National conversation on immigration - Have your say

[Hubble]

Fill your boots folks: http://nationalconversation.uk/

[Stanley]

Controlled immigration is a common sense approach and which even someone like Farage is favour of. A common sense approach where you import skills which we have a shortage of. Overpopulation within some metropolitan areas is the elephant in the room though, and can be a problem as it causes infrastructures to collapse under its weight. Green belt land has to be environmentally protected, leaving just brown belt land which is in limited supply. Housing, schools, hospitals, roads, public transport are all infrastructures which suffer from over-population where you lack enough government investment. This of course has zero to do with whether someone is white, pink, blue, brown, or with yellow polka dots and only to do with space, or lack of it, or how much more investment it would take for infrastructure to be able to cope with the extra numbers - bearing in mind that most immigrants gravitate to already built up and densely populated areas for socio-economic reasons.

You also have to consider how many jobs will no longer be there in the next 10-15 years due to the rise in automation, AI, driverless transport etc which has given rise to much discussion on the UBI model and how it would be paid for.

[Hubble]

Controlled immigration is a common sense approach and which even someone like Farage is even favour of. A common sense approach where you import skills which we have a shortage of. Overpopulation within some metropolitan areas is the elephant in the room though, and can be a problem as it causes infrastructures to collapse under its weight. Green belt land has to be environmentally protected, leaving just brown belt land which is in limited supply. Housing, schools, hospitals, roads, public transport are all infrastructures which suffer from over-population where you lack enough government investment. This of course has zero to do with whether someone is white, pink, blue, brown, or with yellow polka dots and only to do with space, or lack of it, or how much more investment it would take for infrastructure to be able to cope with the extra numbers - bearing in mind that most immigrants gravitate to already built up and densely populated areas for socio-economic reasons.

You also have to consider how many jobs will no longer be there in the next 10-15 years due to the rise in automation, AI, driverless transport etc which has given rise to much discussion on the UBI model and how it would be paid for.

All points towards a universal basic income model Stan, don't you think? In that case, we would have to have sustainable population numbers. Much of the world is in turmoil, most due to the larger nations proxy wars and economic interests. Practically speaking, if the larger, more economically successful nations wish to limit immigration, they would be better off supporting the countries that currently export the most migrants in becoming safe and prosperous, instead of creating chaos and strife in those countries. If things continue the way they are going, there will only be more and more people seeking to emigrate to the richer nations. On a purely pragmatic level, sharing the wealth around, is a much better idea, IMO.

[Bill]

Controlled immigration is a common sense approach and which even someone like Farage is even favour of. A common sense approach where you import skills which we have a shortage of. Overpopulation within some metropolitan areas is the elephant in the room though, and can be a problem as it causes infrastructures to collapse under its weight. Green belt land has to be environmentally protected, leaving just brown belt land which is in limited supply. Housing, schools, hospitals, roads, public transport are all infrastructures which suffer from over-population where you lack enough government investment. This of course has zero to do with whether someone is white, pink, blue, brown, or with yellow polka dots and only to do with space, or lack of it, or how much more investment it would take for infrastructure to be able to cope with the extra numbers - bearing in mind that most immigrants gravitate to already built up and densely populated areas for socio-economic reasons.

You also have to consider how many jobs will no longer be there in the next 10-15 years due to the rise in automation, AI, driverless transport etc which has given rise to much discussion on the UBI model and how it would be paid for.

We dont do or have not done long term planning for years and years and years
and dont see much changing with all these career so called politicians

[Bill]

All points towards a universal basic income model Stan, don't you think? In that case, we would have to have sustainable population numbers. Much of the world is in turmoil, most due to the larger nations proxy wars and economic interests. Practically speaking, if the larger, more economically successful nations wish to limit immigration, they would be better off supporting the countries that currently export the most migrants in becoming safe and prosperous, instead of creating chaos and strife in those countries. If things continue the way they are going, there will only be more and more people seeking to emigrate to the richer nations. On a purely pragmatic level, sharing the wealth around, is a much better idea, IMO.

All for that if the support goes to the right people,history suggests
different

[Stanley]

All points towards a universal basic income model Stan, don't you think?

It's certainly being discussed seriously in countries like the US and Scandinavia. I can see the sense in it due to so many jobs no longer being there in the near future. The main question is how it would be paid for...

In that case, we would have to have sustainable population numbers.

I agree.

[lymehoop]

I've filled me boots

[Hubble]

I've filled me boots

Haha, thought you might Lymes!

[Hubble]

All for that if the support goes to the right people,history suggests
different

Yes that's a very fair point Bill. In the scenario I'm imagining, we somehow get past corruption and vested interests. Idealistic, I know, but like I say, a far more pragmatic approach long term than bombing the #### out of places. Mind you, it's only pragmatic if the goal is a peaceful existence for all people. If it's just profit for the elite then war and strife suits that agenda very nicely.

[loneranger]

All points towards a universal basic income model Stan, don't you think? In that case, we would have to have sustainable population numbers. Much of the world is in turmoil, most due to the larger nations proxy wars and economic interests. Practically speaking, if the larger, more economically successful nations wish to limit immigration, they would be better off supporting the countries that currently export the most migrants in becoming safe and prosperous, instead of creating chaos and strife in those countries. If things continue the way they are going, there will only be more and more people seeking to emigrate to the richer nations. On a purely pragmatic level, sharing the wealth around, is a much better idea, IMO.

Keep your controlled immigration.Thomas Malthus called it.

[Hubble]

Keep your controlled immigration.Thomas Malthus called it.

What do you propose then Lone? Breeding restrictions for the poor?

(Where did I mention controlled immigration, by the way? My idea is that you solve the problems in the source countries).

[Jimmy Floyd Rabbit]

We are full.

The end.

[Jeems]

All for that if the support goes to the right people,history suggests
different

A UBI model sounds horrendous imo!

[Hubble]

A UBI model sounds horrendous imo!

Really? Why is that? With machines taking over from humans in so many jobs, what do you propose to do about the mass unemployment that will result Jeems? Seems to me you either let people rot, have a huge underclass, or you change society for the better with UBI. What UBI means is that people can have a basic quality of life, a platform on which to build, a small but significant step up the ladder (if they chose), and a society that is at ease with itself. Furthermore, it has huge economic benefits, because unlike former social welfare models, it actually encourages people to work, because they are not penalised for doing so.

[Jeems]

Really? Why is that? With machines taking over from humans in so many jobs, what do you propose to do about the mass unemployment that will result Jeems? Seems to me you either let people rot, have a huge underclass, or you change society for the better with UBI. What UBI means is that people can have a basic quality of life, a platform on which to build, a small but significant step up the ladder (if they chose), and a society that is at ease with itself. Furthermore, it has huge economic benefits, because unlike former social welfare models, it actually encourages people to work, because they are not penalised for doing so.

Maybe I've just watched too many movies that depict dystopian futures but I dont believe the rich and powerful will ever stop being rich and powerful so a UBI model will just lead us to where we are going anyway -a future where the rich and powerful live in the sky and the average person...doesn't. At least our current capitalist society allows the average person to have higher aspirations and not just be average. Does the UBI model really encourage people to work? Why would it?

Many people push the case for moving to a socialist type world and cite Norway as a great example. People are happy, work short hours and the government provide everything. But on the flip side, I cant think of a single famous Norwegian person or company that has done anything amazing for the world. I dont believe the model encourages change or innovation and just allows people to drift through life - controlled by the governments, who by the way, are protested against on regular occasion by millions all over the world for various reasons.