BBC on mass immigration to Ireland - we have messed it up basically

Sgt Hartman

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Well isn't Ireland's greatest natural resource now skilled personal and are we not lacking in that, hence the need for immigration of skilled migrant workers to continue or even stabilise the rapid growth of our economy?

The economy, the economy, it's always about the precious economy. It seems to me that quite a few Irish people no longer see Ireland as a country but as an economy that absolutely, positively MUST THRIVE, even at the cost of our national identity.

Regards immigration, we unfortunately have completely failed to learn from the mistakes made by countries such as France, Holland and the UK. As a result we have had a massive influx of immigrants in a very short period of time. This is inevitably going to lead to serious problems for us further down the line, especially if the "all-precious" economy starts going into recession.

The truth is, there SHOULD be a limit to the amount of immigrants coming into Ireland. Also, immigrants and asylum-seekers should be properly screened. This is so that criminal gangs, scumbags, chancers and also serious diseases are not introduced into the country. Unfortunately, these measures were never properly introduced at the start and now we will see the consequences of it. And those who find that "racist" really need to take their blinkers off and wake up to reality.

SubjectSean

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Hey hey, guess what. All the charity and compassion in the world isn't going to help them.

How can you say? it hasn't been extended to them. Maybe if they even managed to get a tiny fraction of it then that would do them.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Dead babies, grieving mothers, the economic system depending on sub saharan africa, what the living christ are you burbling on about.

Clearly in explaining the reality on the ground I have moved beyond your simple powers of comprehension. Don't worry yourself about it, people like you are in a majority and have the vote.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

You need to think very carefully about what you just said. Tell me, what sort of subsistence farmers can afford a ticket on a luxury plane?

Ones whose whole extended family has saved for years to be able to send that one single person out into the West as a lifeline to their community.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Wait, so you mean that the people coming in aren't subsistence farmers, but relatively well off middle class types? :eek: This little fact comes as no surprise to many people, althoug it will probably be a big surprise to you.

Who are these 'relatively well off middle class types'? People here sat on their arses on the dole get paid more than the doctors, teachers and politicians of most third world countries. Maybe this is a big surprise to you?

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Lets change your statement to oh we of the really, really short memory. Back in the 80s Ireland was as badly off as many African nations are today,

Please this is absolute bollocks, try going back to the 1840's and you might be somewhere close. It's no wonder you have the stinking attitude you do if you think the worst conditions people are facing are on a par with those here in the 80's.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

and plenty of people remember those days and worse just fine.

I remember the 80's well and at no point did the situation look anything like that of sub-saharan Africa.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

So what? They didn't risk life and limb to get into Africa. They were also going to a place which could accommodate them very comfortably - which is not the case for Ireland, a very small country recovering from decades of grinding depression.

We recovered from the depression and now have more than we possibly want for. Did your parents not ever teach you about sharing?

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Bad gamblers.

:rolleyes:

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Once again, would you care to elaborate on this remarkable statement.

OK I'll give you one example to be going on with. Farmers here in Europe, but also America and Japan are subsidised to the hilt by our taxes in order to produce food that could be produced with far less expense in third world countries. However because of the stranglehold the West has on organisations such as the WTO third world farmers are prevented from competing. However, the surplus of subsidised foods produced in the West finds its way to third world countries and undercuts the local producers. Because development of an agricultural sector is what underpins the development of an industrial sector countries in the third world are held back.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

For a man who is constantly pointing out the actions of our ancestors, you seem to have a real problem with us reciprocating the favour to the one country which did receive us more or less gladly.

Rather I have a problem with us extending a helping hand to a nation of warmongering overweight gluttons whilst turning our backs on the poor and dispossesed.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Human decency has nothing to do with it.

If you have none then I guess not.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

We have only very very recently attained any sort of wealth, and the first thing that happens is those with none seem to feel that they are owed something. They are not.

Nobody 'feels' they are owed something, they are just stuggling hard to get something.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Your type would sacrifice this country and its future on the altar of politically correct received sentiments. Go away.

Your type would hurt all mankind just to save their own, and have already done so. You should hang your head in shame.

SubjectSean

HollyB wrote: »

Yes votes as % of electorate = 47.46%

This is not a majority and should not have been treated like one.

