I'm gonna be one of the first people to have a UK ID card

[firky]

Stop squirming and convince me. Come on, put your "granted" and "denied" rubber stamp down and formulate your argument. Also if you are on about every country in the world why were you talking in the singular about benefits and "the" economy which implies a domestic one. Squirm, squirm, squirm.

Anyone can use a rubber stamp and if you can't see why the relevance of the stats, well it is you who can't comprhend what you are saying. You're squirming and you know it,

[alien pimp]

i work for the fucking uk border agency

thread....over.

i think the only issue i have with chipped identity cards (RFID) is the distance from the detectors, from which you can be tracked. there was an article in wired magazine a few years ago where they did a test of the biometric passports and found that present technology only allows for it to be tracked up to 100 feet from a detector. if you have an RFID blocking wallet, then the passport can only be detected when open. the obvious worry in regards to this is the fact that thieves (or anyone else that can buy the detector) can know when you're near or not. for example : you arrive at a foreign airport. thieves could know that you were from the UK (ie..wealthy), and then target you for robbery/kidnapping/etc. other than that, if you're a law abiding citizen, pay your taxes, have a bank account, have an IP address, have a cell phone.....all that data in being archived and mined already...so whats the big deal?

prolly you choose to ignore all the literature about how easily those can be hacked to give you just one example of what's wrong besides what was written above

[badger]

Stop squirming and convince me. Come on, put your "granted" and "denied" rubber stamp down and formulate your argument. Also if you are on about every country in the world why were you talking in the singular about benefits and "the" economy which implies a domestic one. Squirm, squirm, squirm.

jesus.... i'm talking about if there were no controls on immigration, meaning that any country in the world would be free to come to england without any controls on them doing so. like i said, that would only work properly if not only did every country in the world have that policy but also that every country on the world was on a similar standing economically. if not then immigrants would gravitate towards those countries that had an open policy since the migrant would more than likely suffer worse conditions at home

... which causes a strain on the economy in whichever country that is: in this case britain. more workers (yes workers, not people on benefits) means more demand for jobs. more demand for jobs could result in employers having more bargaining power if workers outweigh potential jobs, meaning they may force longer working hours or a rise in dodgy illegal jobs that avoid labour laws. i know more people will mean more consumers, which will mean more jobs but it's likely that these migrants would send money home meaning that the money isn't going back into the economy. more people means more demand for housing, which means higher house prices/rent, or means a rise in dodgy low quality slum type housing which will more than likely be inhabited by the migrants. higher population means higher consumption - most importantly energy and food which will mean a possible energy and food crisis. and in virtually every area of life the would be increased strain or even collapse - be it in health, policing, education, rubbish collection, whatever - caused by an increased population far above what would normally happen due to natural population growth, and all this happening quickly which means the economy has no time to adjust slowly as would be the case with usual population growth

like i said before however many times, i'm not against immigration and it's completely unfair that some are blessed by living in safe and economically safe countries purely by the lottery of birth whilst others are starving to death, but unfortunately this is the way of the world until we can do something to fix it

anyway.... back to the initial point of the thread anyone?

[hackman]

FUCK ID CARDS MAN!!!

[magma]

My essential problem with them isn't really any sort of conspiracy worries... I don't really think there are any scary cabals plotting to kill me by intercepting my cup-a-soup intake (yeah, I know there's more interesting stuff in there); it's that I don't like the idea of collecting information for the simple sake of completing the task. Why should I donate all this information? What's in it for me? If it's simply "because we can", then I think I'll not bother.

If government could offer a distinct set of benefits that this would offer me, as a UK citizen, then they might be able to convince me. But as it stands, I don't see why anyone who wants to travel can't do it on a passport (or in the EU, a driving license - I've done it when I lost my passport in Spain, it was easy) and I don't see why that shouldn't be suitable for anyone coming in from abroad. If you live away from your home country, of course you should have a passport.

What we must *never* do is allow issues to affect our ability to take in those who require our asylum. "Asylum Seekers" are exactly the people who should be able to get into the country. Our borders should be non-existant and our social security fully available to those in need.

For those that are coming for economic reasons, and whilst the hippy in me would like to support completely free borders, I do see why it's at least arguable to control non-emergency immigration - when we've needed extra labour, easy immigration has done us massive favours and I don't see a particular need to tighten the borders just yet. The Polish influx has been pretty positive from my perspective.

