I don't understand that.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
devilish
Juventus fan who used to support United
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2002
- Messages
- 63,379
Outside of the ones who have been likened to Nazis who have been petulant?
I believe its the ones who were stating the obvious (ie no freedom of movement no unrestricted access to the single market).
I don't understand that.
Who has been petulant?
Red Defence
Full Member
Renzi at times, but he's under quite lot of stress. Hollande is another one but I don't rate him much anyway and he's unlikely to be in power much longer. Juncker - would be better for both the Uk and the EU if he retired gracefully asap ("gracefully" is a euphemism, only because I'm on a public forum). There are also one or two others who have a tendency to think puffing out their chest and talking tough makes them sound more influential and important than they really are.Who has been petulant?
Will Absolute
New Member
Even the countries member of Schengen have total control of their borders and control of the immigration, but adding more controls kind of defies the idea of Schengen which is to fluidify commerce between countries and movement of the working force.
What reality do you live in, JP? The basic principle of Schengen is that individuals can move freely from any country within the zone to any other. What kind of border control is that?
Border control means that no one, regardless of where they're coming from, can simply walk, fly or swim into another country without checks. There's going to be problems on the border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland, of course.
Renzi at times, but he's under quite lot of stress. Hollande is another one but I don't rate him much anyway and he's unlikely to be in power much longer. Juncker - would be better for both the Uk and the EU if he retired gracefully asap ("gracefully" is a euphemism, only because I'm on a public forum). There are also one or two others who have a tendency to think puffing out their chest and talking tough makes them sound more influential and important than they really are.
What did Hollande said?
Red Defence
Full Member
It'll no doubt be on Google somewhere but I haven't time to find it. (Dehumidifier problem atm).What did Hollande said?
devilish
Juventus fan who used to support United
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2002
- Messages
- 63,379
Renzi at times, but he's under quite lot of stress. Hollande is another one but I don't rate him much anyway and he's unlikely to be in power much longer. Juncker - would be better for both the Uk and the EU if he retired gracefully asap ("gracefully" is a euphemism, only because I'm on a public forum). There are also one or two others who have a tendency to think puffing out their chest and talking tough makes them sound more influential and important than they really are.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37502578
It will be "impossible" for Brexit talks to result in a deal that gives Britons more rights than others outside the EU.
He said the Brexit vote had been "a bad decision" but had to be respected.
Such arrogance
What reality do you live in, JP? The basic principle of Schengen is that individuals can move freely from any country within the zone to any other. What kind of border control is that?
Border control means that no one, regardless of where they're coming from, can simply walk, fly or swim into another country without checks. There's going to be problems on the border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland, of course.
No it only means that they have a right to stay the first 3 months on the territory and try to find a job or a school after that we can expel them, we can control them wherever we want, we can and we do have custom controls at certain borders and we can expel them if they spent 3 months without a job or a school.
Paul the Wolf
Former Score Predictions Comp Organiser (now out)
As the Euro is due to collapse and the UK will become this superpower again I think all of us currently living in the rest of Europe should move to the UK while we still can. Could the UK cope with an extra 500 million immigrants in the next two or three years
Red Defence
Full Member
There was a bit more than that. He's made a few comments over the last 3 months that won't have helped either side.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37502578
It will be "impossible" for Brexit talks to result in a deal that gives Britons more rights than others outside the EU.
He said the Brexit vote had been "a bad decision" but had to be respected.
Such arrogance
There was a bit more than that. He's made a few comments over the last 3 months that won't have helped either side.
Hollande said that Brexit needs to be effective by 2019 and that the british vote is irreversible. Is that what you have in mind?
Red Defence
Full Member
So all the illegal immigrants who wandered in and moved up to Calais and the North of France.......does your statement apply to them.No it only means that they have a right to stay the first 3 months on the territory and try to find a job or a school after that we can expel them, we can control them wherever we want, we can and we do have custom controls at certain borders and we can expel them if they spent 3 months without a job or a school.
Red Defence
Full Member
No. You must only be getting sanitised statements in France. We get to see and hear most of the comments they make about us.Hollande said that Brexit needs to be effective by 2019 and that the british vote is irreversible. Is that what you have in mind?
