Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

The Immigration Dispute:: Is immigration beneficial to a nation?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 31 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 9 Nov 2011 14:16:31 GMT
Spin says:
(First, I have to say that I hope it will be possible to discuss this serious issue sensibly, without the interuption of neo-nazis and wannabe Fuhrers). Immigration is now of serious concern in the economic and cultural order of developed nations. A nation with crippling debt and high unemployment should be cutting the numbers of immigrants, should it not? After all, the US and Europe only allowed mass immigration to fill the requirements of its economy, which at the time needed a large labour force unavailable in the national population.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Nov 2011 20:24:54 GMT
my parents are immigrants and i can see a few perspectives on this issue. My father first came here in the 70's to get a better life because there was little or no jobs available in his home country. Fast forward to present day the same reason exists, not only work but a better life and I cannot begrudge anybody for wanting that for themselves and their family. I think the problem is our policies that allow so much immigration that it is more of a hindrance than it is of benifit to our society.

I think a system needs to be put in place to address our needs before the immigrants, if we become bankrupt then whats the point.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Nov 2011 10:01:04 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Nov 2011 10:04:03 GMT
Molly Brown says:
"Jingoism is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy. In practice, it is a country's advocation of the use of threats or actual force against others, in order to safeguard what it perceives as its national interests. Colloquially, it refers to excessive bias in judging one's own country as superior to others - an extreme type of nationalism."

If we had a country which distributed it's wealth more fairly, if living standards were higher, if there was no housing or job shortage, then this "conservative" jingoism, or hatred of foreigners would not exist imo.

We are a country of immigrants, almost all of us in one way or another, politicians continue to jump on the "immigration" "problem" bandwagon of the far right, supported by almost fascist newspapers and media in general. It is, and always has been a smokescreen to hide the real failings in our society, which have nothing to do with people from other countries wanting to come to this country. These people, immigrants, attempt to come to live here, in the misguided belief that we are a fair minded and welcoming country. People seem to not understand that "immigrants" are human beings, just the same as you and I, and all they want to do, is try and make a better life for themselves and their families.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Nov 2011 12:47:33 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Nov 2011 12:50:51 GMT
gille liath says:
Jingoism is irrelevant to this issue - it refers to rivalry between states, not individuals.

Similarly, 'we're a country of immigrants' is a meaningless statement. The word 'immigrant' entails a concept of citizenship which is fairly recent - but it's always been the case that people have distrusted those 'not from round these parrrts'.

It's not difficult to understand why people want to come here, in spite of the fact that from our perspective it may seem a sh*thole. But it's equally easy to understand why a lot of folk already here aren't so keen. The right-wing politicians don't manufacture that feeling - they harp on it because it's already so widespread.

I don't think there's any 'correct' answer to the question. It depends on your perspective.

I can't believe you've changed your tag again. Trying to keep the opposition guessing, eh?

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Nov 2011 13:59:07 GMT
Molly Brown says:
Sorry, I'm not from these parrrts, don't understand your argument that "a lot of folk already here aren't so keen". Do you think they've been brainwashed then?

I agree, and recognise that there is no easy answer to the question, although some of the above regarding improving standards for all in this country, might take some of the ill feeling away from those who feel they are losing out because of immigration.

My tag, only temporary, I think?

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Nov 2011 19:35:48 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Nov 2011 20:28:27 GMT
gille liath says:
Do I think they've been brainwashed? No, I think when you've got problems it's perfectly understandable that the first person you blame is the outsider. And it may even be partly their fault.

I always think it's well to remember, when you think there might be a conspiracy to brainwash people, that, a) the oligarchs aren't that clever, b) the people aren't (quite) that stupid. If people believe what they're told by the newspapers etc, it's first and foremost because they *want* to.

For simplicity's sake: is your name actually Molly? If so, mind if I stick with that?

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Nov 2011 07:57:59 GMT
Molly Brown says:
Fine by me Gille.