So yeah, tell me why we need to give you information, let me decide via referendum or election and I'll consider giving it. Until then, you can put an ID card in my cold dead* hand.


*maybe not quite dead.

[bob crunkhouse]

Stop squirming and convince me. Come on, put your "granted" and "denied" rubber stamp down and formulate your argument. Also if you are on about every country in the world why were you talking in the singular about benefits and "the" economy which implies a domestic one. Squirm, squirm, squirm.

jesus.... i'm talking about if there were no controls on immigration, meaning that any country in the world would be free to come to england without any controls on them doing so. like i said, that would only work properly if not only did every country in the world have that policy but also that every country on the world was on a similar standing economically. if not then immigrants would gravitate towards those countries that had an open policy since the migrant would more than likely suffer worse conditions at home

... which causes a strain on the economy in whichever country that is: in this case britain. more workers (yes workers, not people on benefits) means more demand for jobs. more demand for jobs could result in employers having more bargaining power if workers outweigh potential jobs, meaning they may force longer working hours or a rise in dodgy illegal jobs that avoid labour laws. i know more people will mean more consumers, which will mean more jobs but it's likely that these migrants would send money home meaning that the money isn't going back into the economy. more people means more demand for housing, which means higher house prices/rent, or means a rise in dodgy low quality slum type housing which will more than likely be inhabited by the migrants. higher population means higher consumption - most importantly energy and food which will mean a possible energy and food crisis. and in virtually every area of life the would be increased strain or even collapse - be it in health, policing, education, rubbish collection, whatever - caused by an increased population far above what would normally happen due to natural population growth, and all this happening quickly which means the economy has no time to adjust slowly as would be the case with usual population growth

like i said before however many times, i'm not against immigration and it's completely unfair that some are blessed by living in safe and economically safe countries purely by the lottery of birth whilst others are starving to death, but unfortunately this is the way of the world until we can do something to fix it

anyway.... back to the initial point of the thread anyone?

Spot on.

[badger]

Spot on.

thanks

there seems to be a distinct lack of firky in this thread for some reason...

[bob crunkhouse]

Hmm yes, wonder why?

Stop squirming and convince me. Come on, put your "granted" and "denied" rubber stamp down and formulate your argument.

This was the worst bit. Cringe!

[firky]

Well partly because you said:

anyway.... back to the initial point of the thread anyone?

And partly because I am waiting for this stuff I can't comprehend, been waiting since last night, but all you're doing is squirming. Come on, badger. Where's this in-depth economic critique?

Instead of philandering to the brown nosers why don't you do what you said you were going to do, you still haven't convinced me. All you have said is you work for the UKBA, you could be a doorman for all I know!

[firky]

http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/248.htm

Senior scientist at the CNRS, Catherine Wihtol de Wenden1, is a member of the Center for International Studies and Research in Paris (CERI)2 where she analyses the transformations over the last two decades of migration patterns in a Europe that is also undergoing transformation. These major sets of changes call for a revision of migration policy.

derp derp

Taking a second look at the whole picture means rethinking the mechanisms of integration in host countries as well as the way immigrants — not all of whom aspire to permanent settlement — and host citizens live together. As the new notions of European identity and citizenship seek definition and content they are being called on to consider new values such as multiculturalism, plural citizenship, anti-discrimination, new ways of defining the secular principle, and others. In this way, immigration is contributing to the construction of a new, collective, European “we”.

derp derp

[alien pimp]

Stop squirming and convince me. Come on, put your "granted" and "denied" rubber stamp down and formulate your argument. Also if you are on about every country in the world why were you talking in the singular about benefits and "the" economy which implies a domestic one. Squirm, squirm, squirm.

jesus.... i'm talking about if there were no controls on immigration, meaning that any country in the world would be free to come to england without any controls on them doing so. like i said, that would only work properly if not only did every country in the world have that policy but also that every country on the world was on a similar standing economically. if not then immigrants would gravitate towards those countries that had an open policy since the migrant would more than likely suffer worse conditions at home

