Immigration and genetics

osprey1987

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2007
Posts
207
Media
0
Likes
41
Points
163
The age of letting in hoards of unwashed masses is over.

Immigration control is almost always biased in favour or people coming from a certain country or puts an arbitrary cap on numbers. Those are based on fear or prejudice.

So called "fair" control never exists. If you think Canada is an exception then you are wrong. All the examples you give are arbitrary obstructions to freedom of labour.

How has health got anything to do with immigration? You suggest not letting in skilled workers because they're not fully healthy.

Not all skilled jobs require degrees. Most people know that. Unless you want more rich people coming because you think they're not riff-raff.

Most people who want to immigrate will have learned the language to a reasonable standard anyway. Immigrants only don't learn a language when they're denied work permits so they end up working on building sites. Who needs to know a language on a building site or doing other menial work?

You conveniently forget to mention that "good" skilled workers Canada let's in aren't allowed to vote. What about all the skills that are hard to quantify like artists? How many albums, paintings or books do they have to sell before they're considered desirable? Is there a number or average wage? Are your sick relatives or spouse not allowed in because they can't work?

None of it makes any sense unless it's to make foreigners appear the enemy, instead of the bosses who pay average people piss-poor wages.
 

Cuddler

1st Like
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Posts
109
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
103
Location
Montreal (Quebec, Canada)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Immigration control is almost always biased in favour or people coming from a certain country or puts an arbitrary cap on numbers. Those are based on fear or prejudice.

Putting a cap on the number of people that can enter each year prevents the country from being overwhelmed. The caps here are quite generous: Toronto, a city of 2.5 million, takes in over 130,000 per year. Are you suggesting letting in as many as want to come every year in? How could a city absorb new residents at a faster rate?

So called "fair" control never exists. If you think Canada is an exception then you are wrong. All the examples you give are arbitrary obstructions to freedom of labour.

Why would you think that everyone should be able to move anywhere on the planet at the drop of a hat, regardless of their capabilities or the conditions of their destination?

How has health got anything to do with immigration? You suggest not letting in skilled workers because they're not fully healthy.

Canadian citizens who have worked to build a society have the right to keep their society from being destroyed by a tidal wave of immigration. Since taxes pay for the health-care system, care is taken to not let in those with serious problems that would over-burden the system. Don't think it's fair? Don't come.

Not all skilled jobs require degrees. Most people know that. Unless you want more rich people coming because you think they're not riff-raff.

That's why having a degree is not an absolute requirement. Just more points for more education. Get to the number of points, and you're welcomed in.

Most people who want to immigrate will have learned the language to a reasonable standard anyway. Immigrants only don't learn a language when they're denied work permits so they end up working on building sites. Who needs to know a language on a building site or doing other menial work?

Arriving and not being fluent is a drain. If someone isn't able to speak the language when they arrive, they must take language courses, which is a drain on society. Since they're not working, they get government assistance. Again a drain. Again, this is not an absolute requirement: If you score high enough in the other areas, you can get in barely speaking a word of English or French.

You conveniently forget to mention that "good" skilled workers Canada let's in aren't allowed to vote.

What country allows non-citizens to vote? Once a landed immigrant has been a resident for three years, they can apply to become a citizen. All that's required is to take a test on Canadian history and government and pass a quick interview that checks for minimal command of a language and evidence of integration into society. If after 3 years you still can't carry on a conversation in either language, don't have a job and aren't doing anything to improve your prospects, chances are you wouldn't be much of a citizen anyway.

None of it makes any sense unless it's to make foreigners appear the enemy, instead of the bosses who pay average people piss-poor wages.

Wow. Are you clueless?
Usually it would be "the bosses" who would favor unlimited immigration to get cheap labor. Keeping limits on the level of immigration keeps salaries from collapsing.

You're attacking a system that lets in a quarter million a year into a country with 30 million because everyone on the planet that wants to move here can't come tomorrow? Show me a country that has more open immigration, and show me how they are able to absorb the influx.
 

parr

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Posts
433
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
51
Age
71
Location
Florida
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I am totally confused, by what one has to do with the other. Unless you are refering
to genetics between different nationalities.
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
There has been immigration control throughout u.s. history. Wtf? The op doesn't even make sense. Immigration laws have existed to benefit the white upper class hetero male going back a couple hundred years now. Take a gender/race/class history course and educate yourself.

