Situation of migrant workers in Europe

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Britty, that's scurelous nonesense. Most if not all of the migrants from former British colonies have always contributed to the UK society financially and for the most part did not come to the UK illegally. I can't imagine what possessed you to make such a stupid statement, aside from trying to get one over on Col. Bat.

This is not the stone ages or the 19th century. A country with no industrialized base cannot be expected to accept limitless unskilled workers as they once did. Hence, the notion of legal immigration channels. Which might I add, absolutely nobody has an issue with. That thought that an individual for another nation can take it on themselves to decide where they live, is absurd by any measure.

But if you're in the EU zone, this is precisely what you can do... I can choose to live in the UK, France, Spain, Germany, Holland or even Romania if I want.

[Heracles 417]

But if you're in the EU zone, this is precisely what you can do... I can choose to live in the UK, France, Spain, Germany, Holland or even Romania if I want.

Yes the EU zone, as in 7.85 of the world's population; far from everyone. Furthermore, no EU member is a third world country. This has been both positive and negative. The UK is ranked quite poorly in most international ranks.

Technically the US has pockets of red in it. Have a good look at the US's neighboring countries. Huge difference to that of the UK.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Booyah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But if you're in the EU zone, this is precisely what you can do... I can choose to live in the UK, France, Spain, Germany, Holland or even Romania if I want.

Yes the EU zone, as in 7.85 of the world's population; far from everyone. Furthermore, no EU member is a third world country.

This has been both positive and negative. The UK is ranked quite poorly in most international ranks.

The big bone of contention in Europe is the expansion of the EU zone to include countries like Romania and some of the East European former Soviet republics. Immigration in Europe goes from East to West (not the other way around). That should tell you something.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Gene Hunt

[mawilson 2,133]

Britty, that's scurelous nonesense. Most if not all of the migrants from former British colonies have always contributed to the UK society financially and for the most part did not come to the UK illegally. I can't imagine what possessed you to make such a stupid statement, aside from trying to get one over on Col. Bat.

Chicken!

[mawilson 2,133]

But if you're in the EU zone, this is precisely what you can do... I can choose to live in the UK, France, Spain, Germany, Holland or even Romania if I want.

Yes the EU zone, as in 7.85 of the world's population; far from everyone. Furthermore, no EU member is a third world country. This has been both positive and negative. The UK is ranked quite poorly in most international ranks.

Technically the US has pockets of red in it. Have a good look at the US's neighboring countries. Huge difference to that of the UK.

What are 'pockets of red'? Communist countries?

[Heracles 417]

What are 'pockets of red'? Communist countries?

Blue is first world. Red is second world. Green is third world. Comical that they chose green for that. I would have picked another color.

[Peikko 1,575]

Britty, that's scurelous nonesense. Most if not all of the migrants from former British colonies have always contributed to the UK society financially and for the most part did not come to the UK illegally. I can't imagine what possessed you to make such a stupid statement, aside from trying to get one over on Col. Bat.

Chicken!

Do you know what she posted?

[Heracles 417]

The big bone of contention in Europe is the expansion of the EU zone to include countries like Romania and some of the East European former Soviet republics. Immigration in Europe goes from East to West (not the other way around). That should tell you something.

The majority of European countries are first world, with the remaining being second world. That is a huge difference when compared to the corrupt third world countries bordering the United States. I also highly doubt the UK has anywhere near the problem with illegals and crime that the US does. Something nobody can pull the old, well they do it to card. Furthermore, anyone who is in the UK from another EU country is legally entitled to be there.

Ironically what I found when I was in London was that was quite a few there that had legally migrated from Southern South American countries, like Argentina or Chile.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Booyah!

[mawilson 2,133]

Do you know what she posted?

No, I missed it!

[mawilson 2,133]

What are 'pockets of red'? Communist countries?

Blue is first world. Red is second world. Green is third world. Comical that they chose green for that. I would have picked another color.

Seems pretty arbitrary.

China is second world, but India is third?

Vietnam is second world, but Thailand is third?

[Peikko 1,575]

Do you know what she posted?

No, I missed it!

Damn!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The big bone of contention in Europe is the expansion of the EU zone to include countries like Romania and some of the East European former Soviet republics. Immigration in Europe goes from East to West (not the other way around). That should tell you something.

The majority of European countries are first world, with the remaining being second world. That is a huge difference when compared to the corrupt third world countries bordering the United States. I also highly doubt the UK has anywhere near the problem with illegals and crime that the US does. Something nobody can pull the old, well they do it to card. Furthermore, anyone who is in the UK from another EU country is legally entitled to be there.

Ironically what I found when I was in London was that was quite a few there that had legally migrated from Southern South American countries, like Argentina or Chile.

As I've explained to you before, when all of the countries surrounding yours are part of a union that allows free travel across borders - there is essentially no such thing as an illegal immigrant. Yes we do get illegals from Eastern Europe and Africa, but the largest problem (at least from what I understand) arises from those who are there legally.