... which causes a strain on the economy in whichever country that is: in this case britain. more workers (yes workers, not people on benefits) means more demand for jobs. more demand for jobs could result in employers having more bargaining power if workers outweigh potential jobs, meaning they may force longer working hours or a rise in dodgy illegal jobs that avoid labour laws. i know more people will mean more consumers, which will mean more jobs but it's likely that these migrants would send money home meaning that the money isn't going back into the economy. more people means more demand for housing, which means higher house prices/rent, or means a rise in dodgy low quality slum type housing which will more than likely be inhabited by the migrants. higher population means higher consumption - most importantly energy and food which will mean a possible energy and food crisis. and in virtually every area of life the would be increased strain or even collapse - be it in health, policing, education, rubbish collection, whatever - caused by an increased population far above what would normally happen due to natural population growth, and all this happening quickly which means the economy has no time to adjust slowly as would be the case with usual population growth

like i said before however many times, i'm not against immigration and it's completely unfair that some are blessed by living in safe and economically safe countries purely by the lottery of birth whilst others are starving to death, but unfortunately this is the way of the world until we can do something to fix it

anyway.... back to the initial point of the thread anyone?

Spot on.

except it makes no sense
more money sent home by immigrants = growth for their country = less reasons for others to follow them
cheaper labor = bigger profits for the employer + smaller prices
and anyway how many of the big employers in your country are actually based there and how many of them are sending money home?
money know no borders, why would people?
because the weak links fear competition that's all
and because churchill helped splitting the map of europe in half, he created a hell of a competition that now strikes back and the companies benefit it, because they are about money, not patriotism

[firky]

A Good book on the subject although I have only read extracts, I don't know if it is on the itinerary of reading for people who work for the UKBA but I somewhat doubt it:

I especially recommend reading some stuff by the Canadian Catherine Wihtol de Wenden, she is shit hot on the subject.

http://publishing.unesco.org/details.as ... 8&change=E#

International migration is high on the public and political agenda of many countries, as the movement of people raises concerns while often eluding states’ attempts at regulation. In this context, the ‘Migration Without Borders’ scenario challenges conventional views on the need to control and restrict migration flows and brings a fresh perspective to contemporary debates. This book explores the analytical issues raised by ‘open borders’, in terms of ethics, human rights, economic development, politics, social cohesion and welfare, and provides in-depth empirical investigations of how free movement is addressed and governed in Europe, Africa, the Americas and Asia. By introducing and discussing the possibility of a right to mobility, it calls for an opening, not only of national borders, but also of the eyes and minds of all those interested in the future of international migration in a globalising world.

With contributions by Aderanti Adepoju, Rafael Alarcón, Graziano Battistella, Alejandro I. Canales, Jonathan Crush, Han Entzinger, Bimal Ghosh, Nigel Harris, Jan Kunz, Mari Leinonen, Alicia Maguid, Israel Montiel Armas, Sally Peberdy, Mehmet Ugur and Catherine Wihtol de Wenden, this reference work is a mine of new ideas which fuel the debate and contribute to finding new angles for research into fair and balanced migration policies that respect human rights.

This investigation into the free movement of populations constantly reminds us that nowadays access to freedom of movement reflects people’s unequal rights. Although the majority of the world’s population are able to leave their country, only a tiny minority have the right to enter whichever country they choose. Nationals of developed countries and highly qualified people can move around more or less freely, whereas others are dependent on the uncertain granting of visas and residence permits before they can cross a border.

Table of contents

Foreword, Pierre Sané, Assistant Director-General for Social and Human Sciences, UNESCO, p. ix
1. Introduction: the migration without borders scenario, Antoine Pécoud and Paul de Guchteneire, p. 1

Part I: Theoretical issues

2. The economics and politics of the free movement of people, Nigel Harris, p. 3
3. The frontiers of mobility, Catherine Wihtol de Wenden, p. 51
4. The ethics, economics and governance of free movement, Mehmet Ugur, p. 65
5. Managing migration: towards the missing regime? Bimal Ghosh, p. 97
6. Open borders and the welfare state, Han Entzinger, p. 119

Part II: Regional perspectives

7. Europe without borders: rhetoric, reality or Utopia? Jan Kunz and Mari Leinonen, p. 137
8. Creating a borderless West Africa: constraints and prospects for intra-regional migration, Aderanti Adepoju, p. 161
9. Histories, realities and negotiating free movement in southern Africa, Sally Peberdy and Jonathan Crush, p. 175
10. Migration without borders: a long way to go in the Asian region, Graziano Battistella, p. 199
11. A world without borders? Mexican immigration, new boundaries and transnationalism in the United States, Alejandro I. Canales and Israel Montiel Armas, p. 221
12. The free circulation of skilled migrants in North America, Rafael Alarcón, p. 243
13. Migration policies and socioeconomic boundaries in the South American Cone, Alicia Maguid, p. 259

[DRTY]

I think the UK would probably fall apart if no foriengers came here to work.

