Immigrant crisis -- state of emergency declared all over Europe

Seriously?

It would be a very dull World Cup without them.

 

As the host nation, England will win it anyway whether the All Blacks are there or not.

 

I can't help what you think.

What would you say to someone who thinks that a city or a town or a village - or the residents of a street - have the right to decide who moves in with them?

 

Ja, wenn ich muss.

Muss ich?

 

I didn't read beyond the first paragraph, but I doubt you explain how your misuse of the word 'freedom' benefits society.

 

Residents of a street seems like an absurd analogy. Do I have to explain why?

I'm curious how one township deciding which members from other townships in the same country is remotely analogous to a nation deciding which non-citizens can enter and live within its borders.

 

To a certain degree we do, and hopefully after the referendum will will have full power to do so .. strangely I get called a xenophobic racist because I support having full control over UK borders .. freedom of movement is one of the worst things ever invented by the EU. A country, ANY country should have the right to only take in those that they require in order to full fill a need .. if that need is doctors then lets head the doctors, if it is fruit pickers then so be it.

I see so much hyperbole about how the NHS will collapse if immigration is stopped when the reality is that it won't.

 

See, I would find that a huge mental effort. I think I took in everything from "Yes. Freedom." to "...Scandinavian Death Metal" pretty much in one glance.

Did you cover up part of the screen with a piece of card to prevent your eyes from straying beyond the first paragraph?

Anyway - can you demonstrate how logging in to a bulletin-board, typing out a question, and then averting your gaze from the answers is of benefit to society? Because nobody has to justify who they are - they don't have to find a reason to be "allowed" to be a different colour or to speak with a different accent - but it's quite reasonable to ask people to justify what they do.

 

Wow, respect.
Well, du musst nicht, aber es hilft.
If you're interested in this, I can try and find some stuff I've been reading up on.
Those PISA summaries are, unfortunately, not a joy to read; 150 - 200 of academic analysis, statistics and data.
I remember a comparative study between migrant students in Switzerland and Germany, which showed that in both countries this group belonged to the weakest with the Swiss migrant students performing better than their German counterpart.
I've tried to find the report that mentioned the 25% of year 10 students from non-German background that had the reading comprehension of a 7/8 year old.
It was aired on WDR and had been on YT for a while, but I couldn't find it.

 

The reality is that 30,000 staff will be lost to the NHS alone, with 7,000 nurses being deported in the next five years under the new laws..
Freedom of movement under the Schengen agreement does not apply in Britain, and never has.

 

If it's not too much trouble, your excellency?

It's not "remotely" analogous - it's very, very similar indeed. A town is a polity and some towns are also sovereign states. There are many sovereign states (made up of several towns with fields and wilderness between them) which don't have anything approaching the population and GDP of Shanghai or Karachi or even Madrid.

Why do you need to see some "benefit" before you accept that somebody in Toronto might apply for a job in New York, but think it absurd that the same question might be asked of someone in Los Angeles applying for a job in New York?

 

26% of NHS doctors are non-British.

I cannot put my hands on a figure for how many of the other 74% were born elsewhere and have chosen to become British citizens because they're resident here and committed to working for the NHS but it's more than none, isn't it?

 

and as I said, controlling ones borders does not mean shutting the door .. if the requirement is for 30,000 staff then there is no reason to not have those 30,000 staff again as I said "A country, ANY country should have the right to only take in those that they require in order to full fill a need" .. Lets look at UKIP policy on immigration - Ukip says it recognises the benefits of "limited, controlled" immigration. Work permits would be issued to fill skills gaps in the UK jobs market such as in the health service. But EU workers, who currently have the right to live and work in the UK, would face the same points-based system and time-limited work permits that currently applies to non-EU migrants. Strange thing is that even though non-EU migrants have restrictions they still make up approximately the same percentage of the NHS workforce as EU migrants. 78.5% of NHS employees are of British Nationality, 3.6% are nationals of EU countries and 4% are nationals of Commonwealth countries.

Freedom of movement applies equally to the UK as it does to any other member state of the EU. The Schengen agreement is an expansion of that policy one that the UK has an opt out of.

- - - Updated - - -

I do wish people would read what is written.

A country, ANY country should have the right to only take in those that they require in order to full fill a need .. if that need is doctors then lets head the doctors, if it is fruit pickers then so be it.

 

Anecdotal evidence suggests that more than half of physicians employed by the NHS were born in a foreign country.

I remember seeing one survey that showed that only 40% were even "white", surely even that low number included doctors of Eastern European ethnicity as well.

It's a long road to becoming a physician, and the NHS can offer whatever salary they want, because when there is a physician shortage there is an endless list of applicants from other countries. Apparently becoming a doctor has become yet another on the growing list of jobs Britons supposedly "do not want to do".