A - take a look at the demographic profile of origin (Irish, German, etc) of the USA at 1900, 1950, & now - it's bloody obvious that there's been massive immigration since then.

B - take a look at the immigration laws of Mexico, India, China - hell any bloody country, & you'll realise what a twat both you, & apparently your tutors are.

C - you should make friends with osprey - you're both in the remedial class on this issue.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
A - take a look at the demographic profile of origin (Irish, German, etc) of the USA at 1900, 1950, & now - it's bloody obvious that there's been massive immigration since then.

OK, let's do that - Irish American - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
First, some background info - A total of 36,278,332 Americans (or 11.9%) of the total population, reported Irish ancestry in the 2008 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. The only self-reported ancestral group larger than Irish Americans is German Americans. In addition roughly another 3.5 million (or about another 1.2% of Americans) identified more specifically with Scots-Irish ancestry.

According to the Dictionary of American History, approximately "50,000 to 100,000 Irishmen, over 75 percent of them Catholic, came to America in the 1600s, while 100,000 more Irish Catholics arrived in the 1700s." Indentured servitude was an especially common way of affording migration, and in the 1740s the Irish made up nine out of ten indentured servants in some colonial regions. Irish immigration, mostly males, had greatly increased beginning in the 1820s, as many became involved in canal building, lumbering, and civil construction works in the Northeast. After 1860, Irish immigration continued, with another 1,916,547 arriving by 1900, mainly due to family reunification, mostly to the industrial town and cities where Irish American neighborhoods had previously been established.


And now, for a chart - Irish History
Notice that the chart figures do not include Irishmen entering the United States from Great Britain who were normally counted as "British", nor does it count those who entered (legally or illegally) via Canada. The highest year of entry recorded seems to be 1851, whereas the lowest was around World War II in 1942. Irish Immigration from the 1900s till now is much lower in comparison to the middle decades of the 1800s. At least in the United States anyhow.

So the Irish may not be the best of examples in this case... but damn, some of them are quite hot looking. Erin Go "Bragh-less" for that, I'm sure!! :biggrin:

Anyone else care to focus on any of the other demographics?
 
Last edited:

osprey1987

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2007
Posts
207
Media
0
Likes
41
Points
163
Why would you think that everyone should be able to move anywhere on the planet at the drop of a hat, regardless of their capabilities or the conditions of their destination?

Because no one can point to any economic or social collapse that had anything to do with excessive immigration that was caused by the immigrants themselves. If something has no proof of being harmful and has been going on for centuries, what right does anyone have to arbitrarily limit it? People's talk of unwashed masses just shows it is based on fear alone.

Caps actually produce an uneven spread of immigration. Once one country starts a cap then more immigrants go to a country without. If you apply this at city level you must calculate an arbitrary cap for every settlement until the only way to reach an even immigration pattern is to cap every town in every country.

Simply eliminating caps across the world would spread immigration more evenly. Unless you honestly believe that all immigrants on earth are somehow magnetically attracted to one particular country which is nonsense.
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
Because no one can point to any economic or social collapse that had anything to do with excessive immigration that was caused by the immigrants themselves. If something has no proof of being harmful and has been going on for centuries, what right does anyone have to arbitrarily limit it? People's talk of unwashed masses just shows it is based on fear alone.


Caps actually produce an uneven spread of immigration. Once one country starts a cap then more immigrants go to a country without. If you apply this at city level you must calculate an arbitrary cap for every settlement until the only way to reach an even immigration pattern is to cap every town in every country.

Simply eliminating caps across the world would spread immigration more evenly. Unless you honestly believe that all immigrants on earth are somehow magnetically attracted to one particular country which is nonsense.

?????????

Just like all bars, restaurants, & schools are as popular as each other! You continue to make ridiculous assertions.

People immigrate for self interest to enhance their prosperity, or lifestyle, & will go to whichever country will allow them in to achieve this.

Immigration is capped to protect the domestic inhabitant's lifestyle & prosperity. Where there are shortages in particular skills & labour, immigration is always actively encouraged from those who fit the bill. And BTW, since the 60s, only about 15% of US immigrants have come from Europe.

