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

[jamiefearon]

Originally Posted by Bowater

Have you Googled Xenophobia? It means a fear of something foreign or strange. Typically Xenophobia is used to describe a fear or foreginers who are different from that country.

The point is an immigrant could be a white British national who is in no way thought to be strange or foreign similpy because they have lived abroad for some time and are now returning to the UK. So I don't see how the word 'Xenophobic' is any way relevant to this discussion.

It means a fear of something foreign or strange.

Exactly, it's not about race - I have never mentioned race. People get irrationally hysterical about immigration because of Xenophobia. If you remove the Xenophobia you will realize that current immigration levels are of no problem what so ever, you will even realize that it is beneficial.

So if immigration is beneficial why do a lot of people complain about it? Because of Xenophobia a fear of foreignness.

[Ebeneezer_Goode]

Originally Posted by jamiefearon

It means a fear of something foreign or strange.

Exactly, it's not about race - I have never mentioned race. People get irrationally hysterical about immigration because of Xenophobia. If you remove the Xenophobia you will realize that current immigration levels are of no problem what so ever, you will even realize that it is beneficial.

So if immigration is beneficial why do a lot of people complain about it? Because of Xenophobia a fear of foreignness.

Nonsense. There are very real downsides to un-checked immigration that are a pure numbers game and have nothing to do with xenophobia, that's just an accusation people throw around lazily to silence opposing views.

The fact is mass immigration is a huge strain on a country with a robust social safety net like ours, you end up with proportionately less tax revenue that has to not only cope with more people, but expand continuously to cope with them too.

It's fine when we're talking about skilled workers moving around the free market, but when much (most?) of the movement is people from third world countries looking for a better life we're basically importing poverty into a system that can barely cope as it is, in the midst of a crappy economy to boot.

[Bowater]

Originally Posted by jamiefearon

It means a fear of something foreign or strange.

Exactly, it's not about race - I have never mentioned race. People get irrationally hysterical about immigration because of Xenophobia. If you remove the Xenophobia you will realize that current immigration levels are of no problem what so ever, you will even realize that it is beneficial.

So if immigration is beneficial why do a lot of people complain about it? Because of Xenophobia a fear of foreignness.

No one had made mentioned of the fact that immigrants are foreign - that's all in your head. What people are discussing is that 250000 people more are arriving in the country than leaving.

Like I've already said the 'immigrants' may well be British citizens and the emigrants could have been overseas-born. What matters is not who is foreign but that emigration can meet immigration. If 5,000,000 people came to the UK in 2010 but 5,000,000 leave then it would be fine.

Do you understand the conversation at hand now?

[geogregor]

Originally Posted by cnapan

Yes. Didn't you read the first one? Limit inward migration to match outward migration - a generous figure currently roughly 300-350 thousand people a year. By doing so, we can avoid putting a huge strain on existing infrastructure, bring down house prices.

How?
Banning marrying foreigners?
Banning foreign students (who pay much higher fees than Brits so effectively subsidise education system)? What else?
Who would you let in? Who would decide? Another QUANGO body?
Maybe organize PR campaign in world media? Something like: "don't come to Britain, we are overcrowded"
Or maybe you want to encourage emigration by Brits? That would cut the net population change too

Not true. One side started screaming xenophobe and throwing sexist insults, sure. But nobody has found one single problem with my solution.

But you are throwing just a simple shout: "cut the net migration" (read cut immigration because I guess you are not proposing increasing emigration) without proposing how to do it. It sounds nice and easy but there is no merit in your "solution".
Again, how do you want to achieve your goal?

BTW. I guess you are concerned about overcrowding of London, it has nothing to do with dislike of foreigners etc.
So, it shouldn't matter if immigration is falling or emigration is rising as long as net change of population is flat. Am I correct?

Also, how about the birth rate? If it grows at some point will you advocate reducing it?
Following your line of thinking any rise in population is just wrong.

Not really. Sure, Skyscrapercity is devalued by baseless comments from people like you who decide not to actually read a thread before commenting on it, but it's ok. It's an internet forum and I'm sure it'll survive your pointless contribution to the debate.

I can see here discussion about xenophobia, racism, politics a bit of demography but nothing about urban planning, coping with population changes (rising or falling)), infrastructure changes etc. Nothing serious at all.
Come on, you can't call it an intelligent discussion by any means.
Builders after a few pints in a pub have more serious conversations.

[menganito]

Originally Posted by Bowater

Have you Googled Xenophobia? It means a fear of something foreign or strange. Typically Xenophobia is used to describe a fear or foreginers who are different from that country.

The point is an immigrant could be a white British national who is in no way thought to be strange or foreign similpy because they have lived abroad for some time and are now returning to the UK. So I don't see how the word 'Xenophobic' is any way relevant to this discussion.

