How much external immigration do you want in your country?

[Mike Christ]

Nor can you let so many people in that it even starts to get any where near buckling. So that's why you cant just let everybody that wants to go to a country in willy-nilly. There needs to be controls in place.

I don't understand the reasoning: in a free society, there's no immigration controls, but there's also no emigration controls; if I was you in this scenario, I'd leave, excited about living in a world where all the stupid people had vanished to a concentrated area to kill themselves off.  This also has the added benefit of not needing tight controls on where you go and why, but you don't seem to find this agreeable.

[hilariousandco]

Nor can you let so many people in that it even starts to get any where near buckling. So that's why you cant just let everybody that wants to go to a country in willy-nilly. There needs to be controls in place.

I don't understand the reasoning: in a free society, there's no immigration controls, but there's also no emigration controls; if I was you in this scenario, I'd leave, excited about living in a world where all the stupid people had vanished to a concentrated area to kill themselves off.  This also has the added benefit of not needing tight controls on where you go and why, but you don't seem to find this agreeable.

Which free society is this? Your reasoning doesn't work in the real world.

[nastybit]

Nor can you let so many people in that it even starts to get any where near buckling. So that's why you cant just let everybody that wants to go to a country in willy-nilly. There needs to be controls in place.

I don't understand the reasoning: in a free society, there's no immigration controls, but there's also no emigration controls; if I was you in this scenario, I'd leave, excited about living in a world where all the stupid people had vanished to a concentrated area to kill themselves off.  This also has the added benefit of not needing tight controls on where you go and why, but you don't seem to find this agreeable.

This doesn't make any sense. What's stupid for you is not for others. In some countries you don't even have decent internet outside of the main cities
Are you saying we all should live in the countryside growing organic veggies? oh man

[Mike Christ]

Nor can you let so many people in that it even starts to get any where near buckling. So that's why you cant just let everybody that wants to go to a country in willy-nilly. There needs to be controls in place.

I don't understand the reasoning: in a free society, there's no immigration controls, but there's also no emigration controls; if I was you in this scenario, I'd leave, excited about living in a world where all the stupid people had vanished to a concentrated area to kill themselves off.  This also has the added benefit of not needing tight controls on where you go and why, but you don't seem to find this agreeable.

Which free society is this? Your reasoning doesn't work in the real world.

Coming from a guy who thinks several billion people wanting to live on an island (and the UK at that) is a real world scenario, I'm not sure what to make of this.

This doesn't make any sense. What's stupid for you is not for others. In some countries you don't even have decent internet outside of the main cities
Are you saying we all should live in the countryside growing organic veggies? oh man

I'm fairly certain I'm speaking in clear English; if billions of people want to fit onto the UK island, let them.  If you don't like this, don't stick around for it.  What does this have to do with being a hippie?

[hilariousandco]

Nor can you let so many people in that it even starts to get any where near buckling. So that's why you cant just let everybody that wants to go to a country in willy-nilly. There needs to be controls in place.

I don't understand the reasoning: in a free society, there's no immigration controls, but there's also no emigration controls; if I was you in this scenario, I'd leave, excited about living in a world where all the stupid people had vanished to a concentrated area to kill themselves off.  This also has the added benefit of not needing tight controls on where you go and why, but you don't seem to find this agreeable.

Which free society is this? Your reasoning doesn't work in the real world.

Coming from a guy who thinks several billion people wanting to live on an island (and the UK at that) is a real world scenario.

Never said it was. My argument was that you can't just let everybody who wants to go to a specific country in and that still stands, but obviously you thought you'd found an opportunity to try be smart and attempted to bait me, but that didn't really work out all that well, did it?

[Mike Christ]

Never said it was. My argument was that you can't just let everybody who wants to go to a specific country in and that still stands, but obviously you thought you'd found an opportunity to try be smart and attempted to bait me, but that didn't really work out all that well, did it?

I have no idea what you're talking about.  And you're not arguing anything, you're just repeating bias and pointing out a boogeyman.  "We need X controls because zombie apocalypse" sort of thing.  Nobody wants to live in a nation that doesn't work; you've shown this by asserting there needs to be border controls.  Because of this, nobody truly wants to immigrate to a nation that's showing signs of overload; thus, people stop coming, even leave.  It's a self-correcting problem.

