Rapefugee lied about his age to get to stay in Germany, ...

[whichphilosophy]

Ourselves = All citizens and those permitted to stay in the UK e.g. asylum seekers, persons working on contract.

Why?

What makes those particular strangers more important to you than any other strangers?

You are hiding behind the law - but the law is not immutable, but rather is something you could wish to see changed, so that's not a position at all.

If the law was changed to allow any person from Afghanistan, say, to move to the UK as a permanent resident with no restrictions, presumably you would oppose that change to the law. So the question remains; Why do YOU define people who are total strangers but who happen to be citizens as part of 'ourselves', while defining people who are total strangers who happen to not be citizens as 'not ourselves'? Or is my presumption incorrect - would you say "Well, that's the law now, so now Afghans are now part of 'Ourselves', and I think that we should keep out the non-British non-Afghans, because it is them who are causing a problem, and we British and Afghans need to keep the housing we have for ourselves"?

I am not interested in what the law currently says; I am interested in why YOU define 'ourselves' to include people who you have never met, likely will never meet, and with whom you have nothing in common other than an arbitrary permission to reside in the UK under current UK law.

If we have 10 million people move about there is still housing for others to move into but there will be some shortages in certain areas. However flood in another 1 million people there will be a huge influx of shortages for there are nil houses left behind in other towns.

This is nonsense; Wherever people come from, they leave houses behind in the towns they came from. If people move to London from Sheffield, there are houses left in Sheffield; If they move from Krakow, there are houses left in Krakow; If they move from Kabul, there are houses left in Kabul.

A house in Sheffield does exactly as much to alleviate London housing issues as one in Kabul - ie Nothing at all. So why are people in Sheffield part of 'ourselves' to you; but not people in Kabul?

This is why each country issues passports.

We don't have an obligation to house citizens of other countries that have failed to do so. We don't have the resources to do so.

Third and subsequent child born after 06 April 2017 does not receive child allowance. The average Somali family is 4.19 children and the average Afghan family is 4.52 children. Many come over with large families and oppose family planning.

We don't have the resources to empty Africa, India and the rest of the world into a packed country. It's simple maths.

 

[bilby]

Why?

What makes those particular strangers more important to you than any other strangers?

You are hiding behind the law - but the law is not immutable, but rather is something you could wish to see changed, so that's not a position at all.

If the law was changed to allow any person from Afghanistan, say, to move to the UK as a permanent resident with no restrictions, presumably you would oppose that change to the law. So the question remains; Why do YOU define people who are total strangers but who happen to be citizens as part of 'ourselves', while defining people who are total strangers who happen to not be citizens as 'not ourselves'? Or is my presumption incorrect - would you say "Well, that's the law now, so now Afghans are now part of 'Ourselves', and I think that we should keep out the non-British non-Afghans, because it is them who are causing a problem, and we British and Afghans need to keep the housing we have for ourselves"?

I am not interested in what the law currently says; I am interested in why YOU define 'ourselves' to include people who you have never met, likely will never meet, and with whom you have nothing in common other than an arbitrary permission to reside in the UK under current UK law.

If we have 10 million people move about there is still housing for others to move into but there will be some shortages in certain areas. However flood in another 1 million people there will be a huge influx of shortages for there are nil houses left behind in other towns.

This is nonsense; Wherever people come from, they leave houses behind in the towns they came from. If people move to London from Sheffield, there are houses left in Sheffield; If they move from Krakow, there are houses left in Krakow; If they move from Kabul, there are houses left in Kabul.

A house in Sheffield does exactly as much to alleviate London housing issues as one in Kabul - ie Nothing at all. So why are people in Sheffield part of 'ourselves' to you; but not people in Kabul?

This is why each country issues passports.

We don't have an obligation to house citizens of other countries that have failed to do so. We don't have the resources to do so.

Third and subsequent child born after 06 April 2017 does not receive child allowance. The average Somali family is 4.19 children and the average Afghan family is 4.52 children. Many come over with large families and oppose family planning.

We don't have the resources to empty Africa, India and the rest of the world into a packed country. It's simple maths.

I have an EU passport. The UK DOES have an obligation to house citizens of other countries (as long as those countries are part of the EU). England will continue to be obliges to house citizens of Scotland and Wales even after Brexit. Your position is incoherent, and I am still no nearer to finding out the answer to my basic question: Why YOU define 'ourselves' to include people who you have never met, likely will never meet, and with whom you have nothing in common other than an arbitrary permission to reside in the UK under current UK law.

What makes those people part of 'Ourselves' to you? Is your opinion in this matter REALLY determined by what the current law says? Do you really think that it's fine for a Pole to live in the UK up until until Brexit, and that it will suddenly become unacceptable to you if, as and when Brexit happens? Are your opinions dictated to you by Westminster?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Why?