So all the illegal immigrants who wandered in and moved up to Calais and the North of France.......does your statement apply to them.
In Calais there is economical immigrants who are expellable and there is the ones who are protected by the Geneva convention and can't be expelled and have the right to seek asylum.
Red Defence
Full Member
So why haven't you expelled the economic ones and sorted out the ones who are seeking asylum? There seems to be a complete lack of control or responsibility in France to migrants.In Calais there is economical immigrants who are expellable and there is the ones who are protected by the Geneva convention and can't be expelled and have the right to seek asylum.
No. You must only be getting sanitised statements in France. We get to see and hear most of the comments they make about us.
Well if we have the sanitised version in video.
Paul the Wolf
Former Score Predictions Comp Organiser (now out)
Well if we have the sanitised version in video.
I hear that we might even be allowed to have internet access within the next 5 years, oh wait a minute...
So why haven't you expelled the economic ones and sorted out the ones who are seeking asylum? There seems to be a complete lack of control or responsibility in France to migrants.
Simple, the people in Calais intended to seek asylum in the UK but they are not able to because they can't access your borders and can't access custom officers allowed to receive the said demand, so logically they refuse to seek asylum in any other country in the EU otherwise they are stuck in that country.
As for the economic immigrants they are expelled everyday when we manage to find their country, during the investigation they are often put in centers
Last edited:
Red Defence
Full Member
You do realise that most of the economic migrants (estimated to be at least 50%) have no passport, so how did they get into France in the first place?
Will Absolute
New Member
No it only means that they have a right to stay the first 3 months on the territory and try to find a job or a school after that we can expel them, we can control them wherever we want, we can and we do have custom controls at certain borders and we can expel them if they spent 3 months without a job or a school.
Once inside Schengen they can travel anywhere within the zone across national borders. Who tracks them down and how do they find them?
The 'expulsion' idea is a fig leaf and an hypocrisy. Millions of people can't be tracked down and expelled.
You do realise that most of the economic migrants (estimated to be at least 50%) have no passport, so how did they get into France in the first place?
It depends on where they are from, some had passeports but got rid of them that's mainly the ones coming from the eastern borders (these ones generally used papers in Turkey for example and therefore can be identified) and others came through the Libyan routes and are less likely to have passeports, in that case there are investigations.
Last edited:
Red Defence
Full Member
But the 10.000 or so who live in the Calais jungle don't fit into the post below, nor do the unaccompanied minors living there, so why have they been let in?It depends on where they are from, some had passeports but got rid of them that's mainly the ones coming from the eastern borders (these ones generally used papers in Turkey for example and therefore can be identified) and others came through the Lybian routes and are less likely to have passeports, in that case there are investigations.
No it only means that they have a right to stay the first 3 months on the territory and try to find a job or a school after that we can expel them, we can control them wherever we want, we can and we do have custom controls at certain borders and we can expel them if they spent 3 months without a job or a school.
Once inside Schengen they can travel anywhere within the zone across national borders. Who tracks them down and how do they find them?
The 'expulsion' idea is a fig leaf and an hypocrisy. Millions of people can't be tracked down and expelled.
But that's a choice from us, we have the right to control everyone and let the EU citizens enter since it's their right but because borders are incredibly expensive we decided to just get rid of the ones that we share with EU countries. With the current crisis it's problematic because a lot of the migrants end up in France but at the same time they are less expensive than borders. And if for example, we decide to actually control all the trucks entering the territory, it's going to be a huge problem.
But the 10.000 or so who live in the Calais jungle don't fit into the post below, nor do the unaccompanied minors living there, so why have they been let in?
That post is about EU citizens, the citizens the UK are complaining about.
The other ones are not allowed to enter your borders or ours for what it worth but we have a huge problem with eastern Europe countries who are letting them in because they don't want to finance their outer borders, it's something that we need to fix but since every EU country wants to have full control of it's own borders the EU can't even create an actual custom office who could control those damn borders.
