Why do we always need more houses, roads, trains, hospitals, schools?

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by jamiefearon

But Potto didn't propose a ban on economic immigration.

And I didn't propose a ban on immigration either - far from it - but it didn't stop you from making up things I didn't say then attacking me for it, following up with rather sad sexist insults.

There's no point trying to make any rational points in this debate after your contribution so far.

Apologise.

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by potto

You put a ban on economic immigration and watch the brain drain begin (again).

Potto, you've got yourself confused again. Economic immigration has nothing to do with 'brain drain'.

'Brain drain' is emigration of skilled labour, fuelled by better pay and conditions (or for some, a job at all) abroad.

The vast majority of immigration has nothing to do with economic needs being fulfilled. It's just people deciding they want to live here. Once here, they form part of the economy like any other person already here does.

In short, the main impact of immigration is simply that the population grows and the size of the economy grows roughly in line. Nobody benefits from this, but plenty of people suffer from the dearth of houses, the extra load on transport, and the dwindling prospect of a sustainable population size for the size of land.

By simply managing the amount of immigration so that, when taking into account emigration and birth rate, the population stays roughly flat, you can ensure that a city's worth of immigrants arrive each year without seriously impacting the lives of the people already here - many of whom are also recent migrants.

Now I ask you. What is so bad about that?

(P.S. Jamie: Apologise)

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by jamiefearon

You can deny them that life.

Jamie, you're one of the few extremists in the country who would happily invite a billion people to live in Briton. It's quite clear that you're a little hard of thinking, but when you next go around shouting xenophobe at practically the entire population of the uk (the vast majority of whom are happy for immigration to occur as long as it isn't putting a ridiculous strain on the rest of us), just think for a moment that just perhaps the problem is you, not them.

Oh.. And you need to apologise for calling someone who supports the idea of 350,000 people a year immigrating into the UK a 'xenophobe'.

[Core Rising]

Originally Posted by Bowater

[*]Why can a Brit marry a Thai Bride and she receive citizenship?

The Thai Bride would not be eligible to apply for citizenship for at least five years of living here. That means they have to be living together in marriage for five years to be able to gain citizenship that way. Also for the first six months, the Thai bride is not legally allowed to Work in the UK. Also three visas are required before she can obtain citizenship; a fiancé visa, a marriage visa which lasts two years, and then a permanent marriage visa. It’s not nearly as straight forward as people seem to think. The vast majority of people who put themselves through this for citizenship are doing so for genuine reasons. The time and costs involved put of most fraudsters, and those that try, often bail out before they manage five years.

Sham marriages on the other hand are far too frequent. Much more needs to be done to stop people abusing the system to live/ work here. That might sound like a bit of a contradiction to what I just stated, but for many, attaining British citizenship is not the goal, at least not whilst in a sham marriage. Once married, fraudsters can easily get divorced, and then still retain the right to live and work here, as well as apply for citizenship after living here for five years.

It's a rather large loophole that is exploited by thousands every year. UKBA and the General Register Office could do much more to prevent it; though I fear numbers would only drop if the problem is legislated against in parliament. And right now there are bigger fish to fry.

[DarJoLe]

I'm just wondering where that architecture forum called skyscrapercity has gone.

[ill tonkso]

It has evolved beyond just architecture into something that covers all aspects of urban development and life?

[Bowater]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

I'm just wondering where that architecture forum called skyscrapercity has gone.

Architecture is born out of socioeconomics. Massive inequality brings us a combination of exquisite suburbs and crime ridden slums. Population growth fuels skyscrapers in Vauxhall and alike. Economic growth of financial centres fuels development on the City fringes and in CW. Depopulation saps density and quality. Need I go on...

[.Adam]

Originally Posted by ill tonkso

It has evolved beyond just architecture into something that covers all aspects of urban development and life?

Haha you mean a Daily Mail forum for people to constantly force ill informed views at each other, rant aimlessly and discourage anyone with information or industry knowledge from posting, combined with insults and the worst moderation... In fact does anyone bother moderating this forum any more?

[ill tonkso]

Yes, and why are we uniformed? An what makes you believe we read the daily mail?

The problem is some people only see things in black an white and refuse to listen to anybody when they talk about the grey. People are quick to say I dont know what I am talking to regarding industry professionals but do any of you actually know what I do?

[.Adam]

I don't think anyone has a problem with debate, but the level of debate on this forum lately is simply awful and embarrassing for a forum which in its hay day attracted professionals who could inform and give insightful information. Instead we've now got people spouting how rubbish all modern design is etc.

I don't know what you do and frankly I have no desire too, if you did work in the industry it makes it all the more embarrassing.

[ill tonkso]

What is embarrassing is that we can't have a debate on here without people complaining. Open your mind to another opinion, consider that not everyone shares your opinion, your opinion may not be what is best.

[.Adam]

That is fine, but on an architecture forum is is too much to ask that people who are posting at least have a knowledge about e subject they are posting, if your idea of another opinion is "every modern building is rubbish" "another glass and steel box" "greedy architects" "why can't we build in Victorian styles" then yes.... That is embarrassing for a forum called Skyscraper City based on contemporary architecture.

[DarJoLe]

There's no point in posting news of proposals here as they simply get taken and used by a certain other skyscraper news website as an 'exclusive'.

Several architects I know working on major projects have warned about posting news and renders about developments for that exact reason. It's not that the information is confidential they just find the opinions attached to the articles often damaging to their client and stakeholder relations, let alone some of the comments made on this forum.

[ill tonkso]

If people cannot take criticism then they shouldn't be in the industry. If you don't like the forum, then leave. People have the right to post what they like.

[DarJoLe]

Why do you think most people have?

[ill tonkso]

Because they get shot down for having an opinion?

[DarJoLe]

You're a mod, tonkso. Act like one.

[ill tonkso]

I don't even know what you are trying to say, if you have a problem with something, report it. What exactly do you have a problem with?

[Core Rising]

[.Adam]

Originally Posted by ill tonkso

I don't even know what you are trying to say, if you have a problem with something, report it. What exactly do you have a problem with?

Maybe that the forum isn't moderated? And that anyone who actually knows anything is shot down almost straight away?