"If people believe what they're told by the newspapers"......because they "want" to.......more because they just can't be bothered to think for themselves more like. And who exactly own's these type of papers anyway, who aren't that clever, the oligarchs.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Nov 2011 19:22:24 GMT
Last edited by the author on 13 Nov 2011 19:38:13 GMT
gille liath says:
Yeah, but they print what they print because people will pay to read it. 'They can't be bothered to think for themselves' - well, it amounts to the same thing. But the point is, immigration does have an effect on the incumbent population, both culturally and economically. It's not entirely a delusion, though it does get exaggerated.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Nov 2011 19:50:50 GMT
Last edited by the author on 13 Nov 2011 19:51:15 GMT
M. Jolliff says:
'No, I think when you've got problems it's perfectly understandable that the first person you blame is the outsider.'
And there in lies the problem with almost every situation involving humans, especially the current populace of this country. It's always someone else's fault or responsibility. What advantage does a lack of shared language, social and cultural understanding and possibly education give you that enables 'immigrants' to prosper over natives?

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Nov 2011 20:00:02 GMT
gille liath says:
Erm...not sure what you're getting at there. But prosperity is relative; and one thing about immigrants is that, coming from countries where both wages and prices are lower, they're often willing to work for less - thus lowering the market wage (or preventing it from rising). People here can hardly be expected to turn somersaults at that. On the other hand, if they *don't* work, immigrants increase the competition for various social benefits and services that are already limited. So the unfortunate thing is that the adverse effects immigrants have hit the poorest, whilst the benefits they may produce accrue mainly to the better-off.

The cultural effect is harder to quantify, and perhaps it's less the fault of immigrants themselves than of over-zealous white liberals. As with all social constructs, it only matters if people think it does; but many people do.

Posted on 13 Nov 2011 20:31:53 GMT
M. Jolliff says:
Whose fault is it that immigrant labour depresses wages?
Theirs for being prepared to work for less, or not asking for more.
Or ours for wanting cheap goods, or not being prepared to pay higher prices.
Theirs for wanting better conditions than where they come from.
Or ours for not being prepared to settle for less.

Great Expectations

(Sullivan/Morrow) 1982



When I was young I dreamed and dreamed
About all the things that I was going to be
A brave explorer holding court or a really famous astronaut
A handsome pop star on the screen or captain of the England team
They said "Son, it could all be yours, you just work hard and pay your dues
Don't be content with what you've got, there's always more that you can want
Everybody's on the make - that's what made this country great"

Ch: So all I wanted in the end
Was world domination and a whole lot of money to spend
A little place to call my home, like a planet that was all my own
Well that's not much to ask, it's really not
It's not much to ask, just the same as anybody else



So welcome to the free for all, the smash and grab, the freeloaders ball
Where everything is here for us if we scream, shout, make a fuss
There's nothing that we can't afford with a poisoned tongue and a sharpened sword
Spoilt children in a row - no one dares to tell them "no"

Ch: So all I wanted in the end
Was world domination and a whole lot of money to spend
Everything I touch, everything I see, fame and fortune, immortality
Well that's not much to ask, it's really not
It's not much to ask, just the same as anybody else



So in every heart there's a broken dream, a shattered cause, a might have been
In every eye there's a secret tear, in every heart there's a secret fear
That this is it, done, complete. Resign yourself to your defeat
The bitterness behind the show - that's where spoilt children go

Posted on 14 Nov 2011 12:57:48 GMT
E. M. Stone says:
Immigration on the whole is naturally controlled by economics. For example, immigration quickly loses it's appeal when there are little to no prospects in the host country. As always with the majority of immigration arguments, the difference between legal and illegal immigration is overlooked, skewing the argument to the use of innacurate facts and statements. On a personal and social observation, as M Joiliff has mentioned, there is a problem (probably with human nature) where we look to blame outsiders rather that our own nuclear communities for the social ills. We always look to seek differences in others, and associate the differences with weaknesses rather than employing any kind of self-critique to determine causation.