Basically we have a custom and border control problem, the 27 countries want control of their borders but they also want freedom of movement between the inside borders. In my opinion you can't have both, we either all control our borders (which is currently possible but expensive) or we all control the outer borders of the entire zone in that case no syrian will be able to enter from Turkey without being checked for the entire zone and deemed asylum worthy or not, at the moment the greeks decide for everyone but aren't the ones taking care of them.
devilish
Juventus fan who used to support United
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2002
- Messages
- 63,379
The immigration issue is a humanitarian issue of epic proportions. The EU who believe in solidarity, can't abandon the countries at its external borders to receive and keep an unlimited amount of immigrants year in year out just to keep a bunch of xenophobic countries happy and safe and will certainly not allow immigrants to drown at sea
Regarding borders it works both way. If the UK raise borders with the EU then probably the EU will raise borders with the UK. The Brits living in Northern Ireland and Gibraltar will be less impressed. There's also rumours of a revision in the Le Touquet deal + the Dublin 2 regulation (ie which state that the country whose at the external border must keep all the immigrants) is an EU regulation. What happens if the UK leaves the EU? Will that regulation still apply?
Regarding borders it works both way. If the UK raise borders with the EU then probably the EU will raise borders with the UK. The Brits living in Northern Ireland and Gibraltar will be less impressed. There's also rumours of a revision in the Le Touquet deal + the Dublin 2 regulation (ie which state that the country whose at the external border must keep all the immigrants) is an EU regulation. What happens if the UK leaves the EU? Will that regulation still apply?
devilish
Juventus fan who used to support United
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2002
- Messages
- 63,379
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2011
- Messages
- 36,206
The immigration issue is a humanitarian issue of epic proportions. The EU who believe in solidarity, can't abandon the countries at its external borders to receive and keep an unlimited amount of immigrants year in year out just to keep a bunch of xenophobic countries happy and safe and will certainly not allow immigrants to drown at sea
Regarding borders it works both way. If the UK raise borders with the EU then probably the EU will raise borders with the UK. The Brits living in Northern Ireland and Gibraltar will be less impressed. There's also rumours of a revision in the Le Touquet deal + the Dublin 2 regulation (ie which state that the country whose at the external border must keep all the immigrants) is an EU regulation. What happens if the UK leaves the EU? Will that regulation still apply?
The problem also goes the other way, though. The EU follows the principle of free movement and I think it's completely fair for a nation to be concerned if they don't want to see increasing immigration year on year, when the EU's free movement would potentially result in them not being able to prevent it.
I think the problems of immigration (especially in the UK) have been overstated massively, but the idea of wanting to have balanced immigration where your net figures are fairly even seems like a sensible one on a basic level. If you're in the EU and surrounding countries are bringing in extremely high numbers of refugees (ie Germany), and you have concerns about how they'll integrate into your country, then it's fair to be concerned.
The problem also goes the other way, though. The EU follows the principle of free movement and I think it's completely fair for a nation to be concerned if they don't want to see increasing immigration year on year, when the EU's free movement would potentially result in them not being able to prevent it.
I think the problems of immigration (especially in the UK) have been overstated massively, but the idea of wanting to have balanced immigration where your net figures are fairly even seems like a sensible one on a basic level. If you're in the EU and surrounding countries are bringing in extremely high numbers of refugees (ie Germany), and you have concerns about how they'll integrate into your country, then it's fair to be concerned.
You are talking about increasing immigration of EU citizens, right?
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2011
- Messages
- 36,206
You are talking about increasing immigration of EU citizens, right?
Really a mixture. Naturally EU citizens will move all over the place, and now we've got the added pressures that come with the refugee crises. Of course, it's only right that Europe aims to help those in need and does what it can...but I don't think it's xenophobic for a nation to either worry that their nation does not have the resources to take in an extreme upsurge in citizens, or for a nation to be concerned that those who enter their country will be unable to integrate.
Again, I'm pro-immigration myself and I think parties like UKIP have shamelessly exaggerated the strains of immigration for their own gain, but I don't think it's xenophobic at all to be concerned at continuing large numbers to be coming into your country. If the EU intends to continue on the principle of free movement then each country should be aware of the pros/cons that come with changing immigration, because such policies won't just be limited to their own nation.
Really a mixture. Naturally EU citizens will move all over the place, and now we've got the added pressures that come with the refugee crises. Of course, it's only right that Europe aims to help those in need and does what it can...but I don't think it's xenophobic for a nation to either worry that their nation does not have the resources to take in an extreme upsurge in citizens, or for a nation to be concerned that those who enter their country will be unable to integrate.
