Immigration – All pros, no cons

There are few things that quite so neatly encapsulate how utterly stupid a person is as their views on immigration.  Specifically, them being against migration to the UK (although the arguement applies to almost every country).

The truth is, their arguements are either based on general fuckwittery, or a different problem entirely usually caused by their own fuckwittery.

Let’s go through their arguements.  I’m pinching them from today’s Times article.

In terms of self-sufficiency, I would have to say yes. We are not self-sufficient in food production, or energy, or our resource base (such as minerals).

Tim Jackson
Professor of Sustainable Development at the University of Surrey; he sits on the Sustainable Development Commission

If you want to find the root problem with the decline in higher education in the UK it’s probably because shit stains like this are employed at said institutions.

Okay, what’s wrong with his statement…  In fact, what is right with his statement?  Sorry Ms. Jackson, what?  What the fuck does that have to do with the price of butter?  We haven’t been self-sufficient in terms of food production in decades, but I don’t see us as at much risk of a famine.  Why is that?  Because you see, agriculture is a simple primary task that doesn’t produce a great deal of surplus value as, oh say, finance, pharmaceuticals, arms, high-tech manufacturing and the many other things that this country is a world leader in.  By us doing the things we are best at, we get the greatest degree of profit back.  By having that high level of profit, it allows us to purchase food from countries that do specialise in food production (and because of location, weather, topography, population, history and infrastructure they produce it a lot better and a lot cheaper than we ever could). 

The same arguements can be made for energy and resource base.  In the case of resource base, oh my god, how are you a professor?  I wouldn’t trust you to teach how to find your arsehole with both hands and a Dorling Kindersley My First Anatomy book.  Let’s just take a look around the world for a moment.  Let me pick a not so random country, like oh say, Japan.  In terms of it’s mineral base, Japan sits on sweet fuck all.  And yet, it has the second largest GDP in the world.  It also has one of the most long-lived populations in the world.  It also has one of the lowest crime rates and one of the highest levels of literacy.  Lack of a mineral base is not an issue.

Although Japan did at one point think along such lines.  Funnily enough, so did Germany at around the same era.  If you think a state must encompass sufficient mineral wealth for it’s population’s use, then you would have to agree with Japan and Germany’s policies of aggressive expansion in the 30’s and 40’s.  Which makes you a cunt.  Perhaps an ignorant cunt, but cunt none the less.

And as for energy independance, you might get me on the one issue of energy security, in the sense that any state should have sufficient spare capacity in their energy supply to cope with sudden high demands.  I’m all with you their buddy.  However, that’s not an issue of immigration.  It’s an issue of environmental assholes encouraging this weathervane government to not pursue sensible policies (commissioning a few nucleur power plants when they came in or telling the EU to go fuck itself, we can’t afford to close down our coal fired plants yet).  Actually now I think about it, it is a matter of immigration.  We have piss all experience left in this country in developing and maintaining nuclear power plants and we’re going to need to import a lot of French to help us. 

Okay, what other bollocks points do these oxygen thieves like to make…

The more people we have, the greater the environmental impact.

Tim ‘TIMMY!’ Jackson

Oh, Timmy has more to say.  Or at least he’s written more, his isn’t actually saying anything, just wasting precious bandwidth.  Timmy, Timmy, Timmy.  Do immigrants cause no environmental impact while they are in their home countries?  Is it only when they get to the eeeeevil Anglo-Saxon capitalist countries that suddenly they start leaving the TV on standby all night?  Listen up Timmy, caring about where someone does their carbon production is just to care about statistics and statistics fiddling.  Which might make you prime material for a government bureaucrat but makes you unfit to speak with any authority on an academic issue. 

What other common bullshit do we hear?

If the population were to double, of course we wouldn’t die en masse, but the UK would become a hideous place in which to live.

David Coleman
Professor of Demography at the University of Oxford,
and co-founder of MigrationWatch UK

According to your standards.  Personally, I’ve got no problem with increasing the general wealth, lower cost of living, filling in the vast pension gap and increasing the number of exotic restaurants.  So what do you offer as an example of declining standards, Mr. Coleman?

“a smaller population would allow us to get rid of deeply unattractive infrastructure, such as the ugliest examples of social housing.

That leads to the erosion of the countryside and people building over back gardens, which is happening where I live”

Oh fuck you buddy, fuck you right in the eye.  You want to shrink the wealth of this country, to shrink the skill base, shrink the access to a better life for people in far worse situations than you because…it’ll improve the view out of your window?

And I note your another vacuous turd taking a place at one of our most respected universities.

