Because people have to feel the need to be outraged against something it seems.

Those statues in the USA or South Africa for example, the names of certain houses at various universities, or more recently the case in Germany where someone broke into a church to angle grind a swastika off of the bell, that no one could even see as it was in a bell tower.

Optimistic as ever

Fair, but again for balance it's a fact that there have also been many positives as well as negatives. I would agree damage has of course been caused by immigration, especially the speed and volume of it. But a lot of that could have been mitigated by a proper plan for it in the first place – e.g. control, vetting etc. and an attempt to encourage social cohesion rather than marginalise. This is also the case now.

Also if your view is binary (not sure if it is or not) – no immigration at all, then I'm not sure that's the answer. It's also not really realistic. Globalisation is and will continue to erode nationalism and the whole idea of 'countries'. As you know, we are not the only ones wrestling with this issue. However do away with it, and there are arguably more negatives than positives.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

I like the Japanese model on immigration.

Japan has little permanent immigration and has both a larger GDP than us and a higher standard of living.....with a population of 120 million, which is significantly higher than ours. Economists have been predicting its downfall for decades and have always been incorrect. It's also currently buying up its debt.

Japan deals with globalisation without accepting a large contingent of nationals from other countries who are abetted by left wing activists who continually moan and play the victim card for them.

When I last checked few in Japan are sobbing over the lack of cultural enrichment.

Large scale immigration increases nationalism not erodes it. I would have thought that was obvious. I live in Wisbech and my town has been taken over by eastern Europeans....Apparently the message that half the country weren't too chuffed about them being here hasn't bothered them too much.

Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Apr 2018 2.57pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

On the surface, this might seem like a no brainer, a classic case of 'if they can do it why can't we'. So simple. So easy! Answers the question and nicely fits into your point of view.

As with all things, a little research goes a long way.

Japan has a very insular and ageing population right? They're not mad on population growth. So how could this approach actually be sustainable?

Turns out it isn't. The Japanese government have been steadily increasing immigration since the 1990s. Apparently, in 2013 the immigration driven workforce grew by 40% in 12 months. They're just having to do all this on the quiet, as (ironically enough) culturally it's not very popular and drawing too much attention to it would probably cost the government it's position of power. So why risk the wrath of your population? Because economic failure is the alternative.

This is not a unique scenario, and is why immigration is required for most countries to maintain some form of economic prosperity.

'Why work to foster immigration on the one hand yet refuse to acknowledge such deliberate actions on the other? The answer lies in the particularities of the Japanese context. The society retains a strong perception of ethnic and cultural homogeneity, and immigration remains resoundingly unpopular. Yet demographic realities are forcing policymakers to court immigrants as potential solutions, or at the very least mitigating factors, to address some of the economic problems resulting from aging.'

I would say though, that I agree the Japanese have at least got one thing right in having a clear strategy and gradual approach when it comes to immigration. Their insular and protectionist cultural stance though does come at a price – open racism, especially to the Chinese.

Not all roses in that garden I'm afraid.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

No the speech made in 1968 must be seen in the context of the time it was made.

In 1968 racial tensions were stronger than now, fortunately Mr. Heath acted decisively in removing Powell and his poison, in doing so non-white people affected by the speech and social tensions were re-assured that there would not be a system of apartheid, of first and second class citizens in Britain.

If you look at events, say in 1945, through the eyes of a 2018 person, you get a 2018 version of what happened in 1945, not the reality of life as it was for people then.

You are comparing apples with oranges. Japan isn't offering a pathway to citizenship for these workers.....It isn't the same thing. It doesn't even call them immigrants but guest workers. Also the numbers it has incoming are nothing like the same.

I have no issues with foreign workers....we have always had them.....I think you are conflating two separate issues.

Japan is very protective of its national identity and doesn't treat it like a joke....unlike our own politicians and far left.

However, I commend you on your input to the debate as a rational voice of the left on this matter.

Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Apr 2018 3.29pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)