Again, I'm pro-immigration myself and I think parties like UKIP have shamelessly exaggerated the strains of immigration for their own gain, but I don't think it's xenophobic at all to be concerned at continuing large numbers to be coming into your country. If the EU intends to continue on the principle of free movement then each country should be aware of the pros/cons that come with changing immigration, because such policies won't just be limited to their own nation.
But the UK aren't concerned by the other immigrants, they are not included in the free movement since they are not citizens, it's not even that they aren't EU nationals they aren't EU citizens which means that the UK don't even have to give them the agreed 3 months.
So the extrem upsurge in citizens is a myth unless you believe that EU citizens are going to massively move to the UK for whatever reason that didn't existed in the recent past.
That's where I'm confused in that entire debate.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2011
- Messages
- 36,206
But the UK aren't concerned by the other immigrants, they are not included in the free movement since they are not citizens, it's not even that they aren't EU nationals they aren't EU citizens which means that the UK don't even have to give them the agreed 3 months.
So the extrem upsurge in citizens is a myth unless you believe that EU citizens are going to massively move to the UK for whatever reason that didn't existed in the recent past.
That's where I'm confused in that entire debate.
I'd imagine this would potentially change long-term though if a number of the refugees eventually gained citizenship. Either way, I think it's fair for countries to be concerned if surrounding neighbours are bringing in large, large numbers with the possible eventuality of those people becoming citizens. It's not as big a problem for us because we're kind of geographically separated from Europe...but is perhaps a bigger problem for those bordering multiple countries.
Untied
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2009
- Messages
- 4,480
It's all going to be fine because we are now selling coffee to Brazil
(We are not, but Leadsom imagines we are and that's probably enough for most Brexiters)
(We are not, but Leadsom imagines we are and that's probably enough for most Brexiters)
devilish
Juventus fan who used to support United
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2002
- Messages
- 63,379
The problem also goes the other way, though. The EU follows the principle of free movement and I think it's completely fair for a nation to be concerned if they don't want to see increasing immigration year on year, when the EU's free movement would potentially result in them not being able to prevent it.
I think the problems of immigration (especially in the UK) have been overstated massively, but the idea of wanting to have balanced immigration where your net figures are fairly even seems like a sensible one on a basic level. If you're in the EU and surrounding countries are bringing in extremely high numbers of refugees (ie Germany), and you have concerns about how they'll integrate into your country, then it's fair to be concerned.
I think we need to distinguish between the various sets of immigrants
EU Immigrants
I believe in unrestricted freedom of movement on that regard. I strongly believe that a country shouldn't have unrestricted access to another country's market and money without accepting freedom of movement in terms of people. However I am totally against abuse of such right. If lets say a person has committed a crime than that person should be deported and barred from using his right for freedom of movement for X years. Same with those who move in a country to enjoy their welfare benefits. Its one thing for a person whose been 5-6 years working in the country and then he ends up redundant. Its another moving to a said country just to enjoy benefits
Asylum seekers/refugees
We're living in difficult imes where loads of wars are happening concurrently created unprecedented waves of immigrants. One shouldn't expect the countries at the periphery of Europe to nanny this wave of immigrants on behalf of the rest especially since
a- its unfair
b- its not going to happen
c- its unfeasible. These countries wont cope with an endless flow of immigrants. They simply lack the infrastructure, the money and the will to do so (why should they nanny immigrants on the behalf of others?). Since the Southern Europeans tend not to be savages they would still save immigrants from drowning. However they will also turn a blind eye to those who move to other countries and I assure you they won't take responsibility for them once these immigrants step into the UK. So either you start shooting at them yourself or else you will have to do your share on this regard.
Therefore the only way to sort this issue is through careful management. The world must be persuaded to take responsibility, wars must be reduced to the minimum, conflicts need to be sorted ASAP and safe countries must be persuaded if not forced to accept a quota of immigrants. I have criticised the EU in numerous occasions about its lack of teeth on this regard, specifically with countries like Hungary who want the euros, they want freedom of movement for their own people, they want an EU army that will protect them against the Russians but they don't want to show any solidarity towards other EU countries who are struggling on this issue. An EU with teeth would be in a position to mediate and if needed penalise those countries who refuse to pull their weight. Same thing must happen with third countries. If they refuse to take their share then maybe the Dublin regulation will be revised, the borders will move back to Dover (in terms of the UK) and each for his own.