This is becoming surreal.

So you understand that cnapan says that the British Government should limit the return of british nationals that have gone abroad, because their return is burden on the country's infrastructures?

That way there is no xenophobia involved in the argument and you are happy.

[potto]

Originally Posted by geogregor

How?

Apparently in 2012 the UK reached the perfect optimal numbers of people living in it according to the Hospital, Road and School requirements of Cnapan and Bowater

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by potto

Apparently in 2012 the UK reached the perfect optimal numbers of people living in it according to the Hospital, Road and School requirements of Cnapan and Bowater

Why lie? It doesn't help win an argument. Quite the opposite.

[cnapan]

Geogregor: you ask how we can control migration. It isn't hard. Every country does it. We have a sea around is to make it even easier.

[Ebeneezer_Goode]

Originally Posted by cnapan

Geogregor: you ask how we can control migration. It isn't hard. Every country does it.

It isn't hard? What planet are you living on?

[geogregor]

Originally Posted by cnapan

Geogregor: you ask how we can control migration. It isn't hard. Every country does it. We have a sea around is to make it even easier.

So, if it is so easy and almost every politician and most media are for it (as it looks like if you follow public debates) why doesn't it work?
Maybe because it is more complicated than most people think?

You still didn't post any concrete piece of solution apart from generic "we have to control immigration".
Again, how? What do you mean? How do you decide who is allowed in? For how long? How do you police it? Would you allow IT guys from Germany or graphic designers from Estonia? They might be needed by creative companies in London. Would you shut the door in front of them? How about students?

Is your argument purely about overall population? You still didn't answer if you favor increased emigration as long as it leads to lower net population growth
You could send to Australia or South Africa some of those lazy useless people who spend all their life on benefits. Many of them are born and bred Brits

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by Ebeneezer_Goode

It isn't hard?

Clearly not, since almost every country does it, don't they?

What planet are you living on?

Same as you.

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by geogregor

So, if it is so easy and almost every politician and most media are for it (as it looks like if you follow public debates) why doesn't it work?

It does work. We're just not managing migration right now.

Maybe because it is more complicated than most people think?

What's complicated about it?

You still didn't post any concrete piece of solution apart from generic "we have to control immigration".

Well that's because it's something that will work, so why would I seek another solution? Nobody here has come up with any reasons why it won't work... People have thrown insults at me. People have lied about what I have written. People have even called for a moderator to ban such things, even though they don't follow through with a reason. Here I am, happy to allow hundreds of thousands of people - of any race, creed or shoe-size in to the country, and all I call for is a bit of moderation, and it's as if I've asked all the first born in the country to be murdered.

It is very odd, don't you think?

Again, how? What do you mean? How do you decide who is allowed in? For how long? How do you police it? Would you allow IT guys from Germany or graphic designers from Estonia? They might be needed by creative companies in London. Would you shut the door in front of them? How about students?

This is the sort of thing that immigration policies around the world are set up to decide. Why not see how they do such things in Sweden or Australia or the US, or China?

All I am pointing out is that our infrastructure problems could be greatly eased by controlling the size of the population in a practical way which preserves the benefits of migration.

Is your argument purely about overall population?

Yes. I started the thread and put my view at the top.

You still didn't answer if you favor increased emigration as long as it leads to lower net population growth

The question of whether it is right to encourage a depopulation of this island to make it possible to run our society sustainably from locally produced food and resources is an entirely separate one, and not something that's particularly relevant to a forum about the built environment.

I started this topic simply because in other threads, people have been discussing the challenges of building ever more houses, roads, railways, hospitals etc. to meet our ever growing population. It just seemed that nobody was prepared to question why the population should just be allowed to grow, causing so many problems, when there was an easy solution to it.

That's the only point of this thread. To discuss that question. And despite a number of people being really quite offensive to me, nobody really has come up with why this idea couldn't work... which makes you wonder why we don't actually do something about it.

You could send to Australia or South Africa some of those lazy useless people who spend all their life on benefits.

I feel sorry for you if that's what you think. Hasn't it occurred to you that living life on benefits is a depressing one? It's all very well for those of us in a job, enjoying the fruits of the free market which chase the cheapest global labour, pricing some of these people out of a living they might once have expected.

Many of them are born and bred Brits

Well I don't find the plight of anyone out of work in this country, no matter where they were born.

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by jamiefearon

[B]So if immigration is beneficial why do a lot of people complain about it? Because of Xenophobia a fear of foreignness.

You called me xenophobic despite me supporting the immigration of around 350,000 people a year.

Apologise.

[geogregor]

Originally Posted by cnapan

It does work. We're just not managing migration right now.