Nermal

HollyB wrote: »

If we are foolish enough to do that, we will quickly become a poor country again. Our resources are not unlimited.

What resource is running short at the moment, exactly?

In fact, the only resource we are short of is people.

We are 114th on this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

We are actually grossly under-populated, and should institute a open-door policy until we get on a level with say, the UK, and have about 20 million people.

HollyB

SubjectSean wrote: »

This is not a majority and should not have been treated like one.

So the 12.49% No vote should have been treated like a majority, then?

If people choose to abstain from voting (other than because they are unable to do so) then it is unlikely that they feel strongly about the issue.

Only 12.49% of the electorate chose to vote No.

An election is decided based on the votes of those who actually voted.

With regard to those who chose not to vote, are you familiar with the principle of "qui tacet consentire videtur" ("he who is silent is taken to agree")? If they chose not to vote, then surely it may be taken that they would have found either result acceptable, that they were content to allow others to make the decision and accept the decision of the majority?

The majority of those making the decision chose "Yes".

HollyB

Nermal wrote: »

We are actually grossly under-populated, and should institute a open-door policy until we get on a level with say, the UK, and have about 20 million people.

I would be utterly opposed to any open-door policy, with the exception of free movement for EU citizens between EU countries. If non-EU nationals are needed to fill vacancies that cannot be filled by EU nationals, then, by all means, issue work permits but immigration must be strictly controlled.

Nermal

HollyB wrote: »

If non-EU nationals are needed to fill vacancies that cannot be filled by EU nationals, then, by all means, issue work permits but immigration must be strictly controlled.

What's the point of controls when we need 15 million more people simply to be as populated as our nearest neighbour? We need to encourage people to come here, not place obstacles in their way.

By the way, you never answered my question, what resource are we short of?

SubjectSean

HollyB wrote: »

The majority of those making the decision chose "Yes".

Yes and what I am saying is that 'those making the decision' should constitute the entire electorate rather than just those members who had an opinion or could be bothered on the day. In an ideal situation this would hold for any referendum.

SubjectSean

HollyB wrote: »

I would be utterly opposed to any open-door policy, with the exception of free movement for EU citizens between EU countries. If non-EU nationals are needed to fill vacancies that cannot be filled by EU nationals, then, by all means, issue work permits but immigration must be strictly controlled.

Holly I don't understand how you think free movement for Europeans is fine but not for anybody else.

HollyB

SubjectSean wrote: »

Holly I don't understand how you think free movement for Europeans is fine but not for anybody else.

Free movement within the EU is the right of all EU citizens. Ireland is part of the EU, and therefore EU citizens can come here freely. We cannot prevent immigration from EU countries.

We can, however, control immigration from non-EU countries and I believe that we should.

HollyB

SubjectSean wrote: »

Yes and what I am saying is that 'those making the decision' should constitute the entire electorate rather than just those members who had an opinion or could be bothered on the day. In an ideal situation this would hold for any referendum.

So if someone doesn't have an opinion or hasn't read anything about the issue at hand, what are they supposed to do - flip a coin? Ask their friends/parents how they should vote? Ensure that their vote will be marked as spoiled and not counted?

Without compulsory voting, there will be some who decide to opt out of the decision, and that is their choice. Those who actually do vote will determine the result.

OPENROAD

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Unless they physically invade us, we most certainly can make and enforce our own laws. I'm not saying there wouldn't be other consequences, but we could do it. I wonder, would that mean we get our fishing grounds back?


I think that you will find that a lot of our laws are EU Laws, so although you are technically correct, it is not going to happen, so lets keep the points realistic.So invalid point mate.

OPENROAD

SubjectSean wrote: »

Basically if your great-grandparent was Irish born and your mother or father used that relationship to register as Irish then you are also eligible to be Irish.

To be fair I think a kid born in Ireland of any non EU parents should have more of a right of citizenship than an American whose grandparents were Irish, just my opinion, mind.

HollyB

Nermal wrote: »

What's the point of controls when we need 15 million more people simply to be as populated as our nearest neighbour? We need to encourage people to come here, not place obstacles in their way.

And why exactly do we need to be as populated as the UK?

Nermal wrote: »

By the way, you never answered my question, what resource are we short of?

You're confusing "not unlimited" with "short of".