I think if too many came, it would also fall apart.

It's all in the balance.

[alien pimp]

It's all in the balance.

about everything
and this balance is gained naturally, not enforced

[badger]

migration patterns in a Europe

As the new notions of European identity.....immigration is contributing to the construction of a new, collective, European “we”.

for fucks sake.... how many times....

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT EUROPE!!!!!!!!11112

except it makes no sense
more money sent home by immigrants = growth for their country = less reasons for others to follow them
cheaper labor = bigger profits for the employer + smaller prices
and anyway how many of the big employers in your country are actually based there and how many of them are sending money home?
money know no borders, why would people?

except it makes no sense
more money sent home by immigrants = growth for their country = less reasons for others to follow them
cheaper labor = bigger profits for the employer + smaller prices
and anyway how many of the big employers in your country are actually based there and how many of them are sending money home?
money know no borders, why would people?

perhaps money sent home by immigrants will improve their home country's economy, but whilst that is happening there is still the problems i outlined above for us to deal with in ours

that's assuming that bigger profit margins are handed down to the consumer, and if jobs are limited then there's no reason to say that will result in a higher quality of life for those without employment

[magma]

I think the UK would probably fall apart if no foriengers came here to work.

I think if too many came, it would also fall apart.

It's all in the balance.

THIS

I do believe in free borders as a longterm goal, but it can only happen when everyone does the same thing. If you decide to be the only country with no borders, then you get shit on in the short term. Getting the world towards complete freedom of movement takes a while... humans are already far freer to travel and emigrate than they have ever been.

We've never been shit on by immigration in this country (well, perhaps since 1066 ).. people are far too sensitive about it, too... but Firky's apparent insistence that there is no upper limit to sensible immigration is somewhat short sighted.

As you say, the balance is the key... I think we've, largely, had it about right since WW2.

[alien pimp]

migration patterns in a Europe

As the new notions of European identity.....immigration is contributing to the construction of a new, collective, European “we”.

for fucks sake.... how many times....

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT EUROPE!!!!!!!!11112

except it makes no sense
more money sent home by immigrants = growth for their country = less reasons for others to follow them
cheaper labor = bigger profits for the employer + smaller prices
and anyway how many of the big employers in your country are actually based there and how many of them are sending money home?
money know no borders, why would people?

except it makes no sense
more money sent home by immigrants = growth for their country = less reasons for others to follow them
cheaper labor = bigger profits for the employer + smaller prices
and anyway how many of the big employers in your country are actually based there and how many of them are sending money home?
money know no borders, why would people?

perhaps money sent home by immigrants will improve their home country's economy, but whilst that is happening there is still the problems i outlined above for us to deal with in ours

that's assuming that bigger profit margins are handed down to the consumer, and if jobs are limited then there's no reason to say that will result in a higher quality of life for those without employment

i've never said the weak links will benefit, au contraire!
let the best one win!

[badger]

I think the UK would probably fall apart if no foriengers came here to work.

I think if too many came, it would also fall apart.

It's all in the balance.

exactly

and this balance is gained naturally, not enforced

this is true, but balances that are gained naturally are gained through society growing with these issues. if all immigration controls were immediately removed then the sudden influx would not be a natural change and there would inevitably be a crisis, which we would probably recover from but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a big impact

[rbnc]

I think the UK would probably fall apart if no foriengers came here to work.

I think if too many came, it would also fall apart.

It's all in the balance.

Word and the infrastructure of this country is at breaking point. It needs time to catch up with the amount of people that are in the country.


It isn't about immigrants, our current infrastructure isn't capable of sustaining as many people as we have living here, it doesn't matter who the population is made up of, whether they're UK passport holders, legit visa holders or illegal immigrants, this country is over-populated. Especially London.

That is why serious discussion about immigration is now becoming more and more mainstream and not just the chatter from fringe parties.

[rbnc]

Since I blocked Alien Pimp, this discussion actually looks much more interesting and intelligent.