Where immigration is unmanaged you have profound social issues. Taking the UK as an example, there are some schools where there are now pupils speaking up to 25 different languages - none of them English. How does a teacher teach to pupils who can't even understand each other?

Then you have the obvious budgetary considerations. How do you house, medically provide for, employ, give welfare to, feed, & police unmanaged immigrants, especially when there were no jobs available to begin with?

The ending of UK border controls led to vast trafficking of Chinese, African & Eastern European indentured workers, including a massive rise in trafficked slave prostitutes, who now seem to form the majority in that profession. Ignorance of social & cultural domestic boundaries have led to the wholesale breach of laws, which only leads to resentment from the original inhabitants.

I've not even mentioned all the other criminals, rapists & murderers fleeing their own countries, entering the UK unchecked. 85%-90% of all murdered police officers in the last 20 years were killed by illegal immigrants & former asylum seekers.

All of this has to be paid for. It can be when it's planned & managed, exactly how do you do this when its not? Its chaos. All communities have a critical mass & a tipping point because the social & physical infrastructure can only handle so much. Depleted resources, chronic living conditions & a poorer quality of life would be the result of the fiasco of your policy.

Furthermore, I once again urge you to look at the immigration laws of various countries - it's not like Europeans or Americans can easily move anywhere else either to non-western countries. You can't even own a house in many (e.g India, Vietnam)!

Why don't you go out, buy a bundle of beer, invite 20 people for a party, then advertise the event on Facebook, with your address, whilst mentioning the free beer.

See what happens! FFS go on a management course, or do something that actually makes you learn about scarce resources, budgeting & planning.
 
Last edited:

Intrigue

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Posts
1,423
Media
12
Likes
9
Points
73
Location
Florida
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I'm not the sharpest spoon in the drawer but this whole thread seems to hurt my brain when I try to understand each viewpoint. I may not be the expert and this is my biased opinion, because I font think opinion by definition are unbiased, but I agree with those that have stated that immigration laws are there to protect the delicate balance already in place. A local populace can only take so many people coming in without it starting to stress the local economy and or structure. I'm only basing this off of my minimal experience and schooling in the subject but anything unchecked can and usually will cause issues. Maybe a form of Murphy's Law? Meh, nit sure how much sense I'm making if at all.
 

osprey1987

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2007
Posts
207
Media
0
Likes
41
Points
163
Crackoff, none of what you posted makes sense. I didn't say get rid of border controls or let criminals in. Unfair immigration controls force people to enter illegally and thus be trafficked.

The idea developed nations cannot pay for translation services when they can afford billions on smart bombs and fighter planes is nonsense. Your party analogy is also nonsense: a thought experiment that proves nothing. The argument about resources is wilful stupidity. Immigrants in Britain make a net benefit to the economy and everybody admits this. Far from paying for medical care, Britain is grateful for immigrants for improving our health service. Your arguments fly in the face of all facts.

What is this magical country that all immigrants want to enter, this paradise? Every developed country on earth has people complaining that all the immigrants want to come to their country. So which country is it? Please tell me so I can go there.

More British people emigrated to Spain, a less rich nation, than vice-versa. How do you explain that? All these arguments about stresses and strains are total unproven conjecture. Schools aren't failing because of immigrants not learning English, they're failing because of pupils' poverty and underfunding.

The simple questions is why don't you like immigrants? And the answer is because you're used to your own kind and are too scared to say so.
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
Crackoff, none of what you posted makes sense. I didn't say get rid of border controls or let criminals in. Unfair immigration controls force people to enter illegally and thus be trafficked.

Lol! Immigration controls manage the population. Lack of immigration controls encourages trafficking as they aren't counted in or out. The UK doesn't do this!

85% of all immigrants each year to the US, & Europe aren't white. Apart from a few countries whose citizens can enter a lottery, white Europeans cannot immigrate to the US & vice versa without being offered a job, & having unique skills to do it - or they have be a millionaire. Do you understand this?

How is that discriminatory?

The idea developed nations cannot pay for translation services when they can afford billions on smart bombs and fighter planes is nonsense.

