Population leaps 3.7m in ten years

[Little John]

How far to we go back before we stop being an 'immigrant'?

3 generations.

Next question.

Would that be all 8 great grandparents are immigrants, or 7, or 6 or just 1?

I guess your nearest immigrant ancestor is in the fourth generation.

This is a side issue Ralph. I personally couldn’t care less whether someone is an immigrant, whether their parents were immigrants etc.

It simply comes down to two problems. One of which is temporary and shallow and one of which is long term and deep.

Of temporary concern is the rate at which immigration occurs if the immigrants have sufficiently different cultural practices to the indigenous population. Such cultural influxes need to happen reasonably slowly in order in order to avoid cultural tensions with the indigenous population. That much, I would have thought, is unarguable and is simple common sense.

Of more long term and structural concern is simply the numbers involved. There are just too damned many of us. My problem with excessive immigration is essentially the same problem I have with a high birth rate.

This debate keeps going back to the issue of race and culture because the absolute unwillingness by the establishment to properly address immigration has meant that the only people who do bring it to public attention are the racists. Thus the tenor of such public debates are always framed within their world view. This, then, means it is all too easy for the mainstream to pigeon hole anyone who has a problem with immigration as being racist. Hence the way in which you have framed you last post. I am not suggesting that you are being deliberately disingenuous Ralph. However, what I am suggesting, is that you are using arguments that come from an established ideological framework that is, itself, disingenuous,.

[extractorfan]

No, the real reason they have been invited is to keep profits up by keeping labour costs cheap and the "accusation of racism" card has been the way in which dissent has been kept suppressed. The end result is that the only people left who are prepared to question our immigration policies are the racists.

I believe that has been the effect but not the policy or reason for the policy. It is far more likely to have been an ideology simply of population growth to offset the declining birth rate. Not a conspiracy against the ordinary working person although it does look that way.

[Little John]

No, the real reason they have been invited is to keep profits up by keeping labour costs cheap and the "accusation of racism" card has been the way in which dissent has been kept suppressed. The end result is that the only people left who are prepared to question our immigration policies are the racists.

I believe that has been the effect but not the policy or reason for the policy. It is far more likely to have been an ideology simply of population growth to offset the declining birth rate. Not a conspiracy against the ordinary working person although it does look that way.

Which begs the question of such an ideology of population growth exists?

The obvious answer is that is exists due to an adherence to a model of perpetual economic growth. This, in turn, is required to support our model of money creation.

One way or another, in order for the above model to work, you need ever more people making ever more stuff. On the way up, wages can remain constant or even improve slightly. On that way down, though, that simply can't happen and so the net effect of continuing to increases the population of workers, is that you will get a decreasing overall wealth being distributed ever more thinly. This has the added benefit, for those in charge, of keeping wages and conditions held down as workers are forced to compete ever more vigorously.

[extractorfan]

Which begs the question of such an ideology of population growth exists?

The obvious answer is that is exists due to an adherence to a model of perpetual economic growth. This, in turn, is required to support our model of money creation.

One way or another, in order for the above model to work, you need ever more people making ever more stuff. On the way up, wages can remain constant or even improve slightly. On that way down, though, that simply can't happen and so the net effect of continuing to increases the population of workers, is that you will get a decreasing overall wealth being distributed ever more thinly. This has the added benefit, for those in charge, of keeping wages and conditions held down as workers are forced to compete ever more vigorously.

I agree 100% but I wasn't just being pedantic, sticking to the problem of infinite growth being impossible, and as it is it seems blindingly obvious to be impossible on a finite planet, the accusation of "Racist!" can be avoided. You (or we) end up looking more pragmatic, which I am. I also don't have a problem with immigrants in particular, in fact I like a few of them, I do have a problem with blindingly following a suicidal policy. I'd like to see the idea of no growth economies presented to the masses, Panarama style.

[RenewableCandy]

That's a bit rich when you consider how many immigrants are actually working to keep said infrastructure afloat!

Do they?

Yes.

As Steve points out the wages, and hence the costs of the total systems (hospitals, roads etc) would be higher if it weren't for immigrants. Wages are generally the largest cost in any enterprise, especially the "service" industries.