Firstly, my argument was that whilst the UK is an island like Australia, we are also part of the EU, unlike Australia. That presents a different set of problems. Immigrants can walk straight into Europe. France is essentially acting as our holding station for immigrants, whilst also taking its own share.
You proposed the Australian system as one to look up to. I'm simply saying it isn't as affective as people like to think.
The population argument isn't the "clincher". Our economy is twice the size of Australia's and we have broadly similar GDP (PPP) per capita. The economic argument doesn't stand up. The "space" argument is redundant also as migrants gravitate towards towns and cities. The pressures from immigration stem not from a lack of land, but from not developing the services and infrastructure to deal with rising populations.
I have proven that our legal immigration is no higher than any other country, our illegal immigration problem is significantly less than other countries (Italy, Greece, Russia, US), but broadly the same as most other European countries and that our welfare bill is typical of the other European countries.
It is also clear that until living standards across the world are broadly similar (although tolerable seems to be good enough), there will always be a migratory pressure toward the wealthier countries. It is my view that, unless you want to live in an isolationist society that denies responsibility for - but benefits from - the wider global society, we will necessarily see a reduction in our share of global wealth.
You still haven't dealt with how you will catch the illegal immigrants and stop them entering the country in the first place. Nor have you stated how you will deal with the vast majority of illegal migrants; those that enter legally but don't leave. In both cases you would have it would be an improvement over what we're already doing.
|
|