Oh fuck me - the oldest argument now turned to immigration. WTF should they pay? If you immigrated you'd pay yourself, or self educate - its that kind of gimme gimme immigrant freeloader that no one on the planet wants.

Your party analogy is also nonsense: a thought experiment that proves nothing. The argument about resources is wilful stupidity. Immigrants in Britain make a net benefit to the economy and everybody admits this. Far from paying for medical care, Britain is grateful for immigrants for improving our health service. Your arguments fly in the face of all facts.

What a lot of shit! Aside from the fact that I'd already mentioned that immigrants of whatever colour are always desired to fill skills shortages - only the loony left claim that immigrants make a net benefit.

2. The economic benefit of immigration was called into question by a major report from the Economic Committee of the House of Lords published in April 2008 [1]. They found "no evidence for the argument, made by the government, business and many others, that net immigration generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population".

Migration Watch UK - Economic - The Invisible Cost of Immigration (1.23)

Net benefit supporters entirely ignore additional infrastructure costs (& sums remitted to countries of origin)

Powered by Google Docs
Now that we're in a recession, & with 3 million domestically unemployed, & 3 million on vague incapacity benefits, exactly what need is there for immigrant labour where there is no demand - Economics 101.

Revealed: The shocking true cost of immigration | Mail Online

Counting the cost of immigration - Telegraph


More British people emigrated to Spain, a less rich nation, than vice-versa. How do you explain that?

Already answered you ignoramus - they moved for a better quality of life, & pensioners moved there because their currency went further. Look it up anywhere! Furthermore, the number one reason for emigrating was - "immigration" - LOL.

Of course, a hell of a lot of them have moved back. The only reason the Spanish accepted the Brits was because they HAD MONEY & skills, & would add to, & not be a burden on them.

All these arguments about stresses and strains are total unproven conjecture. Schools aren't failing because of immigrants not learning English, they're failing because of pupils' poverty and underfunding.

You sound even more idiotic now - how can one teacher teach to a class of 25 equally, when half don't speak English, & none of them speak the same language either?

The pupils poverty comes from the fact that many are immigrant with parents too poorly skilled to be employed!That's exactly why immigration needs to be planned & prepared for. Why let in unskilled labour if there is no demand?

Who pays for it all - not the immigrants - look at the links previously provided, & this...

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3539813/Ethiopian-family-of-12-get-huge-1500-a-week-London-home.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News

There's your answer, the UK is clearly a magical country - you should see the camps in France full of people just waiting to get there.

The simple questions is why don't you like immigrants? And the answer is because you're used to your own kind and are too scared to say so.

I think that you're just too bigoted to realise that the reason is economic! Your whole reasoning is based on racist stereotyping - "you don't think there should be untrammeled immigration, therefore you are racist".

That type of paper thin argument has been ripped apart over & over. Exactly what kind of poor schooling have you had that you lack the critical reasoning to consider the economic factor.

Get off your prehistoric Socialist Worker soapbox & get a job & COMPETE in the real world. Failing that, why don't you immigrate to one of your favoured countries - I'm sure that even the most remote village in the world could send back a brighter replacement.

Unlike you, I've always lived among immigrants for whom English is a bit of a chore, worked with people from every country on the planet, & count as my best friends people of every hue.

None of them want more immigration, & none more so than the immigrants!
 
Last edited:

Cuddler

1st Like
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Posts
109
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
103
Location
Montreal (Quebec, Canada)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
none of what you posted makes sense.

Have you read your own scrawls?

The simple questions is why don't you like immigrants? And the answer is because you're used to your own kind and are too scared to say so.

What a laugh. I'm writing from the fourth country I've lived in since birth. Want to see my collection of passports? I'm married to a guy born and raised on a different continent and whose native tongue is not my own. According to Census Canada, we're a biracial couple.
 
Last edited:

osprey1987

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2007
Posts
207
Media
0
Likes
41
Points
163
Excellent point.

Another incisively witty point form Maxcox.

Crackoff, you even admit the only organisation in all Britain who believes immigrants don't make a net benefit is one that's anti-immigration to begin with. You kind of proved my point.

1 in 5 people in Britain live in poverty today. The links are easy to find. You think they all emigrated here, that poverty is like a disease that travels from one nation to another? You're clearly making this crap up as you go along.