What makes those particular strangers more important to you than any other strangers?

You are hiding behind the law - but the law is not immutable, but rather is something you could wish to see changed, so that's not a position at all.

If the law was changed to allow any person from Afghanistan, say, to move to the UK as a permanent resident with no restrictions, presumably you would oppose that change to the law. So the question remains; Why do YOU define people who are total strangers but who happen to be citizens as part of 'ourselves', while defining people who are total strangers who happen to not be citizens as 'not ourselves'? Or is my presumption incorrect - would you say "Well, that's the law now, so now Afghans are now part of 'Ourselves', and I think that we should keep out the non-British non-Afghans, because it is them who are causing a problem, and we British and Afghans need to keep the housing we have for ourselves"?

I am not interested in what the law currently says; I am interested in why YOU define 'ourselves' to include people who you have never met, likely will never meet, and with whom you have nothing in common other than an arbitrary permission to reside in the UK under current UK law.

If we have 10 million people move about there is still housing for others to move into but there will be some shortages in certain areas. However flood in another 1 million people there will be a huge influx of shortages for there are nil houses left behind in other towns.

This is nonsense; Wherever people come from, they leave houses behind in the towns they came from. If people move to London from Sheffield, there are houses left in Sheffield; If they move from Krakow, there are houses left in Krakow; If they move from Kabul, there are houses left in Kabul.

A house in Sheffield does exactly as much to alleviate London housing issues as one in Kabul - ie Nothing at all. So why are people in Sheffield part of 'ourselves' to you; but not people in Kabul?

This is why each country issues passports.

We don't have an obligation to house citizens of other countries that have failed to do so. We don't have the resources to do so.

Third and subsequent child born after 06 April 2017 does not receive child allowance. The average Somali family is 4.19 children and the average Afghan family is 4.52 children. Many come over with large families and oppose family planning.

We don't have the resources to empty Africa, India and the rest of the world into a packed country. It's simple maths.

I have an EU passport. The UK DOES have an obligation to house citizens of other countries (as long as those countries are part of the EU). England will continue to be obliges to house citizens of Scotland and Wales even after Brexit. Your position is incoherent, and I am still no nearer to finding out the answer to my basic question: Why YOU define 'ourselves' to include people who you have never met, likely will never meet, and with whom you have nothing in common other than an arbitrary permission to reside in the UK under current UK law.

What makes those people part of 'Ourselves' to you? Is your opinion in this matter REALLY determined by what the current law says? Do you really think that it's fine for a Pole to live in the UK up until until Brexit, and that it will suddenly become unacceptable to you if, as and when Brexit happens? Are your opinions dictated to you by Westminster?

I was talking about countries out of the EU since EU citizens have an automatic right of entry. Many Europeans are now returning though there are now large communities of Polish, Latvians and others. I did answer this. We refers to British and those with a right to stay.

Since under the EU we allowed Europeans to live work and stay in Europe, the government has already posed that they be allowed to remain. Perhaps they could be (easily) given work visas if they are here working or run a business. The EU is of course just being nonconstructive for what can be given time to work out.

EU citizens however could get an automatic visitors visa at the airport. I would propose 2 months with a possibility of renewal if they are still in the country. This would also allow us to deport beggars and pickpockets who mainly come from parts of Romania.

We also need laws (like Hong Kong) where any imported workers must be paid the same as local labour, with stiff penalties. This will reduce but not eliminate exploitation at the expense of local workers.

If you have a non British EU passport you can enter the UK with a spouse even if you earn less than £18,000 pa. If you have a British passport you cannot.

 

[laughing dog]

We don't have the resources to empty Africa, India and the rest of the world into a packed country. It's simple maths.

Since no one is
1) trying to empty the resources of those areas into a packed country, or
2) proposing to empty the resources of those areas in to a packed country,

what exactly are you babbling about?

 

[whichphilosophy]

We don't have the resources to empty Africa, India and the rest of the world into a packed country. It's simple maths.

Since no one is
1) trying to empty the resources of those areas into a packed country, or
2) proposing to empty the resources of those areas in to a packed country,

what exactly are you babbling about?

If you read what I wrote you would understand I wrotewe don't have enough resources in terms of houses, schools and hospitals to cope with the level of migration pouring in from around the world.

Where are you going to put these people when several small building companies have gone out of business because of credit restrictions by the banks and we are 2 million homes short.

More migrants + 2 million houses short = more houses short.

 

[LordKiran]

Since no one is
1) trying to empty the resources of those areas into a packed country, or
2) proposing to empty the resources of those areas in to a packed country,

what exactly are you babbling about?