There has been a debate going on in the UK for years about how the asylum system and the legal immigration system has virtually changed the ethnic character of entire towns (including the one where I'm from) in the space a few short years. Because of that you find a rising tide of nationalism, racism and ethnic discrimination. Not for the first time of course - much the same thing happened with Jamaican and Indian/Pakistani immigrant groups. Now its the East Europeans' turn.

What are 'pockets of red'? Communist countries?

Blue is first world. Red is second world. Green is third world. Comical that they chose green for that. I would have picked another color.

Seems pretty arbitrary.

China is second world, but India is third?

Vietnam is second world, but Thailand is third?

The definitions are outdated - "Second World" usually refers to communist countries aligned with the old Soviet Bloc.

[Danno 1,228]

Part of my ancestry is Native American. Another part is Irish and another English. The early Irish immigrants were often mistreated by the so-called nativists in their day. Some of them went on strike while the nativists wanted them deported. They came here to escape the potato famine...which was caused because of British colonialism. Imagine that. Know your history....it'll completely change your outlook on all immigration matters.

Steve I have "Irish" in me as well, but I would bet "The Irish" were a dysfunctional lot when they got here.

I find it hard to believe no one liked them simply because of their accent.

Do you think they were the most sober and hardest working immigrants to arrive (legally I might add)?

Problem is, we are so fixated on the Orthodoxy of believing

every fault found about any group is totally baseless when in fact there is in most instances "at least" a kernel of truth, often times more.

Why do you think people today are so much more willing to hire todays "underdogs" (Mexicans) and not the Irish back then?

Is it because we are a much better people now.... or because the Mexican shows up for work, sober... and on weekends ready to work? (which brings the employer profit)

I'm guessing, it took decades to meld the dysfunctions of the "old country" out of the Irish, and now we point to the modern day Irish and pretend... "this" is how they came off the boat to face baseless prejudice.

What the hell are you talking about? Dysfunctional? The Irish immigrants were dysfunctional and that's why they were mistreated? Where do you get such outlandish ideas, Danno? I'd seriously like to know - when was the last time you read a history book and what was the title of the book? Did you even take any history in college? You did college, yes?

Son, this is not about reading History Books only, if it were.... all history books would agree.

This is about knowing what you are even talking about rather then using a book-mark as your every source.

Travel to Africa travel to the former USSR and other places and you can witness even today "dysfunctional" people in massive numbers. Often their nations history accounting for most or all of it.

Clearly you lack even a basic lesson in Irish history, in the centuries during and prior to the Great Immigration wave to America.

At any rate, you have your Orthodoxy and for anyone to "question" it, is alarming.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Danno

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Part of my ancestry is Native American. Another part is Irish and another English. The early Irish immigrants were often mistreated by the so-called nativists in their day. Some of them went on strike while the nativists wanted them deported. They came here to escape the potato famine...which was caused because of British colonialism. Imagine that. Know your history....it'll completely change your outlook on all immigration matters.

Steve I have "Irish" in me as well, but I would bet "The Irish" were a dysfunctional lot when they got here.

I find it hard to believe no one liked them simply because of their accent.

Do you think they were the most sober and hardest working immigrants to arrive (legally I might add)?

Problem is, we are so fixated on the Orthodoxy of believing

every fault found about any group is totally baseless when in fact there is in most instances "at least" a kernel of truth, often times more.

Why do you think people today are so much more willing to hire todays "underdogs" (Mexicans) and not the Irish back then?

Is it because we are a much better people now.... or because the Mexican shows up for work, sober... and on weekends ready to work? (which brings the employer profit)

I'm guessing, it took decades to meld the dysfunctions of the "old country" out of the Irish, and now we point to the modern day Irish and pretend... "this" is how they came off the boat to face baseless prejudice.

What the hell are you talking about? Dysfunctional? The Irish immigrants were dysfunctional and that's why they were mistreated? Where do you get such outlandish ideas, Danno? I'd seriously like to know - when was the last time you read a history book and what was the title of the book? Did you even take any history in college? You did college, yes?

Son, this is not about reading History Books only, if it were.... all history books would agree.

This is about knowing what you are even talking about rather then using a book-mark as your every source.

Travel to Africa travel to the former USSR and other places and you can witness even today "dysfunctional" people in massive numbers. Often their nations history accounting for most or all of it.

Clearly you lack even a basic lesson in Irish history, in the centuries during and prior to the Great Immigration wave to America.

At any rate, you have your Orthodoxy and for anyone to "question" it, is alarming.

Now you're just making yourself look even more foolish. You made historical remarks about the Irish immigrants but refuse to cite your source as to how you became enlightened to such truth. If you didn't learn that from a history book, what's the source, Danno, one of those magic 8 balls?

[britty 1]

Britty, that's scurelous nonesense. Most if not all of the migrants from former British colonies have always contributed to the UK society financially and for the most part did not come to the UK illegally. I can't imagine what possessed you to make such a stupid statement, aside from trying to get one over on Col. Bat.

Chicken!