Dover.uk.com
If this post contains material that is offensive, inappropriate, illegal, or is a personal attack towards yourself, please report it using the form at the end of this page.

All reported posts will be reviewed by a moderator.
  • The post you are reporting:
     
    Howard

    You are right that the debate often (always?) gets bogged down in accusations of racism, or spurious tangents about "rich" countries.

    We need to consider the following when we talk about migration:

    1. What is our current birth rate
    2. What is the current and forecast rates of emigration
    3. What is our population forecast over the next 5/10/15/25 years
    4. What is the country's optimum population in terms of natural resources, services, housing etc.

    item 1 less item 2 gives you item 3; item 4 less item 3 gives you either the shortfall or excess population we can or cannot accommodate

    Having done this we then need to decide how we, if we do, wish to fill any shortfall thereby defining the number of immigrants we can accommodate (we should of course allow for the average annual number of successful asylum seekers in that number). We should then decide on the method we use to vet and agree who fills that number - some sort of points system as recently introduced by HM Gov and in use for years in Australia & NZ seems to make sense.

    Finally we need to ensure that we have adequate controls and checks at our borders, suitable working arrangements with our neighbours, sufficient staff to exercise not only these controls but also to properly vet all immigration applicants, review and investigate all asylum applications, process all failed asylum seekers/illegal immigrants for return to their country of origin.

Report Post

 
end link