[hilariousandco]

Never said it was. My argument was that you can't just let everybody who wants to go to a specific country in and that still stands, but obviously you thought you'd found an opportunity to try be smart and attempted to bait me, but that didn't really work out all that well, did it?

I have no idea what you're talking about.  And you're not arguing anything, you're just repeating bias and pointing out a boogeyman.  "We need X controls because zombie apocalypse" sort of thing.  Nobody wants to live in a nation that doesn't work; you've shown this by asserting there needs to be border controls.  Because of this, nobody truly wants to immigrate to a nation that's showing signs of overload; thus, people stop coming, even leave.  It's a self-correcting problem.

If you have no idea then that's your problem, not mine. And you're being facetious now.

I'm fairly certain I'm speaking in clear English; if billions of people want to fit onto the UK island, let them.  If you don't like this, don't stick around for it.  

If loads of squatters turned up in your house you'd just let them stay and instead move out because you didn't like it? I'm not quite sure I understand your logic or reasoning here.

[Mike Christ]

If you have no idea then that's your problem, not mine. And you're being facetious now.

I'm fairly certain I'm speaking in clear English; if billions of people want to fit onto the UK island, let them.  If you don't like this, don't stick around for it.  

If loads of squatters turned up in your house you'd just let them stay and instead move out because you didn't like it? I'm not quite sure I understand your logic or reasoning here.

How am I being facetious?  You're saying your country would collapse if border controls ended from people flooding in, as if the whole nation was made of gold.  Yes, I realize it's the place you live, but I don't have that kind of attachment to it, and nor will the other several billion people who have no interest in living there.

I have a house, and these people have none.  I'm more concerned with understanding why there are squatters on my land, and why they do not have their own homes, than worried about getting them off of it; if they willingly became squatters and were just passing by, then so be it; I'd be a little more concerned with enjoying my life.  Anyway, I wouldn't shoot them, or ask the state to shoot them, whatever your flavor is; perhaps not many will agree, but I'm concerned about society and actually interested in solving its problems.  But ultimately the squatters probably aren't armed so a warning shot will get them off, if you really need them off.

However, this is a straw man.  People living far, far away from me on the other side of the nation, that I'll never meet in person, coming in, and for me to have the nerve to tell them to get out; that's much different than having squatters on the land I actually own, as that is my business; the business of people I've never met, I tend to keep my nose out of.

[Elwar]

I would say that anyone can come in.

But to be a citizen you have to pay a one time fee.

That fee should be the only income needed by the government.

If the fee is too high, less people will immigrate. If the fee is low, more people will immigrate.

If the government spends wisely and is a good government they will get people willing to pay. If they suck, nobody will want to come to the country.

I say a one time fee because that way you know what you are getting when you pay.

[beetcoin]

I would say that anyone can come in.

But to be a citizen you have to pay a one time fee.

That fee should be the only income needed by the government.

If the fee is too high, less people will immigrate. If the fee is low, more people will immigrate.

If the government spends wisely and is a good government they will get people willing to pay. If they suck, nobody will want to come to the country.

I say a one time fee because that way you know what you are getting when you pay.

i think that would be a problem. only people with money would be able to get in, and that means there'd be less cheap labor available.

[Lethn]

1. Many women
2. From Romania
3. College
4. Caucasian
5. Don't care.

LOL!

[Hawker]

Never said it was. My argument was that you can't just let everybody who wants to go to a specific country in and that still stands, but obviously you thought you'd found an opportunity to try be smart and attempted to bait me, but that didn't really work out all that well, did it?

I have no idea what you're talking about.  And you're not arguing anything, you're just repeating bias and pointing out a boogeyman.  "We need X controls because zombie apocalypse" sort of thing.  Nobody wants to live in a nation that doesn't work; you've shown this by asserting there needs to be border controls.  Because of this, nobody truly wants to immigrate to a nation that's showing signs of overload; thus, people stop coming, even leave.  It's a self-correcting problem.

Your position is "Yes the system will break down; yes people's standard of living will collapse but if they don't like it, they can go somewhere else.  Its a self-correcting problem"

As long as you never seek the power to impose your position on a society, it doesn't matter but surely you can do better?

[Hideyoshi]

1. How much?

Unlimited

2. From where?

Anywhere

3. How qualified?

Anyone who thinks they can find a job

4. From which ethnic groups?

Does not matter.

