Ding Dong .... round 2

I've noticed that those who do not have a valid reason, or little knowledge of what staying in, or coming out will mean resort to name calling. Control of immigration has nothing to do with race. Just numbers. When asked were our schools, hospitals, housing etc. able to cope with a large influx from Europe. Nick Clegg said "That's the problem where there are people!" It's always pointed out that the hospital wouldn't cope without the immigrants that work there - I would agree, but would also like to know how many extra patients they are dealing with since our borders were opened. Schools are struggling to cope and I'm not talking about teaching, more about providing places. Housing? Well enough said!

If we agree that the number of people re-locating to UK needs to be controlled..simply because space is limited... then we need to be able to agree how we decide on 'who' can be an immigrant.

Do we give priority to those in distress, i.e. asylum /refugees fleeing from violence and war. As in European Jewish immigration prior to WW2, Ugandan Asians fleeing from Amin etc etc Now would it be from Syria /Palestine / Central Africa ?

Or is immigration prioritised for those who can 'afford' to come here such as wealthier Eastern Europeans/ Sth Africans/Australians who come because they prefer a life in UK to life 'at home' ?

Or give priority to those who can provide cheap labour to maintain certain industries / aspects of work to keep costs down/profits up?

Those are the questions I would like politicians to answer.

But then we also need answers from those who think anyone at all should be allowed to come here. When (if ever) would they agree that enough is enough? When (if ever) would they realise that schools, hospitals etc. have been pushed to their absolute limits and that there is nowhere for immigrants to live, never mind work...

I meant all politicians Ana not just the goons on the TV debate

Your answer seems to suggest that there are politicians who think that unlimited immigration is OK. I think all politicians, in main parties, have said there needs to be some limit.

My question is who will choose and who will they choose?

Maybe it should just be the first xx to apply each month.. or a lottery? Or do we chose by wealth, education etc?

I think the question of immigration is very, very complex..not just a case of saying only a set number of people can come & live here.

Good questions Penstommon. I'm not holding my breath for answers from politicians, but will be interested to hear what other posters' views are.

I would favour this country's long standing approach of attempting to offer safety to those fleeing persecution.

Given we're in the EU (something I'm not against), there has to be a debate about free movement between EU countries, between all member states. The evidence seems to be that the majority of people coming from EU countries, come here to work. I'm not disputing the fact that some either don't want to work, or can't find the plentiful work they'd expected.

I wish as a country we could find (and fund) a creative, determined approach to supporting unemployed British people to find work. I am not anti immigration, but put simply, being in some form of work leads to better physical and mental health.

A gransnet manifesto could be a joy to argue, whoops, I mean debate, about

I wasn't referring to the tv debate, Penstemmon, nor was I referring solely to politicians. You were asking how immigration would be 'controlled' and I was just wondering how those who argue against strict controls can justify their position, given that Britain is hardly the rich and prosperous country it once was.

Unfortunately immigration from Europe cannot be controlled. From other countries it can and is, when the immigrant is legal. The size of the UK alone prohibits unlimited migration. People from poorer EU countries come for a better way of life. Most work and claim benefits, such as free health service, child benefit and tax credits. There will be a problem with numbers until our standard of living is the same as theirs.

As the ultimate aim is to become the United States of Europe, I don't hold out much hope of a change in the freedom of movement law. There is no other reason why we would have taken this on board. I just wish that politicians would be honest and tell everyone what the ultimate aim is. Only then will you now whether you want to be in it or not. It's slowly, slowly, catchy monkey. You will suddenly realise that it is a fait accomplis.

Immigration from non European countries doesn't seem to be well managed Experigran. Many people come to the UK as students, or to visit, and over stay. There don't appear to be any reliable figures, or reliable system to monitor who is in or out of the uk

I must agree with you there, but it is not such a big problem as the open borders. More checks are being put in place to monitor who does/doesn't leave. I can't believe that these checks had been stopped. All part of cost cutting, no doubt.

