggest we move the debate forward VP?

Cos it does seem very circular and everyday almost i hear something personally or read or watch something that comments on migration into the UK.

It is a huge issue for people in this country,so it would be good if the debate was a bit more constructive at times....
 
tbaldwin said:
So how do you suggest we move the debate forward VP?

Cos it does seem very circular and everyday almost i hear something personally or read or watch something that comments on migration into the UK.

It is a huge issue for people in this country,so it would be good if the debate was a bit more constructive at times....

I would suggest that your inability to see other things besides "immigration" blinds you. It would appear that the only 'news' stories that you pay any attention to are ones regarding immigration or some story of a so-called 'asylum seeker' doing this or that.

I would also suggest that there are other, more pressing issues in this country besides immigration. You are obsessed.
 
nino_savatte said:
I would suggest that your inability to see other things besides "immigration" blinds you. It would appear that the only 'news' stories that you pay any attention to are ones regarding immigration or some story of a so-called 'asylum seeker' doing this or that.

I would also suggest that there are other, more pressing issues in this country besides immigration. You are obsessed.

Nino your right i am a bit obsessed about migration.
I see it as a massive issue.

And i do think that you and many others have got things very badly wrong.

Internationally i think its a really negative thing.
It means that poorer countries lose the skilled workers they need most.

And in the UK look at who really benefits from mass migration big bosses and landlords.
Not people competing for Jobs or Housing.

Personally i think if you call youself an Internationalist. You have to oppose mass migration. It makes the world a much more divided and unequal place.

And if you call yourself a Socialist i think you have to put the interests of the majority before those of a minority nationally and internationally.

I think you have things 100% wrong.
And i think all the time you seek to convince yourself and others that me a durruti etc are Racist your just going to continue to get things wrong.
 
tbaldwin said:
Nino your right i am a bit obsessed about migration.
I see it as a massive issue.

And i do think that you and many others have got things very badly wrong.

Internationally i think its a really negative thing.
It means that poorer countries lose the skilled workers they need most.

And in the UK look at who really benefits from mass migration big bosses and landlords.
Not people competing for Jobs or Housing.

Personally i think if you call youself an Internationalist. You have to oppose mass migration. It makes the world a much more divided and unequal place.

And if you call yourself a Socialist i think you have to put the interests of the majority before those of a minority nationally and internationally.

I think you have things 100% wrong.
And i think all the time you seek to convince yourself and others that me a durruti etc are Racist your just going to continue to get things wrong.

So you would restrict the freedom of anyone anywhere to go where they want to on this planet? That isn't very socialist.

Mass migration, i.e. the movement of thousands of people en masse from one country to another is a myth.
I think you have things 100% wrong.

This is your standard reply and it's looking pretty tired.
 
nino_savatte said:
So you would restrict the freedom of anyone anywhere to go where they want to on this planet? That isn't very socialist.

Mass migration, i.e. the movement of thousands of people en masse from one country to another is a myth.


This is your standard reply and it's looking pretty tired.

1 It already is restricted by money. I think that is a spectacularly unfair way of restricting things.

2 No it isnt.

3 No its not.
 
tbaldwin said:
1 It already is restricted by money. I think that is a spectacularly unfair way of restricting things.

2 No it isnt.

3 No its not.

No kidding, but people have been migrating since the dawn of time...what's new? You may as well try and abolish recreational sex for what it's worth.

No proof

Yes, it is.
 
nino_savatte said:
No kidding, but people have been migrating since the dawn of time...what's new? You may as well try and abolish recreational sex for what it's worth.

No proof

Yes, it is.

1 I know i said i was authoritarian but thats ridiculous..........

Migration has changed dramatically our grandparents generation only travelled abroad if their was a war. Now travel has become much cheaper and some people are having 4 or 5 trips abroad.


2 You said it.

3 Oh No there isnt.
 
tbaldwin said:
1 I know i said i was authoritarian but thats ridiculous..........

Migration has changed dramatically our grandparents generation only travelled abroad if their was a war. Now travel has become much cheaper and some people are having 4 or 5 trips abroad.


2 You said it.

3 Oh No there isnt.

You.
 

Attachments

  • wl-time-thumb.jpg
    wl-time-thumb.jpg
    3.3 KB · Views: 30
tbaldwin said:
So how do you suggest we move the debate forward VP?

Cos it does seem very circular and everyday almost i hear something personally or read or watch something that comments on migration into the UK.

It is a huge issue for people in this country,so it would be good if the debate was a bit more constructive at times....


The problem is that the debate can't be "moved forward" while the subject is used as a political football by politicians and the media, and the same myths (however many times they're disproven) are circulated in order to create political tension.
 
Back
Top Bottom