What else can someone give me?

“We are not self-sufficient in food, peak oil is upon us and we will have to face up to issues concerning food security, such as food riots.”

Roger Martin
Chairman of the Optimum Population Trust,
which urges parents to have no more than two children

*blink blink*

Before I get to his comment, I can’t help but say a brief word on the purpose of his organisation.  How many kids I, or anyone else has, is none of your fucking business.  If you want to reduce the population of this country, why don’t start by castrating and sterilising every member of your organisation?

 Now we’ll skip his nonsense about food security as we’ve already done that shit earlier.  So, his “Peak Oil” comment.  Look you Malthusian throwback, Peak Oil has nothing to do with immigration.  It doesn’t matter in the slightest where an immigrant is, if his job or lifestyle requires oil use, he’s gonna use it.  It doesn’t shoot up just because he’s made it to our shores.  Though while we’re on the subject of peak oil, shale gas is going to make it irrelevant.  Combined with a sensible nucleur policy, we have enough energy to give us the time needed to produce decent renewable alternatives.

Anything else you care to say, Rog?

“We advocate population stabilisation or reduction by voluntary, non-coercive means, such as contraception and balanced migration. Our primary concern, however, is the environment, and every environmental problem becomes harder to deal with as population goes up.”

Okay, despite the ragings of my cynical side which thinks your probably secretly a fan of eugenics, I’m going to accept for now that you are in fact in favour of voluntary measures.  If that doesn’t hold up on your website after I get round to reading it, I will highlight you as the infanticidal prick you are.

However, your reasoning regarding the environment is bullshit.  If you want to improve the environment what we need is better technology.  New technology is expensive.  Expensive stuff requires investment, which requires wealth.  If you reduce the number of people in this country, GDP will also go down as companies will leave for places that actually have the capacity to do the jobs they require.  If you reduce immigration, you will reduce the number of foreign born or foreign descended who will be able to help producing this technology.

That is of course presuming that, as well as improving the environment, you want to maintain or improve the standard of living in this country.  If you don’t care about having electric lights and any transportation faster than a bike, then by all means cut the numbers of people in this country down signficantly.  But when we’re in your romantic stone age vision I’d like to show you the end of my flint tipped club.

What other twattery is left to discuss?

We don’t look at this issue in terms of full or not full. We are concerned with the number of people on the housing waiting list, not the number of people in the borough. Barking and Dagenham’s social housing stock is about 19,300 properties. This has fallen from just under 27,000 in 1990. There are more than 10,000 people now waiting for one of these properties.

The borough is suffering from a housing shortage, but migration plays only a relatively small part in this problem. Many factors have contributed, most significantly the Right to Buy scheme. This has greatly reduced stock, particularly houses.

Mark Taylor
Press officer at Barking and Dagenham Council. The East London borough has become a focus for immigration concerns, especially over housing

Even though he knows immigration only plays a small part, he can’t help but bring it up as an issue.  It sounds like this dick is using his one shot at getting a view across to the wider public to both criticise Right to Buy and mooch some more money from the taxpayer to fund his cause.

First of all you socialist prick, Right to Buy is a good thing if you care about poor people.  Right to Buy allows people to get out of a position of critical dependancy on government.  It gives them something to aspire to.  Of course, this doesn’t help your cause, your cause being to expand the number of people who will vote for your pathetic party and it’s rotten philosophy.  And people who believe that they can improve their lives, who aren’t convinced they will amount to nothing, who know that with effort they can better themselves will not support an ideology of robbing others success.

I do however like the irony that this prick wants more shoddy council houses thrown up while another prick wants them torn down, all in the same article.

Look, immigration is not an issue.  Even in the most densely populated city in the country, London, it isn’t close to the density of Tokyo, Paris, Seoul, New York.  And the most densely populated bit of London is apparantly Kensington and Chelsea.  I’ve been to Kensington and Chelsea.  It was lovely.  I was served in a coffee shop owned by an immigrant and served by an immigrant.  The coffee and service were first rate.

Immigration does nothing but add to the richness of our country.  If I had my way, we would go back to our pre-Great War situation of open borders, as would all freedom loving states.  Even the issue I have most sympathy with, lack of cultural assimilation, isn’t an issue for government but a cultural one.  If we have an isolated subculture in this country, so what?  The moment they do something illegal, nail them to the wall (as well as every native born Brit) but until they do it’s none of your, or my, business.

If you can think of any issues regarding immigration to the UK I haven’t raised, post ’em in the comments and I’ll be happy to correct you too.