OPENROAD

HollyB wrote: »

There is a huge difference between granting work permits to skilled, essential migrant workers and allowing every person who happens to want to come to Ireland to come in, no questions asked.

Some degree of immigration is unavoidable, but strict controls are necessary.

I think you will find that many skilled workers end up in so called low end jobs cleaning etc.. that many Irish/Europeans will not do.

While we should hae stricter controls for non-eu workers, get used to the fact that other EU workers are here to stay.

HollyB

OPENROAD wrote: »

To be fair I think a kid born in Ireland of any non EU parents should have more of a right of citizenship than an American whose grandparents were Irish, just my opinion, mind.

And if one of their parents has been lawfully resident in Ireland for three of the four years prior to their birth, they'll qualify for citizenship.

johnathan woss

johnathan woss wrote: »

SubjectSean what qualifies you to speak as such a high moral authority on the world economic system and the motivation of others ?

(it didn't take you very long to play the bigot card btw)

.

HollyB

OPENROAD wrote: »

While we should hae stricter controls for non-eu workers, get used to the fact that other EU workers are here to stay.

In a nutshell. if there are jobs that cannot be filled from the pool of EU citizens, then it is time to look to non-EU citizens to fill the vacancies. Not before.

williambonney

Nermal wrote: »

What resource is running short at the moment, exactly?

In fact, the only resource we are short of is people.

We are 114th on this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

We are actually grossly under-populated, and should institute a open-door policy until we get on a level with say, the UK, and have about 20 million people.

Are you on some sort of illegal substance? You would allow an open door policy? You would allow 15 million, say, Africans into the country? The mind boggles indeed.

OPENROAD

williambonney wrote: »

A question, (a silly question but none the less a question). If we were to hold a referendum “Any African who wants to, can come and live in Ireland for as long as they want and be entitled to social welfare payments” what do you think the out come would be? I would guess 99% NO. We Irish are not idiots, only the people in government.

Lets not assume that all Africans or non-Europeans are just coming here for social welfare. Many,actually I would say the majority are making a financial contribution to this country.

Flex

Hey SubjectSean, I see youre also a big Britney Spears fan from this

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=cDDEhLw1PVI

SubjectSean

Way to go with the mature argument flex I'm very impressed

SubjectSean

johnathan woss wrote: »

SubjectSean was qualifies you to speak as such a high moral authority on the world economic system and the motivation of others ?

The world economic system is IMO very clearly a vampire sucking the children, you're thinking Count Dracula was one of the good guys?

johnathan woss wrote: »

(it didn't take you very long to play the bigot card btw)

Who the cap fits should wear it.

SimpleSam06

SubjectSean wrote: »

How can you say? it hasn't been extended to them. Maybe if they even managed to get a tiny fraction of it then that would do them.

Sigh. You can't feed the world because the world's dictators will take the food and use it to feed their own armies. Getting the picture yet? Charity, goodwill, all that sort of thing is useless unless you deal with the root causes of the problem. In fact you only make the problem worse. And the only way I can see of getting rid of these problems is violent incursions.

You think I like that fact? It doesn't change that it is a fact, however.

SubjectSean wrote: »

Clearly in explaining the reality on the ground I have moved beyond your simple powers of comprehension. Don't worry yourself about it, people like you are in a majority and have the vote.

So really, what you are saying is that you have no idea, but wanted to use emotive images like dead babies and grieving mothers to lend weight to your cause. Thats nice.

SubjectSean wrote: »

Ones whose whole extended family has saved for years to be able to send that one single person out into the West as a lifeline to their community.

Hahah, ah dearie me. You have no idea really, do you. Subsistence means you are barely surviving, and need to use all of your resources to keep what little you have. The people we have landing in are well educated, well fed, and speak fairly good English. You badly need to do some actual research on this area.

SubjectSean wrote: »

Please this is absolute bollocks, try going back to the 1840's and you might be somewhere close. It's no wonder you have the stinking attitude you do if you think the worst conditions people are facing are on a par with those here in the 80's.

Once again, you aren't preaching to a crowd of white-guilt Americans.

SubjectSean wrote: »

I remember the 80's well and at no point did the situation look anything like that of sub-saharan Africa.

I like the way you just point a finger and say "sub-saharan Africa". Thats a whole continent, and several of the countries in it are actually pretty nice. Mind you it just underlines that you have little to no idea what you are talking about, and are simply waggling your finger in some sort of racially motivated attack againt white people.