Since when has legalising something ever increased trafficking? It doesn't make any sense.

And why would half a class not knowing English have anything to do with the total numbers of immigrants? How many classes in Britain actually exist where that is the case? Virtually none. Yet more conjecture. The number of children not knowing English in British schools is minuscule. The idea that it is putting a "strain" is comical.

If you ask a schoolchild what's wrong with education, no.1 on his/her list will be immigrants not knowing good enough English. It's what we hear all the time on the news: "I failed my exams because the teacher was too busy trying to understand what the immigrants were saying and not answering my questions." :pat:

Cuddler, maybe people shouldn't reply to posts that weren't addressed to them if they don't want to get angry.
 

Cuddler

1st Like
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Posts
109
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
103
Location
Montreal (Quebec, Canada)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Cuddler, maybe people shouldn't reply to posts that weren't addressed to them if they don't want to get angry.

You're right. No point in wasting more of my time with someone who can't state a coherent thought in a single post, much less a consistent argument across posts.
 

Kotchanski

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Posts
2,850
Media
10
Likes
104
Points
193
Location
England (United Kingdom)
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Female
If you ask a schoolchild what's wrong with education, no.1 on his/her list will be immigrants not knowing good enough English. It's what we hear all the time on the news: "I failed my exams because the teacher was too busy trying to understand what the immigrants were saying and not answering my questions." :pat:

I happen to have children currently in school. They are in different classes...

Between their two classes they share the room with 5 children from various European countries, 1 from some part of Africa (unclear as to which part) 3 from India and 1 from China... there may be others I've not met, and they've not mentioned, but I'm not inclined to stand at the school gates and survey each and every child that walks out. None of these children speak fluent English, many of their parents don't speak a word of it and can often be heard chatting to their kids in their native tongues on the way to school.

I asked my children what the biggest problem with their school was, specifically with learning and understanding what they are required to do. Their answer was they found it difficult at times to follow the teacher because other children misbehaving often required that the teacher stop to deal with them, which broke up the instructions.

I then asked them how they felt about having children who couldn't speak the language in their classes... They thought it was fun and exciting, they loved that they had the chance to swap words and learn about the other cultures.

Your attempt to deem those who wish for less immigration, or even those who wish to control the number of immigrants as racists is moronic and based on your own lack of understanding of the bigger issues.

Most people, aside from actual racists (who generally don't care where you're from, as long as you don't look and sound exactly like they do!) couldn't care less where you're from, what you sound like or what language you speak, as long as your intention is to add to society. They appreciate that you want to come here for a better quality of life, not to steal jobs or ride the benefits system, but to work hard and be rewarded in the same way the rest of us are when we work hard.

Most of those moving here appreciate the need to control the numbers, not because we want to keep our nation (whatever the nation happens to be) but because we have enough trouble supporting those we already have (both those born here, and those who move here)

Housing waiting lists are through the roof at over a year in some places, and that's regardless of if you can pay yourself or are on benefits... With even private rentals requiring credit checks, references from previous landlords and the likes, many people who are more than capable of renting a property without the council are forced to put themselves on these lists because they can't pass these checks due to something that happened years ago. Imagine the trouble a self-sustaining immigrant would have finding privately rented accommodation when they've moved from owning their own home in their country to renting one over here... I know from friends that it's near impossible without the assistance of the council waiting lists.

That's just one area, throw in language barriers, the difficulties involved with doing international police checks for many jobs (My husband needed a police record search for his job, it took more than a few weeks to come back, and he'd only lived in 3 areas his entire life, all within the UK)

All these issues add up, but we don't mind helping to sort them... We just have to limit how many we can help each year, and they're ok with that!

You seem to be the only one who isn't ok with it...
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
126
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male

hytr3

Sexy Member
Joined
May 24, 2010
Posts
42
Media
43
Likes
59
Points
53
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
as far as im concerned, theres no reason to restrict immigration any further. anyone who thinks immigrants are 'stealing' jobs is just an idiot who didn't work hard enough and blames his problems on immigrants. most the others who care against immigration are just racists. i dont care what your socioeconomic background is, if you work hard enough in this country you'll make it. if an immigrant takes a job you want then you have no one to blame but yourself.