5. Special preference for persecuted ethnic groups?

None. If they are persecuted, they will probably want to immigrate more than others anyway.


Very idea of immigration is silly and meaningless in world of internet. Geography based politics and law is stupid and does not make sense.

[Waramp22]

Anything but muslims

[bryant.coleman]

Anything but muslims

lol.... so the problem will be solved if they convert to Christianity?

[Elwar]

I would say that anyone can come in.

But to be a citizen you have to pay a one time fee.

That fee should be the only income needed by the government.

If the fee is too high, less people will immigrate. If the fee is low, more people will immigrate.

If the government spends wisely and is a good government they will get people willing to pay. If they suck, nobody will want to come to the country.

I say a one time fee because that way you know what you are getting when you pay.

i think that would be a problem. only people with money would be able to get in, and that means there'd be less cheap labor available.

There would be a huge amount of cheap labor. I said anyone can come in.

The only cost would be citizenship. Citizenship could entail things such as paying for education, social security, ability to own property, business benefits, etc...

[bryant.coleman]

There would be a huge amount of cheap labor. I said anyone can come in.

Cheap labor will cause another problem. The average salary will go down. Local people, who were previously receiving $15 / hr for their work will receive something like $8 / hr.

[notabot]

Having grown up in a traveling family, and having legally followed work myself around the world, I'm presently in my 4th country. The whole idea of a national identity, although it usually has certain characteristics, tends to fall away after the 3rd country you live in.

There are a lot of issues that people look at in regards to immigration - lower wages, prejudices, etc, but as long as a person is honest, responsible, hardworking, and contributes, I'm happy to have them near me. The media distorts society to look at itself from a perspective with an agenda, escaping that is the biggest step you can take to personal freedom. If you are fortunate enough to live in a good community with a diverse group of people, you soon no longer see them as being from here or there, or being well educated or poorly skilled, you see them as your friends and people you can count on. And that is what is missing from the programming that society is receiving these days, the sense of community and that all can contribute to it.    

And when it comes to refuges who are interned in detainment camps, run by one of the three international corporations that run these 'prisons', what is criminal is the treatment these people receive. These corporations receive about $50K per year per refuge they keep locked up, and there are stories of entire families in detention for years and years. There are vast areas of most countries that need developing, why not set up immigrants where they can live freely and create their own future?  

[guybrushthreepwood]

Having grown up in a traveling family, and having legally followed work myself around the world, I'm presently in my 4th country. The whole idea of a national identity, although it usually has certain characteristics, tends to fall away after the 3rd country you live in.

There are a lot of issues that people look at in regards to immigration - lower wages, prejudices, etc, but as long as a person is honest, responsible, hardworking, and contributes, I'm happy to have them near me. The media distorts society to look at itself from a perspective with an agenda, escaping that is the biggest step you can take to personal freedom. If you are fortunate enough to live in a good community with a diverse group of people, you soon no longer see them as being from here or there, or being well educated or poorly skilled, you see them as your friends and people you can count on. And that is what is missing from the programming that society is receiving these days, the sense of community and that all can contribute to it.    

And when it comes to refuges who are interned in detainment camps, run by one of the three international corporations that run these 'prisons', what is criminal is the treatment these people receive. These corporations receive about $50K per year per refuge they keep locked up, and there are stories of entire families in detention for years and years. There are vast areas of most countries that need developing, why not set up immigrants where they can live freely and create their own future?  

I agree, but who is running and get paid to run these camps you speak of? Any more info?

[Carlton Banks]

These questions remind me of the Pacific Islanders who tried to move to Indonesia recently (or was it Papua New Guinea? the country's not important to the point, anyway)

A few hundred years ago, it wouldn't be an issue. They lived on their island. Sea levels periodically rise and fall. If it gets a bit too deluged year to year, get in the boat and move.

Then, the 19th-21st century turns up, and the more they try to just do the logical thing and move when they get flooded, the more they get turned into pawns in everyone else's political games. If it's not "proof that immigrants are ruining x", it's "proof that climate change is ruining x".

How about this crazy notion: immigration and climate change are not the new phenomenon here. The problem (and the only thing that's changed) is this over possessive attachment to land masses that don't belong to anyone. These people living their inter-generational island hopping lifestyle have been doing this for centuries with no problem.