SubjectSean wrote: »

We recovered from the depression and now have more than we possibly want for. Did your parents not ever teach you about sharing?

Once again displaying a fingerless grasp of the economic situation, you have missed the point that we haven't reached some fabled plateau, some shambala of wealth. Our economy is built on a foundation of matchsticks, and its already collapsing.

As for sharing, we don't owe them anything (in point of fact Ireland was always one of the most charitable countries around, even back when things were very bad). If they want us to invade and remove their dictators and corrupt officials, I'd be fully in support of that, however.

SubjectSean wrote: »

OK I'll give you one example to be going on with. Farmers here in Europe, but also America and Japan are subsidised to the hilt by our taxes in order to produce food that could be produced with far less expense in third world countries. However because of the stranglehold the West has on organisations such as the WTO third world farmers are prevented from competing. However, the surplus of subsidised foods produced in the West finds its way to third world countries and undercuts the local producers.

Okay, lets see if you can grasp this. No country can outsource its food production, that would be suicide. The west cannot compete with third world farmers, but cannot depend upon their produce either, in case they stop producing. So the only thing these developed nations can do is subsidise their own food producers. Mainly what that does is stops third world countries from selling at huge profits in the first world.

In most third world countries food that is produced locally is consumed locally, very little "west subsidised foodstuff" finds its way onto the table for much the same reason that most of their local produce rarely finds its way onto our tables - the profit margins are too small. You're probably whining about Mexico, which is an unusual case because its a third world country bordering on a first world country, and because its next to LA it gets lots of popular media coverage, which appears to be your main source of information.

If you had ever really been in the third world, you would know that.

SubjectSean wrote: »

Because development of an agricultural sector is what underpins the development of an industrial sector countries in the third world are held back.

Utter nonsense. Or would you mind explaining China and India so? They weren't exporting any amounts of food before they started getting off the ground. You just have no idea, do you.

SubjectSean wrote: »

Rather I have a problem with us extending a helping hand to a nation of warmongering overweight gluttons whilst turning our backs on the poor and dispossesed.

That is seriously racist you know. You should be ashamed of yourself for having such a prejuidicial attitude.

SubjectSean wrote: »

Nobody 'feels' they are owed something, they are just stuggling hard to get something.

Says you.

SubjectSean wrote: »

Your type would hurt all mankind just to save their own, and have already done so. You should hang your head in shame.

Playing on the heartstrings seems to be a big part of your platform. Thankfully its not backed up by any sort of logic or factual information, so the odds of you actually doing any damage in your misinformed campaign are slim to none.

SubjectSean

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Sigh. You can't feed the world because the world's dictators will take the food and use it to feed their own armies. Getting the picture yet? Charity, goodwill, all that sort of thing is useless unless you deal with the root causes of the problem. In fact you only make the problem worse. And the only way I can see of getting rid of these problems is violent incursions.

You think I like that fact? It doesn't change that it is a fact, however.

Our Governments and corporations continuously and repeatedly do business with these 'dictators' and keep them propped up. Look to what is happening in the Congo. The West, that's you BTW, actively supports a plethora of corrupt Governments around the world because it's good for business.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

So really, what you are saying is that you have no idea, but wanted to use emotive images like dead babies and grieving mothers to lend weight to your cause. Thats nice.

No what I'm saying is if you go to a country where the average life expectancy is around 30 years of age then you won't be able to help but notice the dead babies and the greiving mothers. You may not want to admit these people as evidence of our collective cruelty but there they are.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Hahah, ah dearie me. You have no idea really, do you. Subsistence means you are barely surviving, and need to use all of your resources to keep what little you have. The people we have landing in are well educated, well fed, and speak fairly good English. You badly need to do some actual research on this area.

I have lived in Africa with subsistence farmers. I actually know people who are in the situation I outlined.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Once again, you aren't preaching to a crowd of white-guilt Americans.

You're ignoring the fact that you were totally wrong to compare Africa with Ireland in the 1980's.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I like the way you just point a finger and say "sub-saharan Africa". Thats a whole continent, and several of the countries in it are actually pretty nice.

Can you name the names of these pretty nice places?

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Mind you it just underlines that you have little to no idea what you are talking about, and are simply waggling your finger in some sort of racially motivated attack againt white people.