If you read what I wrote you would understand I wrotewe don't have enough resources in terms of houses, schools and hospitals to cope with the level of migration pouring in from around the world.

Where are you going to put these people when several small building companies have gone out of business because of credit restrictions by the banks and we are 2 million homes short.

More migrants + 2 million houses short = more houses short.

Housing shortages typically have more to do with rampant runaway speculation than they do a physical lack of houses. For an example of this effect, look at any major center of commerce. For more extreme examples, look at the Chinese ghost cities.

- - - Updated - - -

Since no one is
1) trying to empty the resources of those areas into a packed country, or
2) proposing to empty the resources of those areas in to a packed country,

what exactly are you babbling about?

If you read what I wrote you would understand I wrotewe don't have enough resources in terms of houses, schools and hospitals to cope with the level of migration pouring in from around the world.

Where are you going to put these people when several small building companies have gone out of business because of credit restrictions by the banks and we are 2 million homes short.

More migrants + 2 million houses short = more houses short.

Housing shortages typically have more to do with rampant runaway speculation than they do a physical lack of houses. For an example of this effect, look at any major center of commerce. For more extreme examples, look at the Chinese ghost cities.

 

[laughing dog]

Since no one is
1) trying to empty the resources of those areas into a packed country, or
2) proposing to empty the resources of those areas in to a packed country,

what exactly are you babbling about?

If you read what I wrote you would understand I wrotewe don't have enough resources in terms of houses, schools and hospitals to cope with the level of migration pouring in from around the world.

Apparently you don't read what you write.
You wrote

We don't have the resources to empty Africa, India and the rest of the world into a packed country.

.

Since neither Africa nor India nor the rest of world is emptying, nor is anyone proposing that "we" (whoever that is) take all of them in, I asked what you were babbling about. Apparently, you think "we" is the UK. And apparently, you are under the delusion that Africa, India and the rest of the world is emptying into the UK.
This OP is not about the UK, so you can stop babbling about the UK.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Housing shortages typically have more to do with rampant runaway speculation than they do a physical lack of houses. For an example of this effect, look at any major center of commerce. For more extreme examples, look at the Chinese ghost cities.

Speculation can make housing too expensive. It doesn't make it absent. What makes it absent is suppression of construction--almost always due to leftist worries about the impact of the construction.

And you've got it backwards about the ghost cities--those are excess capacity, not a lack of capacity.

 

[barbos]

We don't have the resources to empty Africa, India and the rest of the world into a packed country. It's simple maths.

But you owned India, so....

 

[whichphilosophy]

If you read what I wrote you would understand I wrotewe don't have enough resources in terms of houses, schools and hospitals to cope with the level of migration pouring in from around the world.

Where are you going to put these people when several small building companies have gone out of business because of credit restrictions by the banks and we are 2 million homes short.

More migrants + 2 million houses short = more houses short.

Housing shortages typically have more to do with rampant runaway speculation than they do a physical lack of houses. For an example of this effect, look at any major center of commerce. For more extreme examples, look at the Chinese ghost cities.

- - - Updated - - -

Since no one is
1) trying to empty the resources of those areas into a packed country, or
2) proposing to empty the resources of those areas in to a packed country,

what exactly are you babbling about?

If you read what I wrote you would understand I wrotewe don't have enough resources in terms of houses, schools and hospitals to cope with the level of migration pouring in from around the world.

Where are you going to put these people when several small building companies have gone out of business because of credit restrictions by the banks and we are 2 million homes short.

More migrants + 2 million houses short = more houses short.

Housing shortages typically have more to do with rampant runaway speculation than they do a physical lack of houses. For an example of this effect, look at any major center of commerce. For more extreme examples, look at the Chinese ghost cities.

Banking regulations means hundreds of smaller construction companies cannot obtain finance for their construction projects. Coupled with this the governments over the last 30 or so years have failed to meet their own targets.

It still means we don't have room to house everyone.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If you read what I wrote you would understand I wrotewe don't have enough resources in terms of houses, schools and hospitals to cope with the level of migration pouring in from around the world.

Apparently you don't read what you write.
You wrote

We don't have the resources to empty Africa, India and the rest of the world into a packed country.

.

Since neither Africa nor India nor the rest of world is emptying, nor is anyone proposing that "we" (whoever that is) take all of them in, I asked what you were babbling about. Apparently, you think "we" is the UK. And apparently, you are under the delusion that Africa, India and the rest of the world is emptying into the UK.
This OP is not about the UK, so you can stop babbling about the UK.

They are coming from Africa, India the Middle East and other countries.