Given the shortage of available jobs, they could employ more border control personnel and charge those wanting to enter the country for the checks to an amount that equals the pay of the border officials.

I agree that the country needs to look at the issue of immigration very seriously. If UKIP and the NF have at least made politicians wake up to the problem then that is the one, and only, thing on their favour. But as for voting anyone from a far right party into a position of power....I hope that never happens.

I recently came back from Gijon (Spain) to Poole on LDLines ferry and in Gijon they had a sniffer dog and police checking the cars, lorries, caravans and motorhomes, for what or whom I don't know. When we arrived in Poole we where stopped as were many others, we were checked for green diesel, others had their cars etc searched.

Previously when I came back on myferry.com Calais to Dover no one was stopped or searched. There were romanians, polish and various other nationalities on this ferry. One young romanian girl was begging outside the duty free shop!

Many people make their way from North Africa to Spain and then some travel via France to gain entry to the UK. These people are supposedly fleeing form their own country and seeking asylum, but why do they not seek asylum in the first place to which they escape? Why do they then do their utmost to get to the UK? We are simply a soft touch, a great way of life - houses, benefits etc. It is worth almost any risk to make our shores.

There was an article in the Guardian two weeks ago about asylum seekers from Somalia, coming over by boat to Italy. It told how many of them drowned, just over a year ago.
Some of those who survived were raped. One girl burnt her finger tips so that she did not have to be finger printed and listed as an asylum seeker in Italy as she wanted to get to Sweden where she had friends. The men who raped her were in court in Italy, so she did not want to stay there.
She now is on a course there, and will send back her wages to her parents who sold absolutely everything they owned to pay for what they thought was a safe passage for their daughter.
I felt quite humbled at reading this. It is not their fault that the only way they can escape from their persecutors is by going to the nearest part of Europe.
We're such a soft touch that a girl taking her 'A' levels was sent back weeks before the exam!

That specific case is hardly representative of how Britain treats asylum-seekers/immigrants generally, durhamjen!

Experigran I couldn't agree more.

Never said it was, Ana. However, everybody's generalisations are specific to other individuals. Do you not feel anything for those who were drowned in the Med trying to escape persecution in their own countries? That was the body of my comment, and you criticise one last sentence!

I found that last sentence petty and pointless, which was why I commented on it. Please don't presume me to be lacking in compassion just because I don't share your political views, durhamjen.

I'm sure that, if we had the room and resources we would take them all in durhamjen What is happening is appalling. What will happen when we are truly Europe? Will we be able to help as much then, or will we still be the dumping ground for mainland Europe? We are known for our compassion, democracy and tolerance. Why are the rest of Europe, many of whom have much more space, not the same?

Why was it petty and pointless? It's the same thing.
There were hundreds of people who signed a petition to keep an asylum seeker here, who had come over with her family. Because of a lack of compassion by this government, she was sent back to Mauritius, I think it was, on her own, just six weeks before her 'A' levels. She would have been willing to go back with the rest of her family, but is now on her own in a country from which she had fled.
I know that people on here signed the petition, because of compassion for the girl. It's not political views, it's just common humanity.
Experigran, we are truly Europe. We always have been. Just because we do not use the Euro as our currency, and probably never will, does not make us less European.
We are known for our tolerance, are we? So why does Farage have so many followers?

Yes, we had a thread about Yashika Bageerathi last week, you may remember.
(petty does not mean exactly the same as pointless, btw)

So why was my comment petty and pointless?

And just in case you are going to criticise that, how was my comment petty and pointless?

I refer you back to my post of 15.07.

So that's just an aberration, is it? We normally treat asylum seekers with care and compassion, except when we split them up from their families, send them back to the place they have come from to continue being persecuted, keep them in detention centres until we send them back, and not allow them to work but give them no benefits, sometimes for years?
That's caring and compassionate is it?
You still have not said why or how my comment was petty or pointless, just that you think it is.