You're the one who's got this whole 'black' and 'white' thing going on, show me where in any of my posts I have even so much as mentioned skin colour or race except to attack such concepts as baseless.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Once again displaying a fingerless grasp of the economic situation, you have missed the point that we haven't reached some fabled plateau, some shambala of wealth. Our economy is built on a foundation of matchsticks, and its already collapsing.

I'm playing a really small violin for all of us poor starving Irish dying here in the dirt.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

As for sharing, we don't owe them anything (in point of fact Ireland was always one of the most charitable countries around, even back when things were very bad). If they want us to invade and remove their dictators and corrupt officials, I'd be fully in support of that, however.

No I don't think you're really understanding the concept of sharing, it isn't something you do because you 'owe something'. As I've said our governments, that means you, are too busy propping up such regiemes so the trading can go ahead smoothly. It's only when they mess up really badly like Mugabe that any voices of protest are raised.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Okay, lets see if you can grasp this. No country can outsource its food production, that would be suicide.

How so?

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

The west cannot compete with third world farmers, but cannot depend upon their produce either, in case they stop producing.

Why would they do that? surely they'd starve?

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

So the only thing these developed nations can do is subsidise their own food producers. Mainly what that does is stops third world countries from selling at huge profits in the first world.

In most third world countries food that is produced locally is consumed locally, very little "west subsidised foodstuff" finds its way onto the table for much the same reason that most of their local produce rarely finds its way onto our tables - the profit margins are too small.

You're probably whining about Mexico, which is an unusual case because its a third world country bordering on a first world country, and because its next to LA it gets lots of popular media coverage, which appears to be your main source of information.

I was never in Mexico but yes the argument about third world agricultural markets being distorted by surplus from the first world holds good in many places.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

If you had ever really been in the third world, you would know that.

I'll upload you a scan of my passport if you want.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Utter nonsense. Or would you mind explaining China and India so? They weren't exporting any amounts of food before they started getting off the ground. You just have no idea, do you.

Both of these countries have absolutely huge populations and high population density with subsequent large economies of scale.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Playing on the heartstrings seems to be a big part of your platform. Thankfully its not backed up by any sort of logic or factual information, so the odds of you actually doing any damage in your misinformed campaign are slim to none.

Not having a heart seems to be a large part of your platform and is underpinned by your refusal to acknowledge the suffering that people are trying to escape from.

Nermal

HollyB wrote: »

And why exactly do we need to be as populated as the UK?

More populous countries are more powerful. They make it worthwhile to build proper infrastructure. We are the most underpopulated country in Europe and it's holding us back.

HollyB wrote: »

You're confusing "not unlimited" with "short of".

OK, so to soothe your pedantry, there's some resource that is 'not unlimited', that will cause us a problem if we allow more immigration. What is it?

Nermal

williambonney wrote: »

Are you on some sort of illegal substance? You would allow an open door policy? You would allow 15 million, say, Africans into the country? The mind boggles indeed.

Yes, I would. Although it's somewhat unlikely that we would receive immigrants from only one continent though, isn't it?

Also, perhaps you could tell me what's so distasteful about Africans that they're the first group that came to mind when you're trying to impress on me what a bad idea this is?

SimpleSam06

SubjectSean wrote: »

Our Governments and corporations continuously and repeatedly do business with these 'dictators' and keep them propped up. Look to what is happening in the Congo. The West, that's you BTW, actively supports a plethora of corrupt Governments around the world because it's good for business.

This is just painful. Investigators have identified several countries as having the most ties to those carrying out the exploitation of the resources in the Congo - Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe. The DR Congo also supplies cobalt worth $1.7m to China every week, mainly through illegal channels. Can you point out which one of those is western.

SubjectSean wrote: »

No what I'm saying is if you go to a country where the average life expectancy is around 30 years of age then you won't be able to help but notice the dead babies and the greiving mothers. You may not want to admit these people as evidence of our collective cruelty but there they are.

Actually most countries with such a short life expectancy have severe AIDs epidemics. Would you mind clarifying how we have collective guilt for that?

SubjectSean wrote: »

Can you name the names of these pretty nice places?