Hence

We don't have the resources (in the UK) to empty Africa, India and the rest of the world into a packed country (the UK).

If enough come over then of course we will empty those countries. Of course a some will stay behind.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Housing shortages typically have more to do with rampant runaway speculation than they do a physical lack of houses. For an example of this effect, look at any major center of commerce. For more extreme examples, look at the Chinese ghost cities.

Speculation can make housing too expensive. It doesn't make it absent. What makes it absent is suppression of construction--almost always due to leftist worries about the impact of the construction.

And you've got it backwards about the ghost cities--those are excess capacity, not a lack of capacity.

Correct. The Chinese are excellent organizers. I've seen a whole street demolished over the weekend and the following weekend the housing spaces were grass lawns waiting for the construction.

In planning they also built in more than they required in anticipation of any possible surplus to predictions.

 

[whichphilosophy]

We don't have the resources to empty Africa, India and the rest of the world into a packed country. It's simple maths.

But you owned India, so....

Technically the land of India belonged to Crown and local rulers did pretty much what they wanted but supplied tax and soldiers. It wasn't filled with British by any means.

Of course this bears no relevance to the current immigration crisis.'

 

[laughing dog]

Apparently you don't read what you write.
You wrote

We don't have the resources to empty Africa, India and the rest of the world into a packed country.

.

Since neither Africa nor India nor the rest of world is emptying, nor is anyone proposing that "we" (whoever that is) take all of them in, I asked what you were babbling about. Apparently, you think "we" is the UK. And apparently, you are under the delusion that Africa, India and the rest of the world is emptying into the UK.
This OP is not about the UK, so you can stop babbling about the UK.

They are coming from Africa, India the Middle East and other countries.

Hence

We don't have the resources (in the UK) to empty Africa, India and the rest of the world into a packed country (the UK).

If enough come over then of course we will empty those countries. Of course a some will stay behind.

You do realize you just admitted your claim was babble. Now, do you realize your babble had nothing to do with the OP topic or discussion?

 

[LordKiran]

Housing shortages typically have more to do with rampant runaway speculation than they do a physical lack of houses. For an example of this effect, look at any major center of commerce. For more extreme examples, look at the Chinese ghost cities.

Speculation can make housing too expensive. It doesn't make it absent. What makes it absent is suppression of construction--almost always due to leftist worries about the impact of the construction.

And you've got it backwards about the ghost cities--those are excess capacity, not a lack of capacity.

Not excess capacity, lack of access. The houses in ghost cities are too expensive for the average peasant because the Chinese wealthy will buy up entire buildings on the belief they can extract high rents from such a high value area, so nobody moves to them. How many empty houses/apartments exist in major cities around the world because the only people who can afford them are foreign and domestic elites? In general, the problem is that land and real estate are overvalued.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Apparently you don't read what you write.
You wrote

We don't have the resources to empty Africa, India and the rest of the world into a packed country.

.

Since neither Africa nor India nor the rest of world is emptying, nor is anyone proposing that "we" (whoever that is) take all of them in, I asked what you were babbling about. Apparently, you think "we" is the UK. And apparently, you are under the delusion that Africa, India and the rest of the world is emptying into the UK.
This OP is not about the UK, so you can stop babbling about the UK.

They are coming from Africa, India the Middle East and other countries.

Hence

We don't have the resources (in the UK) to empty Africa, India and the rest of the world into a packed country (the UK).

If enough come over then of course we will empty those countries. Of course a some will stay behind.

You do realize you just admitted your claim was babble. Now, do you realize your babble had nothing to do with the OP topic or discussion?

Or what you say has nothing to do with the point I made and the statistics I quoted.

- - - Updated - - -

 

[laughing dog]

Or what you say has nothing to do with the point I made and the statistics I quoted.

Your point was literally babbling nonsense, as you tacitly admitted. For some reason, you feel the need to bring in your distorted viewpoint of the UK state of distress due to immigration to derail any discussion about immigrants anywhere else in the world.

 

[Derec]

No one claimed it was.

BS. Every time I or somebody else proposes any restrictions on or enforcement of immigration, accusation of "racism", "bigotry", "xenophobia" etc. come flying.

As usual, you pull another straw man to deflect from your hypocrisy and bigotry.

Ah, there it is. You did not even last a sentence.

 

[laughing dog]

BS. Every time I or somebody else proposes any restrictions on or enforcement of immigration, accusation of "racism", "bigotry", "xenophobia" etc. come flying.

Your statement is half bs and half true.

Ah, there it is. You did not even last a sentence.

In your case, it is true - as your posting history has demonstrated to many other posters.

 

[Derec]

In your case, it is true

No it is not. Your insults are quite baseless.