I'd imagine this would potentially change long-term though if a number of the refugees eventually gained citizenship. Either way, I think it's fair for countries to be concerned if surrounding neighbours are bringing in large, large numbers with the possible eventuality of those people becoming citizens. It's not as big a problem for us because we're kind of geographically separated from Europe...but is perhaps a bigger problem for those bordering multiple countries.
Even then it's not really a problem because these aren't allowed to be a burden on your economy, the freedom of movement right is limited by the ability of the immigrant to have enough money to leave decently which is why they are expellable when they are elligible to benefits. Immigrants need to find a job that's mandatory and if they have a job, they create wealth for the UK.
Sweet Square
ˈkämyənəst
Worth mentioning the role racism plays in the immigration debate. When people say ''there's just too many of them here'' they aren't just referring to people coming in from others countries but are also referring to people who aren't exactly like them - white with a english accent.
The UK could stop all immigration to this country and to a lot of people it wouldn't matter, because of soon as they see someone with black skin or someone wearing a non christian religious piece of clothing, they will view this person as the ''immigrate''.
The UK could stop all immigration to this country and to a lot of people it wouldn't matter, because of soon as they see someone with black skin or someone wearing a non christian religious piece of clothing, they will view this person as the ''immigrate''.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2011
- Messages
- 36,206
@devilish Largely agree with all of what you're saying. I think the issue is though that the conflict in the Middle East is unlikely to stop anytime soon and issues like climate change and the droughts from that will only cause more and more refugees to come West. I think we're only seeing the initial beginning of this problem.
They create wealth when they have a job, yes, and many of them do incredibly hard work and are a valuable asset. In political terms though, the problem is that many people feel like they're being squeezed out of jobs by the number of immigrants coming to the UK. Again, it's not necessarily something I agree with...but it's quite clearly a feeling a portion of the UK has and as someone who lives in an area with little immigration, I feel like it'd be a bit hypocritical for me to lecture those with concerns as to why they're wrong when it's something I've not experienced.
I agree there's an undercurrent of racism often present in anti-immigration sentiment (and sometimes a lot more than an undercurrent), but I don't think it's particularly racist to expect someone moving from one country to another to speak English, or at least expect them to learn the language, if they're going to be working. I'd say that's largely the same for expats from the UK too: if you're moving to a country with another language, you should ideally make some effort to learn that language.
In addition, while it's perhaps not the most comfortable view for someone to have, I can understand those who feel like they're being marginalised within their own communities and that the culture around them is changing. Whether you agree with it or not it's something a considerable portion of the UK feel...and simply telling them they're wrong and need to suck it up isn't going to cut it anymore. I think that sort of attitude from major political parties is largely why we've ended up with Brexit. Many Labour voting areas voted to Leave and I think the feeling of disillusionment and not being listened to played a massive, massive part in that.
Even then it's not really a problem because these aren't allowed to be a burden on your economy, the freedom of movement right is limited by the ability of the immigrant to have enough money to leave decently which is why they are expellable when they are elligible to benefits. Immigrants need to find a job that's mandatory and if they have a job, they create wealth for the UK.
They create wealth when they have a job, yes, and many of them do incredibly hard work and are a valuable asset. In political terms though, the problem is that many people feel like they're being squeezed out of jobs by the number of immigrants coming to the UK. Again, it's not necessarily something I agree with...but it's quite clearly a feeling a portion of the UK has and as someone who lives in an area with little immigration, I feel like it'd be a bit hypocritical for me to lecture those with concerns as to why they're wrong when it's something I've not experienced.
Worth mentioning the role racism plays in the immigration debate. When people say ''there's just too many of them here'' they aren't just referring to people coming in from others countries but are also referring to people who aren't exactly like them - white with a english accent.
The UK could stop all immigration to this country and to a lot of people it wouldn't matter, because of soon as they see someone with black skin or someone wearing a non christian religious piece of clothing, they will view this person as the ''immigrate''.