As the population of Britain surges, even more cheap doctors will be needed, ironically.

 

Are streets and neighborhoods analogous to nation-states to which residents pay taxes and are provided all services on the federal, state and local levels? Do neighborhoods even have local government as a township would?

All cities are inter-connected at the federal level. The same inter-connection is not true for Mexicans and Americans.

I don't recall Americans being citizens of cities, but they are citizens of the US entitling them rights Mexicans in Mexico do not have.

I don't have a problem with towns restricting work for only residents, for instance; or deciding who gets to live in their community - I actually think that's a great idea to ensure community cohesion.

Are Mexicans living in Mexico entitled the same rights as Bostonians in Boston?

If not, why would you frame the question in such a way as to make the two examples comparable?

 

Sorry, what does that have to do with freedom the other poster claimed?

And how does this freedom benefit society?

Meaning (to test the claim by going to one end of the spectrum), how would bringing the worst immigrants imaginable automatically provide a benefit for the host nation's society regardless of problems of having them live here?

Just curious, but are you opposed to allowing murderers and rapists from immigrating to the country in which you reside?

- - - Updated - - -

Are streets and neighborhoods analogous to nation-states to which residents pay taxes and are provided all services and protections on the federal, state and local levels? Do neighborhoods even have local government as a township would?

All cities are inter-connected at the federal level. The same inter-connection is not true for Mexicans and Americans.

I don't recall Americans being citizens of cities, but they are citizens of the US entitling them rights Mexicans in Mexico do not have in the US.

I don't have a problem with towns restricting work for only residents, for instance; or deciding who gets to live in their community - I actually think that's a great idea to ensure community cohesion.

Are Mexicans living in Mexico entitled the same rights as Bostonians in Boston?

If not, why would you frame the question in such a way as to make the two examples comparable?

 

Whether they were born in another country or not, the real question is do they now have British Citizenship, if so then they are no longer migrant workers.

The colour of their skin is irrelevant.

 

Is it irrelevant that so many doctors had to be brought in from other countries because the government is trying to cut costs?

 

Personally, I want to live in a society where people are free to be who they are, whether that is something they are 'born with' or something they 'choose' to be, regardless of whether other people think they should 'conform' to their own standards of what is 'normal' and 'acceptable' (as long as they aren't harming anybody else or restricting the freedom of others).

Other people might want to live in oppressive societies where conformity is enforced by governments and/or society, of course, and I guess they then won't see freedom as a benefit.

The 'price' of having freedom yourself is accepting that everyone else has to have the same. Freedom brings diversity and variety - I think that's a good thing that benefits and enriches the lives of everyone in society.

 

If we start training more British-born physicians, doctors and nurses then we wouldn't need to start employing loads from abroad.

 

Why is a flood of immigrants a "CRISIS" in the EU, but an ongoing greater number of immigrants coming into the USA not a crisis whatsoever?

 

Even if immigration were a freedom, immigrants are not making society freer and therefore not benefiting society as a whole.

 

and herein lies the issue, it would be fine if immigrants were just living their lives according to their own ideals .. however that is not the case, we are being forced more and more to compromise the way we live our lives in order to accommodate others, such as being told that we must accept aspects of Sharia law ie the Arbitration Act -

he Arbitration Act

Under the Arbitration Act, Sharia law has been deemed a form of arbitration for Muslim civil cases within the UK.

This is extremely controversial as Sharia law does not offer the same civil rights protection, particularly to woman, as UK law. However, as a result of the act many Muslim cases are being arbitrated under Sharia law, from matters involving finance, domestic violence and family marriage breakdowns.

As Sharia law is acknowledged under the Arbitration Act it is now enforceable within the forum of arbitration the UK.

Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution. It is used in a variety of different disputes as a cheaper alternative to running a case to a full-blown trial.

If I go to live in any country I have an obligation to live under the laws of that country, not to force changes to adhere to my particular ideology.

 

The sharia argument does not wash with me for the following reasons:
1, The courts are not mandatory for Muslims or non Muslims for that matter.
2,the verdicts of the sharia court are not binding and can be challenged in a crown court which is paramount
3, Sharia can only deal with civil matters and not criminal and cannot order flogging and beheadings
Besides Jews in the UK have had Beth Din courts on the same lines as Sharia courts for a lot longer and no one has banned pork,Bacon and shellfish.

 

Migrant crisis: Germany to start temporary border controls

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34239674

Well that lasted long. If they are already having to impose border controls mere days after saying they will have an open door for the Middle Eastern migrants then how are they going to cope in the long run? Huge huge mistake by Merkel to announce that Germany will effectively have an open door.

They are projected to have 800,000 migrants by the end of the year which is an insane amount. Surely they must be thinking twice about all of this now.

I will soon post my full thoughts on this situation but I figured it was appropriate to share this in this thread.