.. I understand how a tradgedy can be the sorrow of one and the pleasure of another. It is sad that mankind does not possess the necessary affinities to overlook their differences and see all disasters as A disaster. But meanwhile, I think that giving some additional drama and censure to certain events rather than others is also sad.
what a subject, how do you agree about halting or restricting immigration without being branded a racist. The tide of asylum applicants currently engulfing the UK is causing a lot of problems. During the period 1933-1939 the UK with a population of about 38 million took in about 70,000 refugee's all of whom were fleeing Nazi persecuation. Today the same country with a population of 60 million (give or take a few thousand) is having to deal with 70,000 asylum seekers every 6 months. The west and the UK cannot handle this number ( most of which are purely economic migrants and not genuine asylum seekers). At least the afgans and Iraq'ies can now go back home and help rebuild their countries. Unless a solution can be found then a 'blanket ban ' on all immigrants looks to be the only answer. Not really an ideal answer and one to be avoided because genuine asylum seekers should see the UK as a sanctuary, and any country must benefit from a diverse number of cultures providing they can co exist. I don't have the answer do you?.
immigration needs to be restricted to a great extent. a country cannot go on thinking about the welfare of other people. it has to protect it's own interests first.
a country cannot be mr. nice country all the time can it? if excessive immigrancy is detrimantal to it's econmy and social structure, it should adopt ways and means to prevent this from occuring. a country has to look after itself first, then worry about others.
It is my opinion that the world should look after itself. If a part of the world is hurting, the other parts must help it. I come from Sweden, a very generous country when it comes to immigrants. Actually, we have more immigrants than all other nordic countries combined. It is my opponion that we all share this economic burden. For the assimilation to work, there have to been limits. But as I see it, a lot of countries are not taking their responsibility.
... "The richness of ethnic diversity and multiculturalism..." Man what a load of crock. The only reason the governements open their borders to immigrants is because the original citizens do not produce suffiscient children to assure the futur workforce in order to cover the expenses of the retirering generation to come and its costs. Our retarded economy is based on a perpetual augmentation of production, if things slow down, the economy goes into recession and people stop consuming and this is supposed to make the market go sour. So in order to always have a greater 'clientele' the underlying mass must always grow and be more numerous. Another thing that po's me is that instead of giving inscentives to homeland students, they being university students from abroad (the best of them) pay their studies and gurantee a job at the end. If this isn't favoritism I don't know what is. So please don't be fooled by your governement that they really care for you to have a multiculturist city (which only creates sub-cultures that do not mix withemselves ex: Asians and blacks, Arabs with jews, serbs with croatians, haitiens with mexicans...) There is no such thing as a unified multiculturism... only seperate multiculturalism that do not assimilate themselves to each other, but rather pull away from other cultures. How? Just look at your local: LittelItaly, Chinatown, White suburbs or ghettos. This post is not talking about race superiority or inferiority... only that multiculturalism is nothing more than an economic remeady and that cultures don't tend to mix like we would hope they would. Prisme
Personally, i feel that borders should be rather open, as i believe people should be able to move relatively freely between countries. E.g. i have access to a reasonably good health care system, well funded universities and a whole bunch of other nifty facilities, purely because i was so lucky to end up in a western european country. I have ethical problems with denying people the same opportunities i enjoyed, just because they were raised in a less "developed" country and wanted to built a better life in a country with more options. Having said that, i do understand that if the borders are completely opened, living standards here could drop simply because the economy can not fund such a huge social welfare expenditure. Yet, i do believe that a lot of the social welfare budget is going to those who can not find work on a structual basis due to a lack of understanding the native culture and language. Teaching immigrants properly with the skills necessary to make themselves self suficient within a few years, is then at least a good try in reducing social welfare costs. Oh hell, who am i kidding... certainly this is not the answer, but no way we can just deny access at the border for the sake of our own economy. EDIT: added last paragraph.