Really? So any Chinese or Cambodian citizen can just show up in Hethrow and will be swiftly allowed to settle in Britain?
Did I miss something???
As far as I know Britain has an immigration policy Some, like you, say it doesn't work. Then it would be nice if you suggested some practical ways of improving it. But you just don't write anything about it apart from very general phrases.

Well that's because it's something that will work, so why would I seek another solution? Nobody here has come up with any reasons why it won't work..

People have thrown insults at me. People have lied about what I have written. People have even called for a moderator to ban such things, even though they don't follow through with a reason. Here I am, happy to allow hundreds of thousands of people - of any race, creed or shoe-size in to the country, and all I call for is a bit of moderation, and it's as if I've asked all the first born in the country to be murdered.

It is very odd, don't you think?

But it is you who constantly write that British immigration policy doesn't exist or doesn't work. Would you kindly tell us how would you see it working instead of complaining about what others write about you?

This is the sort of thing that immigration policies around the world are set up to decide. Why not see how they do such things in Sweden or Australia or the US, or China?

And in UK too. And by the way, populations of Australia, Sweden or US are growing, largely due to immigration. I'm not sure if you chose the best examples for Britain

All I am pointing out is that our infrastructure problems could be greatly eased by controlling the size of the population in a practical way which preserves the benefits of migration.

The same effect would have decreased birth rate or increased emigration. Would you advocate that? You still avoid the answer. If your concern is purely about the size of population and you just really don't want to develop new infrastructure it wouldn't matter how do you achieve the goal of flat population.

The question of whether it is right to encourage a depopulation of this island to make it possible to run our society sustainably from locally produced food and resources is an entirely separate one, and not something that's particularly relevant to a forum about the built environment.

I didn't mention depopulation just increased emigration. I'm sure plenty of Brits would love to move to sunny Australia. Maybe UK should get into agreement with Australian government to make it easier to emigrate. Population of Britain would grow slower (or even fall). It is a win win situation. Isn't it?

I started this topic simply because in other threads, people have been discussing the challenges of building ever more houses, roads, railways, hospitals etc. to meet our ever growing population. It just seemed that nobody was prepared to question why the population should just be allowed to grow, causing so many problems, when there was an easy solution to it.

Stop scaremongering, population won't grow for ever. As British population is ageing its birth rate will fall and population will start dropping. It is happening in many European countries even those with high immigration (like Germany).

That's the only point of this thread. To discuss that question. And despite a number of people being really quite offensive to me, nobody really has come up with why this idea couldn't work... which makes you wonder why we don't actually do something about it.

But what wouldn't work?? You still didn't write how do you want your "control of immigration" work. How would it differ from the current system?

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by geogregor

Really? So any Chinese or Cambodian citizen can just show up in Hethrow and will be swiftly allowed to settle in Britain?

The standard way to get in is to come here on a student visa, then settle and wait for the country to deliver an amnesty.

Did I miss something???
As far as I know Britain has an immigration policy

So it either isn't being policed, or the policy is to allow net inward migration. (actually, it's a bit of both.)

Some, like you, say it doesn't work.

Where it's not being policed it should be. Where the policy is 'open door' this should be revised.

Then it would be nice if you suggested some practical ways of improving it.

See above.

But you just don't write anything about it apart from very general phrases.

But it is you who constantly write that British immigration policy doesn't exist or doesn't work.

No, it's you that claims there's a policy but it doesn't work. I simply observed that we let more people come in than leave, and that if this were addressed, that it would be good.

I can't actually even get you to admit the sense in this. Instead, you're hiding behind a mythical impossibility of actually doing this.

Would you kindly tell us how would you see it working instead of complaining about what others write about you?

It's very simple. People who don't have permission to stay have to leave! Nobody who stays without permission is allowed to work or draw benefits.

How hard can that be?

Not hard at all.

Are you really that short on an imagination that you need these things spoon-fed?

And by the way, populations of Australia, Sweden or US are growing, largely due to immigration. I'm not sure if you chose the best examples for Britain

To take Australia as an example, they have a managed policy where you can immigrate only if you possess certain skills which they have targeted. That sounds like a great idea to me. If we are going to have to apply limits, then that makes sense. In the years where we want to encourage more people, we remove those tests. It all depends on volumes deciding to leave, and the fertility rate.

The same effect would have decreased birth rate or increased emigration. Would you advocate that?

I don't understand your point. And why would I be against free emigration or a reduced birthrate? It just means we can accept even more immigrants without pushing the population up and stressing infrastructure.

You still avoid the answer.

I've avoided discussing nothing other than those suggestions people try to put into my mouth.

If your concern is purely about the size of population and you just really don't want to develop new infrastructure it wouldn't matter how do you achieve the goal of flat population.

What a stupid statement. I think it would be horrific, for example, to force people to have families of a size of the state's choosing. I think it would be horrific to force people to emigrate. I think it would be horrific to kill off people after a certain age. Controlling immigration to stablise the population avoids interfering with anyone's life here in the country, and allows for significant numbers of people to immigrate each year.

