Korean Job Discussion Forums

[SPINOZA]

England definitely has no room for more. The population of the UK is 60 million with 90% of that (approx) in England. England's population density is therefore 993 per square mile (1589 per square km).

Let that fact speak for itself by taking a look at population density stats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

Any further immigration must be to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland where there is less demand for goods and services and therefore less demand for immigration (hence those countries' falling populations in comparison to England's rapidly rising population). Passing such a law guarantees substantially less immigration into the UK. Filling shortage areas such as teachers, nurses, skilled labor must be done within the existing population. My country is not a place of shelter and safety for the world's disaffected.

[Gopher]

[Antmore]

[Gopher]

[bonanzabucks]

[Gopher]

[bonanzabucks]

[Antmore]

[SPINOZA]

[Big_Bird]

[Tony_Balony]

More debates?

[Junkyardninja]

Please understand first that the following post is 99% tongue-very-firmly-in-cheek, and born out of my personal frustrations with the American immigration question, on which I'm more than a little conflicted.

Looking at the population density statistics linked to earlier in this thread gave me an idea. Mexico's population density is 55 persons per square kilometer. Instead of laboriously deporting illegals when they're found in the U.S, wouldn't it make more sense to simply annex a corresponding 0.018 square kilometers of Mexico per Mexican illegal discovered? I have a feeling that the problem would resolve itself in a surprisingly short timeframe...



P.S ( Depending on whose statistics you use considering the total number of illegal aliens from Mexico, the annexed territory could be as much as 126,000 sq km, significantly larger than the ROK. Mhmm. Annexilicious.)

[mack4289]

Anyone who wants to temper their alarmism about Mexican immigration should read "Gangs of New York". Those immigrants were something to worry about- the Irish and the Chinese gangs terrorized NYC for years. But now could you imagine New York without the Chinese and the Irish? Would you say it would be a better city if we had shut our borders to them? Do you think, in the long term, we'll be saying that the West would be better off without the Mexicans?

Anyone who thinks the Mexicans are a threat to American culture doesn't have enough faith in the power of American culture. The brilliance of America was to set this idea as an ideal: "The most important thing is to cooperate enough to make money together. As long as we can put aside cultural differences enough to minimize how much they hinder our efforts to get rich, then everything will run as smoothly as it can in a country with this many different cultures." It's worked alright so far, I don't see why it can't keep working.


What the book also shows is the political incompetence that allowed illegal behaviour to flourish in NYC during that time. Now we have political incompetence that gives criminals who specialize in human trafficking a windfall of cash.

[Tony_Balony]

Mack, I've said enough already. I pretty much only write to my congressman and president now. I disagree with you about what America is and has been and i'm dissapointed that you have don't standards for Mexico ... what has Mexico always been? What is it now? Its not healthy. i'd like a mature Mexico because Mexico is my next door neighbor. the recent change has been all about the US, thats just not neighborly and our discussion has no mention of mexico doing anything out of the ordinary.

If the Mexicans want to come and work, there might be room but this whole wave of lawsuits, false IDs, "civil rights marches" needs to end. Thats not how you win friends.

The Chinese weren't in Gangs of New York BTW.

[Junkyardninja]

Would just like to clarify my position, since my previous post was slightly ambiguous. I have precisely zero problem with legal Mexican immigration and naturalization - that is, Mexican citizens who wish to become American citizens, learn the language of the constitution, and engage the American culture. As someone pointed out, immigrants who wanted to become part of America have been the key factor in whatever cultural and national strength the US has. In fact, I'd be happy to see a couple million immigrants from Mexico in the United States, provided they came legally and wanted to stay and become citizens. I could even support making it cheaper and easier for Mexicans with clean backgrounds to immigrate.

I'd have to agree with the earlier poster, tho, that tolerating illegal immigrants is damaging to our national wellbeing and image, ( What does it say about the US as a nation that we can't police our own borders effectively?) as well as being a genuine slap in the face to those who are waiting out the protracted and expensive process of becoming legal immigrants.