• Botswana: Since independence, Botswana has had one of the fastest growth rates in per capita income in the world. Botswana has transformed itself from one of the poorest countries in the world to a middle-income country with a per capita GDP of $11,200 in 2006. Economic growth averaged over 9% per year from 1966 to 1999. Botswana was ranked as Africa's least corrupt country by Transparency International in 2004, ahead of many European and Asian countries.
• Mozambique: Imports remain almost 40% greater than exports, but this is a significant improvement over the 4:1 ratio of the immediate post-war years. In 2003, imports were $1.24 billion and exports were $910 million. Support programs provided by foreign donors and private financing of foreign direct investment mega-projects and their associated raw materials, have largely compensated for balance-of-payments shortfalls. The government projects the economy to continue to expand between 7%-10% a year for the next five years, although rapid expansion in the future hinges on several major foreign investment projects, continued economic reform, and the revival of the agriculture, transportation, and tourism sectors.
• Lesotho: Lesotho is almost completely self-sufficient in the production of electricity and generates approximately $24 million annually from the sale of electricity and water to South Africa. Exports totaled over $320 million in 2002. Lesotho has nearly 6,000 kilometers of unpaved and modern all-weather roads. It also has close ties with Ireland historically.
• Kenya: This has free education. Nairobi is the primary communication and financial hub of East Africa. It enjoys the region's best transportation linkages, communications infrastructure, and trained personnel. The anuual growth rates for the last few years: 5.8% (2005): 2006 = 6.1% : Estimate for 2007 = 7.2%.
• Ghana: Ghana is one of the more economically sound countries in all of Africa.

So there are no paradises there, but still pretty nice places. There are other countries, but I couldn't be bothered really. Do your own homework.

SubjectSean wrote: »

I'm playing a really small violin for all of us poor starving Irish dying here in the dirt.

As constructive as most of your contributions.

SubjectSean wrote: »

No I don't think you're really understanding the concept of sharing, it isn't something you do because you 'owe something'. As I've said our governments, that means you, are too busy propping up such regiemes so the trading can go ahead smoothly. It's only when they mess up really badly like Mugabe that any voices of protest are raised.

Ha, this is great. Can you tell me, what is the value of the imports to Ireland from sub-saharan countries for say 2006? So hold on a second. You want us to stop trading with African countries? Do you think that will help their struggling economies in any meaningful sense, or reduce them even further in poverty? Thats the problem with you people, you never think about consequences. Too damn busy flailing at whatever soundbite-friendly cause floats down the media pipe next.

SubjectSean wrote: »

How so?

Its the lack of understanding of even these simple issues that highlights the tremendous ignorance in most of your posts. Why would it be suicide for any country to outsource its food supplies? Hmm.

SubjectSean wrote: »

Why would they do that? surely they'd starve?

Why would they starve if they just decided to put pressure on western governments by cutting off their food supplies? Of course someone like you would probably take great pleasure in that thought, right up until someone brained you for the contents of your fridge.

SubjectSean wrote: »

I was never in Mexico but yes the argument about third world agricultural markets being distorted by surplus from the first world holds good in many places.

Where?

SubjectSean wrote: »

I'll upload you a scan of my passport if you want.

I'm tempted to ask you to do that, but really, who cares. Wherever you have or more likely haven't been, you certainly don't know what you are talking about now.

SubjectSean wrote: »

Both of these countries have absolutely huge populations and high population density with subsequent large economies of scale.

That makes zero sense. Surely a large population would need more of an agricultural base to feed them before they started into industrial manufacturing? Ignorance, ignorance...

SubjectSean wrote: »

Not having a heart seems to be a large part of your platform and is underpinned by your refusal to acknowledge the suffering that people are trying to escape from.

Oh just fuck off and educate yourself.

SubjectSean

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Oh just fuck off and educate yourself.

You lose the whole argument with this you simple f**kwit

williambonney

Nermal wrote: »

Yes, I would. Although it's somewhat unlikely that we would receive immigrants from only one continent though, isn't it?

Also, perhaps you could tell me what's so distasteful about Africans that they're the first group that came to mind when you're trying to impress on me what a bad idea this is?

If a vote was to be held, “We are taking in 15 million immigrants; do you want them to be European or African? I would give you odds of 100-1 the answer would be European, by a very wide margin. The silent majority in this country feel very uncomfortable with too many Africans about the place. That may be very un pc, but it’s the truth.