Posted on 15 Nov 2011 05:21:07 GMT
Ladies and gentlemen. Despite the disagreements, I must say it is soothing to my soul to see fellow Americans with brains actually taking the opportunity to discuss important issues.

I agree with all of you, except the statement about the oligarchy not being clever. Imagine what it would be like to be a member, lots of free time to think and plan. Clever is what they are, and very of it indeed.

However, the answer you seek lies within history. Not just recent, but since history began on paper. "Their", and by their I refer to current leaders, decisions are very much based off historical data.

To spare you boring lectures and "light speed ahead" to immigration, the answer is "natural". It was allowed to support the economy, increase population, workers, increase income ect (I think the benefits are obvious). Now, there's not enough work. That's the natural order. Like a wave, it rises and falls. Immigrants, like E.M. Stone said, will lose the appetite to travel here and naturally, will decline. Globalization will bring it back here, but who knows when. I may be dead and so might you.

I hate to say it, but loyalty to America may soon become cumbersome to our lifestyles.

Posted on 16 Nov 2011 04:00:40 GMT
mister joe says:
I applaud this very contentious subject.Though i would never disclose an opinion here as amazon feels a strange type of place to have this sort of discussion.I follow the strict dinner party code no politics,sex or religion.
Molly Brown you are ubiquitous.Why no reviews?You appear to have a lot to say,add,comment,joining other posters.
Write some reviews,paint you're flag,show you're stripes.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Nov 2011 09:01:07 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 16 Nov 2011 09:01:32 GMT]

Posted on 17 Nov 2011 17:09:51 GMT
Minerva says:
On a less global scale, are not most of us 'economic' migrants?

We move to attend a preferred university, 'because it provides the best/most suitable course' or because it was the only one that offered us a place. We move to wherever we can obtain a job. We move to accomodation in a 'better' neighbourhood, or where there are 'better' schools for our children. Later, we move to be nearer one of our middle-aged children, so they are available to give us assistance as we are incapacitated by age, or we retire to coastal or rural comfort.

As human beings, we are all motivated to make the best of Life, for ourselves and our children.

Immigration regulations are simply another symptom of the greed that pervades our society: "I'm not sharing my good fortune with less fortunate people". Today, what people *want* has become more important than than what people *need*. I HATE the materialistic greed and hypocrisy that is destroying our humanitarianism.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Nov 2011 18:35:06 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Nov 2011 18:35:22 GMT
E. M. Stone says:
Wholeheartedly agree Minerva. When you feed ignorance and fear into the equation also, it'll give you a better idea of right-wing thinking on the subject too. And on another note, a dinner party where conversations regarding politics, sex or religion are off the cards, makes for a pretty dull evening in my opinion.

Posted on 17 Nov 2011 19:42:13 GMT
Minerva says:
E. M. Stone - you're welcome to dinner, any time!

Posted on 26 Nov 2011 22:05:54 GMT
J. Farrow says:
It's pretty simple really. Most if not all countries require some kind of immigration to survive. It's when you open the flood gates (like we did in the UK) and let huge amounts of immigrants into a coutry, without considering levels of skill or qualifications you get yourself into a bit of a mess. I hate the fact that if you speak out on immigration you're made to feel like some sort of a racist. That is far from the case! Immigration is not bad, it just needs to be regulated properly!

Take a look at Australia, or even Japan for a bit more of an extreme view. To immigrate to Australia you need to prove that you would and can find work in a profession or sector that contributes to society on a fundamental level, and have the necessary training or qualifications to do so. To my knowledge, to even get a work visa in Japan you need to have a degree to even do any job! Now that might seem a little extreme, and in no way am I suggesting taking such an extreme measure as the Japanese,
(I don't have a degree myself!) but I don't think you'll find these two countries having immigration issues like we have in the UK. I'm no expert on the subject mind you, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. :)

Posted on 7 Dec 2011 13:17:30 GMT
Rovert says:
A lot of the debate seems to be about one side or other reacting instinctively to the silliest things said by the opposing faction and so being confirmed in views some of which they really ought to question whichever side they tend to be on.