I agree there's an undercurrent of racism often present in anti-immigration sentiment (and sometimes a lot more than an undercurrent), but I don't think it's particularly racist to expect someone moving from one country to another to speak English, or at least expect them to learn the language, if they're going to be working. I'd say that's largely the same for expats from the UK too: if you're moving to a country with another language, you should ideally make some effort to learn that language.
In addition, while it's perhaps not the most comfortable view for someone to have, I can understand those who feel like they're being marginalised within their own communities and that the culture around them is changing. Whether you agree with it or not it's something a considerable portion of the UK feel...and simply telling them they're wrong and need to suck it up isn't going to cut it anymore. I think that sort of attitude from major political parties is largely why we've ended up with Brexit. Many Labour voting areas voted to Leave and I think the feeling of disillusionment and not being listened to played a massive, massive part in that.
Don't Kill Bill
Full Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2006
- Messages
- 5,816
I think we need to distinguish between the various sets of immigrants
EU Immigrants
I believe in unrestricted freedom of movement on that regard. I strongly believe that a country shouldn't have unrestricted access to another country's market and money without accepting freedom of movement in terms of people. However I am totally against abuse of such right. If lets say a person has committed a crime than that person should be deported and barred from using his right for freedom of movement for X years. Same with those who move in a country to enjoy their welfare benefits. Its one thing for a person whose been 5-6 years working in the country and then he ends up redundant. Its another moving to a said country just to enjoy benefits
Asylum seekers/refugees
We're living in difficult imes where loads of wars are happening concurrently created unprecedented waves of immigrants. One shouldn't expect the countries at the periphery of Europe to nanny this wave of immigrants on behalf of the rest especially since
a- its unfair
b- its not going to happen
c- its unfeasible. These countries wont cope with an endless flow of immigrants. They simply lack the infrastructure, the money and the will to do so (why should they nanny immigrants on the behalf of others?). Since the Southern Europeans tend not to be savages they would still save immigrants from drowning. However they will also turn a blind eye to those who move to other countries and I assure you they won't take responsibility for them once these immigrants step into the UK. So either you start shooting at them yourself or else you will have to do your share on this regard.
Therefore the only way to sort this issue is through careful management. The world must be persuaded to take responsibility, wars must be reduced to the minimum, conflicts need to be sorted ASAP and safe countries must be persuaded if not forced to accept a quota of immigrants. I have criticised the EU in numerous occasions about its lack of teeth on this regard, specifically with countries like Hungary who want the euros, they want freedom of movement for their own people, they want an EU army that will protect them against the Russians but they don't want to show any solidarity towards other EU countries who are struggling on this issue. An EU with teeth would be in a position to mediate and if needed penalise those countries who refuse to pull their weight. Same thing must happen with third countries. If they refuse to take their share then maybe the Dublin regulation will be revised, the borders will move back to Dover (in terms of the UK) and each for his own.
The UK has net immigration figures in excess of 330000 people each year how many people do you propose the UK should take as a matter of interest?
They create wealth when they have a job, yes, and many of them do incredibly hard work and are a valuable asset. In political terms though, the problem is that many people feel like they're being squeezed out of jobs by the number of immigrants coming to the UK. Again, it's not necessarily something I agree with...but it's quite clearly a feeling a portion of the UK has and as someone who lives in an area with little immigration, I feel like it'd be a bit hypocritical for me to lecture those with concerns as to why they're wrong when it's something I've not experienced.
I understand that and can agree but I have one question, currently is there jobs available at the job office? Because very often you see people complain about immigrants taking all the jobs while companies are looking for candidates, unfortunately only the immigrants are willing to do these jobs.
Last week I was watching Ross kemp's show and it was the argument of one of the american entrepreneurs.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2011
- Messages
- 36,206
I understand that and can agree but I have one question, currently is there jobs available at the job office? Because very often you see people complain about immigrants taking all the jobs while companies are looking for candidates, unfortunately only the immigrants are willing to do these jobs.
Last week I was watching Ross kemp's show and it was the argument of one of the american entrepreneurs.
True, although that can then often lead to the argument that immigrants undercut wages in that if they're desperate for any form of work and shelter they'll be willing to work for less than the average person would. Of course though, that's not their own fault but instead the fault of dishonest employers.
Share: