I think this is where we are always going to differ. Punishing the group for the sins of a few is best left in the realm of lazy primary school teachers in my book. It makes very little sense practically or economically compared to more exacting criteria.

Differing is fine - in my opinion a rational group will always accept only those who contribute on a net basis at least as much as they do. Where the statistics allow greater definition than nationality , religion , gender etc. then even better.

However you say that you would apply even more exacting criteria. What would they be and how would you implement ?

If we discount refugees / asylum seekers, as I believe that we are morally (and probably legally, due to international agreements) obligated to allow them entry and safety then I think the criteria are relatively simple.

You can discriminate on things like ablility (utility to the country - level of education for example or how badly the country needs the person - nurses, doctors, etc). You can also discriminate against people with a criminal record (set a sensible threashold - motoring offences, fine, fraud or assault+ not fine).

You can't (and shouldn't morally or practically/economically speaking) discriminate on things like race/religion/nationality. Do you want to ban an Iranian rocket scientist or an Afghan Neurosurgeon? Almost certainly not.

Quite frankly I doubt you really are. But just in case start with this and check the chart on UK's foreign prison population in relation to their share of the population.


Oh my, that's just too bad. You should have paid attentiont when the stuff got posted.

The info is still avaliable, feel free to search the relevant threads. Those on the MEI and the Durchsetzungsinitiative come to mind.
I really doubt the Swiss in the UK generally have an historical axe to grind with the British. Yet they're over-represented in the prisons just like everybody else.

Hope he doesn’t apologise.

Boris Johnson told to apologise for burka jibe

That's an interesting chart but is not what you state above i.e. "chart on UK's foreign prison population in relation to their share of the population."

It shows the proportion of foreigners in prison in each country relative to the proportion of foreigners in that country itself. If anything it suggests that the best policy adopted to immigration is that of Japan - at least from the perspective of the penal system.

No they are not - as per above. Please pay closer attention to the data.

How do you distinguish between economic refugees or benefit tourists and genuine refugees in an economically effective way ? Also Japan for example is extremely rigorous in its vetting of asylum seekers yet no country has yet to lay sanctions against them as a result.

Agree with you on all counts there - but again you need to define "utility" in a clear and objective way - which in itself is quite difficult unless you revert to "net economic contribution"
I disagree with you on this - religion and nationality in particular have proven to be highly correlated to culture - which as Hughes and Sowell before him is tremendously correlated to economic outcome.

Yeah, cos petty cheap name calling is the new politics isn't it?

All about deflection and who can be the biggest man-child when you are utterly devoid of talent, knowledge and balls. FFS, they need to grow up.

I think the guidelines on what constitutes a valid asylum claim are pretty well entrenched in most western countries. The UN definition is set out here:
https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/po...s_about_asylum

More difficult to define, it shouldn't only be based on salary of course - nurses may earn less than average but are essential. It is quite easy to define..."If you fall outside our sought after professions list, you need proof you can support yourself (+spouse and kids where applicable) - this amounts to xx,xxx per year plus xx,xxx for a spouse and xx,xxx per child. Failing this, you need to show you have a minimum of xxx,xxx of liquid assets."

The economic outcome is already known, they are highly trained professionals. I doubt you'd argue that race or religion is more highly correlated to outcome than the occupation (i.e. income & wealth) of the parents for when they have kids.

It would be so nice to drag this back to the original topic... Always being derailed by the same few, in particular the one who once posted on this very forum about their 'former' IRA sympathies -- until they grew up --.

That is not the question asked - try again (please).

I think this is pretty good.

With your first statement I would say it is not certain and therefore not known e.g. do they speak the language ? Are they Salafists ?

To your second statement I would tend to agree but have no problem with using additional attributes to inform the decision.

With the greatest respect, I believe it is the answer the the question you asked...

As mentioned above, in the link I sent, is the definition of a valid claim for asylum. This establishes the process by which asylum seekers are accepted as genuine refugees.

My suggestion regarding who can move to the country outside of asylum seekers, which you agreed with largely, eliminates benefits tourism. I think the term "economic refugee" isn't really a good one, it doesn't make sense. Refugee implies a threat to self, it has no economic component. Economic migrant is perhaps more apposite. They would only be admitted if they met my criteria from the previous post.

We are discussing reasonable criteria for immigration - including for Muslims. How is that a derailment ?

Thanks a lot for the personal attack - I especially like the way you put the word "former" in inverted commas - as if the many posts condemning that organisation and those who support it were not evidence of my genuine loathing for them.

Those who wish to check the post to which Joe refers can find it here.

Finally I could ask if you have any intention of growing up.

Firstly thank u for being respectful.

"How do you distinguish between economic refugees or benefit tourists and genuine refugees in an economically effective way? was the bit I was hoping you would establish.
To my mind to do that you have to be strict enough to deter any non-genuine applicants - e.g. anyone who has destroyed identification documents.

I do not know if it eliminates benefit tourism - it would - if properly enforced establish "fitness to work".

My point is that I have a Scottish mate who is a massive Rangers fan and will blame anything and everything on 'Fenian Bastards'. He's still a mate but I heartily detest his view regarding this. What is the difference between him and you?

1. I don't like football
2. We are not mates (yet)
3. I don't blame "anything and everything on" any one section of society - not even Sinn Fein (although they are ku.n.ts) - for example the weather - oh ok mostly I blame the Chinese and the Yanks for that
4. Thanks for the distraction - I took it as banter and didn't take offence

The thing is he hates all catholics for no reason as far as I can see, that they support Celtic. Known him for over 30 yeras always the same. He's been living in Thailand for years surrounded by Muslims. Buddhists and what not... Still hates catholics. Irrational, nicest bloke you coud ever meet unless... Now back to the topic.

Correct, I misphrased.The chart confirms the statement you you replied to above, i.e. that the situation is the same everywhere: Foreigners are overrepresented in prisons.

So you agree on the fact. It's another one you should expect to not get additional evidence for. Regardless of the extent to which you keep being obtuse and obnoxious.

True, statistics cannot harm anyone but if they are incorrectly used or misunderstood then then they can cause harm.
To quote again;
It is not enough to simply quote the headline numbers; to quote statistics properly you need to dig into them, understand the definitions used, how the numbers are calculated and what is meant.

Fine example here of not understanding the statistics you quote
You do not mention that half of these foreigners in prison were here illegally without permits so were not part of the 20.6% legally here of the total population that you are trying to compare these numbers with.

There is also the fact that 40% of prisoners who are in Swiss prisons are awaiting trial so have not been found guilty of anything.
Source

Now your comparison looks completely different, oder?