For a start, no-one should hold it in the slightest against others should they wish to enter this country to better themselves economically or otherwise. Just ignore any suggestion, anywhere, that immigrants can be blamed for doing this. Neither should there be any discrimination of any kind against immigrants. Just ignore anyone who might suggest there should be. Immigrants have helped this country in the past and foreigners have helped it. We have helped foreigners in the past and also oppressed them. No country that wants to organise itself so as to train and motivate its people "needs" immigrants, but that is not to say that they might not often be valuable. Winning or losing any debate about any of these things just isn't particularly relevant when the situation is as it is now, not as it once was. We can learn to some extent from the past but only if we take full account of changed circumstances. It seems to me that discussion of present day immigration is constantly muddied by people being sidetracked by pursuing arguments that they understandably feel strongly about but which really aren't central to deciding what should be done now.

My concern about immigration is that factors including our relative prosperity, our widely used language and the numbers of immigrants already here amongst whom others might feel at home, mean that in a world much of which is impoverished but with a fast multiplying population, huge numbers of people potentially wish to come here. How bad would our economy have to get before that would not still be the case? Worldwide, people are more familiar than before with life in other countries and are more willing to emigrate as a result. There is no significant "economic self-correction". Whatever the arguments about the immediate benefits or otherwise of immigration, I am far less concerned about such temporary matters as contributions to pensions or cheap labour willing to do unattractive jobs than I am about the future effects of sheer numbers of people, whether immigrants or not, upon our way of life. Whether it's the country's infrastructure, the environment, leisure opportunities, social cohesion, ability to cope with economic setbacks, quality of life, all will suffer from a much higher population. Look at a graph of our population growth if you are complacent about this. Few of the problems we see arising in the news will not be worsened by a higher population. Figures setting numbers of emigrants against immigrants almost always overlook the age profile of each and so the longer term effect on population. Vested interests and often hopelessly naive though well-intending individuals may disparage such concerns, but our children will have to cope with the results.

Posted on 8 Dec 2011 15:45:44 GMT
The EU encourages immigrants from all over the world, who arrive here via Italy, which grants residency so easily - it is the EU's weakest link. The UK Borders Agency admits that immigration is out of control. National sovereignty for Britain must mean, among other demands, controlling our borders.
The Office for National Statistics says that the number of low-skilled workers born outside the UK has more than doubled since 2002. Most of the extra 367,000 foreign-born workers in low-skilled jobs came from the 8 eastern or central European countries which joined the EU in 2004. In 2002 there were approximately 4,000 workers from these nations. This year, there were 235,000. The coalition government, like Labour, encouraged the inflow of low-skilled workers from inside Europe.
Separate ONS figures also show that net migration has increased despite government talk of bringing it down. Net immigration rose to 242,000 in the year ending September 2010, the largest total for five years.

Posted on 19 Feb 2012 19:59:24 GMT
M. Coleman says:
EU forced Ireland to take immigrants , now Irish people are leaving in their droves , lack of work for the natives .

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Feb 2012 22:00:32 GMT
EU did not forced Ireland to join the EU, did they?

Posted on 19 Feb 2012 23:05:26 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 19 Feb 2012 23:57:13 GMT
M. Coleman says:
EU forced no one to join , perhaps they tricked them - But Ireland voted NO twice and were made to vote again , a few other countries NO votes were also ignored .
Your reply to M. Coleman's post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
 
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the politics discussion forum

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  18
Total posts:  31
Initial post:  9 Nov 2011
Latest post:  2 Mar 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions