It usually goes hand in hand with it
I disagree.
It usually goes hand in hand with it
I disagree.
there are I’m sure certainly other factors at play for many people however unfortunately whenever I chat to anyone or listen to them phone in the radio or ask questions on tv debate shows the veneer often starts with laws they can’t mention or make up or they flounder struggling to reach their reasons . Of course immigration didn’t figure in every vote but it certainly seems to factor in the most vocal and if I’m honest when you ask for reasons an awful lot seem to struggle to mention any other reason , that’s my experience anyway .
People have an emotional reaction to immigration that makes them against it. Rational reactions would mean people were broadly in support of it. What’s the reason for the emotional reactions?
What control did you want that was impossible before?
I'm not sure what you mean. Sorry.
Please feel free to show me exactly where I've 'dished it out'.Does that not sit well with you? Surely you can just ignore what I have implied - After all, you're awfully quick to dish it out.
If she came only armed with a PhD and no English and she's made it to Professor at a respected university within 11 years, then she really is the sort of person we want in this country. That's some serious chutzpah!But at the time of entry, those things would have been in the future. This person had only a PhD. That is all we know from that tweet. We don't know if there was employment, and we don't know if, at the time, she could speak the language. We can't use "seems like a nice person" in the decision making process. At the time, nobody would have known anything about what type of person we were dealing with. We can't use hindsight to make a judgement on this. Nobody is saying this person can't enter the country. We are saying you are welcome here, if you meet the criteria, and if your skills are needed.
With regards to the serial killer line - This was used as an example to underline my point on hindsight. I am not really sure why people are making such a big deal about that.
Here is a genuine question:-
Do you agree with the UK immigration policy with regards to non-EU countries?
You said it wasn;t racist or xenophobic to want more control over immigration laws. I am wondering what control exists now that didn't before and why this is a good thing.
Are you saying those that voted to leave the EU did so on emotion? Those people that are concerned about immigration haven't really got the capacity to think rationally about it? Whilst on the other hand, those that do support immigration, are the rational ones? The ones that "know best"? Is that what you are really saying here?
Is it the same as being called a racist for voting to leave the EU? Is that the kind of emotional reaction you are talking about?
Please feel free to show me exactly where I've 'dished it out'.
Also a quick question - you made reference to the BBC's alleged partisanship. Do you think the BBC is wantonly left wing or right wing?
You’re having an emotional reaction here. I’m not saying from something I ‘reckon’. Immigration has a benefit to this country based on most measurable data.There is also a human moral reason for it.
So, in that case, what are the reasons for being against it if not emotional?
Control over immigration with regards to EU Members should be the same as countries not in the EU. That's it. I don't care where you come from, or the colour of your skin - If you gain the points needed for entry, and have the skills we need, then welcome to the UK.
Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.