I'm not against infrastructure development as long as it results in a more sustainable future. So, for example, if poor housing is eventually replaced by high quality affordable housing, then that is good. If trains are improved to be less like cattle trucks, then that is good. If cycling lanes which are safe are provided in our cities, then that is good.

Stop asking stupid leading questions and stick to what I actually write.

I didn't mention depopulation just increased emigration. I'm sure plenty of Brits would love to move to sunny Australia. Maybe UK should get into agreement with Australian government to make it easier to emigrate. Population of Britain would grow slower (or even fall). It is a win win situation. Isn't it?

Australia long ago closed its open door to migration from the UK. Were it still open, and millions of people in this country took the offer up, it would be no skin off my nose.

I guess that's a bit disappointing for you isn't it? You still have me down as lazy stereotype of a 'daily mail reader' which I'm not.

Stop scaremongering, population won't grow for ever.

That is no solution to our problems. It is a lazy pointless platitude which doesn't address the profound problems faced by millions of families in the UK blighted by unemployment or spiralling house prices.

As British population is ageing its birth rate will fall and population will start dropping.

The fertility rate has risen in recent years. Your complacency knows no bounds!

...However, the fertility rate is irrelevant in a country which uses immigration to stabilise its population. Should the fertility rate drop, then it means you can allow more people to enter the country. Should it rise, you just change the limits.

Really, this is so simple.

[Ebeneezer_Goode]

Originally Posted by cnapan

Clearly not, since almost every country does it, don't they?

Um... no. Every country tries and fails. There are approximately half a million immigrants here illegally, and that's before you take into account those that we can't legally turn away that we might otherwise like to. Even if you focus narrowly on the people here illegally minus the asylum seekers, there are certainly rules in place to govern who comes in, but are there really any quotas? Any limits? I'm not so sure.

[cnapan]

Originally Posted by Ebeneezer_Goode

There are approximately half a million immigrants here illegally, and that's before you take into account those that we can't legally turn away that we might otherwise like to. Even if you focus narrowly on the people here illegally minus the asylum seekers, there are certainly rules in place to govern who comes in, but are there really any quotas? Any limits? I'm not so sure.

Well most EU countries imposed quotas on migration from recent EU accession states. We didn't - so partly it was political will which has seen the change.

You mention half a million immigrants are here illegally. Well, we can sort that can't we? If not, why not?

I don't think there are actually quotas in place at all at the moment. I think there's just a black hole where my suggested policy should be. Quite how you approach the task of limiting or encouraging immigration as your needs require is a different debate. But as this debate shows, there seems to be a significant attitude today in our country where you are branded a xenophobe or racist if you even consider it a good idea to manage the amount of immigration (for whatever reason). I find this absurd.

[geogregor]

Originally Posted by cnapan

Well most EU countries imposed quotas on migration from recent EU accession states. We didn't - so partly it was political will which has seen the change.

Yes they did temporally but not anymore. As a Pole I can now move to any country within EU plus Norway and Iceland.

You mention half a million immigrants are here illegally. Well, we can sort that can't we? If not, why not?

You are the one saying that it is very important task that would improve quality of live in the UK. So instead of asking maybe you propose how to solve the problem of illegal immigrants. Here I'm with you as the rule of law should be enforced.
I do understand idea of managing immigration but what do you understand by that? Only pure numbers? If yes I won't agree. There are many more important factors in managing immigration than just math. Culture, attitudes, education, economy etc.

I don't think there are actually quotas in place at all at the moment. I think there's just a black hole where my suggested policy should be.

You still didn't state what your policy should be apart from some general statements.

Quite how you approach the task of limiting or encouraging immigration as your needs require is a different debate. But as this debate shows, there seems to be a significant attitude today in our country where you are branded a xenophobe or racist if you even consider it a good idea to manage the amount of immigration (for whatever reason). I find this absurd.

Come on, don't dramatize. There are some idiots on both side of the argument. But if you want to have sensible discussion you have to propose something sensible apart from the simply statement: "we have to manage immigration"
99% of people would agree with such general statement but everyone would see this "management" in different way. So as long as you won't specify what do you exactly mean the whole discussion is pointless and will lead occasionally to silly arguments of "racist xenophobe" against "lefty hippy".

[potto]

Originally Posted by cnapan

Why lie? It doesn't help win an argument. Quite the opposite.

When are you emigrating?

[potto]

Originally Posted by cnapan

a significant attitude today in our country where you are branded a xenophobe or racist if you even consider it a good idea to manage the amount of immigration (for whatever reason). I find this absurd.

How about plain stupid? What do you think Border controls and visa applications are for if it isn't for controlling immigration?