Population density

Here is my first post of many in my series defending immigration. These are designed to slowly become a resource to defend migrants, in print, speech or online.

If you want to contribute a post, or have something already written that I could crosspost or summarise then please let me know in the comments below.

First: Population Density

We are the third most densely populated land in the world.”

It is often claimed that the UK cannot absorb any more immigrants because we already have one of the highest population densities in the world.

This claim is refuted below. The UK has a relatively high population density but it is not one of the highest in the world.

  1. The UK is the 51st most densely populated country or dependency in the World. The top quartile, but nothing terrifying. In fact a quarter of the world’s population live in more cramp quarters than us.
  2. However, that does include some small Islands, dependencies, city states etc. Which it could be argued are unfair to include (although, I’m sure the people living there would think otherwise). So if we take them out we end up with the below list , in descending order of population density.
    1. Bangladesh
    2. The Palestinian territories
    3. Taiwan
    4. South Korea
    5. Netherlands
    6. Lebanon
    7. India
    8. Rwanda
    9. Belgium
    10. Haiti
    11. Japan
    12. Israel
    13. Sri Lanka
    14. Philippines
    15. El Salvador
    16. Burundi
    17. Vietnam
    18. UK

    This puts the UK in 18th place. Again, this is above average but it is not something which appears to warrant the alarmism sometimes expressed.

  3. Another tactic often employed is to refer to England only (for no particular reason that I can work out – I don’t judge all the US on New York, or all of Germany by Saxony). England has a population of 51 million and a land mass of 50,000 square miles and this gives a population density of a little over 1,000 per square mile. Excluding islands, city states, and dependencies, this still places us behind
    1. Bangladesh
    2. The Palestinian territories
    3. Taiwan
    4. South Korea
    5. The Netherlands
    6. England

    This puts England 6th on the world stage in terms of population density. Now it becomes a little clearer why people bemoaning immigration refer to England; it inflates their figures.

So population density does not appear to be a dreadfully important reason to reduce immigration.

“Aha!” say they, “if you only look at population density then you ignore the pressure migrants put on public services!”

“But you brought up population density in the first place,” says you “you’re shifting the goal posts…”

… we will have to get used to shifting goal posts. But the variety and fluidity of the arguments against migrants are one of the reasons I want these defences codified.

More posts to follow.

Advertisements

71 thoughts on “Population density

  1. It’s not simply a matter of population density, but rather the vision for the sort of country in which you prefer to live.

    Singapore for example isn’t a bad place as long as you have the money to escape it once in a while, but is it somewhere the average Brit would like to live? There is no agriculture, everything has to be imported (including most its water), anyone who isn’t a millionaire or an expat on expenses has to live in a poky high-rise flat, and to keep congestion under control the government restricts the number of cars imported each year. In order to buy a car you can’t just walk into a dealer and buy one, you have to bid for a certificate of entitlement which allows you to buy and run the car for ten years after which it must be scrapped or exported, and you then start again.

    Singapore’s population density is 25 times that of the UK, so if we were to decide that a Singapore-type lifestyle suits us the country could accommodate almost 1.9 billion people.

    Is that the LO vision?

    1. Absolutely not my vision, but I wouldn’t mind if parts of London or Birmingham or Sheffield looked like Singapore, although that’s highly doubtful.

      What you want from a country does matter, and although this is a more highly populated country that most there’s still room to expand.

      A lot of the country is still green and verdant land, and trust me, I would like to see it stay that way. However, I’m not so arrogant to think my preference for a green and pleasant land should rank that high.

      The standard argument that this country has a population so high that regardless of other factors further migration would certainly be damaging is

      Although a population 70 million is quantitatively very different from 60 million, qualitatively, for our standard of living, it would not make a large difference other things being held equal (as in public services increasing at the same rate as population).

      Frankly, you are one of the people I’m tired of debating, but, as you can see, I am going to make a start to answer all of the questions you raise, albeit slowly.

  2. As usual LO you’re stepping out on the wrong foot with this one.

    Of course, living in a country the size of Britain would still be bearable with a population of 70 million, even 100 million, perhaps, assuming that the infrastructure development kept pace and we were all prepared to hunch up closer to accommodate the newcomers.

    But really looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope. It’s not a question of what might be bearable but what is desirable.

    You have to explain why a larger population, and especially one in which the native population will be an increasingly smaller element, is a desirable outcome in itself.

    The onus is on you to explain why 70 million, including 20-plus million ethnics, is something that we should collectively aspire to rather that we should grit our teeth and endure.

  3. As for the ‘debating fatigue’ I completely understand. It is almost impossible for immigration enthusiasts to present a rational and coherent case without resorts to insults, ad hominem, godwinism or constructing a morally-based narrative.

    You will have noticed that your LibCon colleague Unity departed the field early after the shellacking he received from yours truly (and others), having completed just five parts of the proposed seven-part series.

    It remains to be seen what sort of a fist you can make of it, without resort to the banning stick.

    1. My irony alarm is going awooogaa awooooga. hahaha.

      I think you’ve described the debating techniques of the vast majority of those on your side. You might not like that,

      Likewise with the Godwinism, it only counts as a Godwin if what you’re discussing cannot be reasonably associated with Nazism. When discussing Racism it doesn’t count as a Godwin violation. I think it is usually unwise in a debate, but not invalid.

  4. So when should we start worrying about it? When we are 1st on that list? 2nd? Top three? Also the only countries above us on that list, bar the Netherlands, are refugee nations i.e. created when a whole or part of the population was forced to flee there. England is not an ad-hoc nation.

    As for using England rather than Britain, the overwhelming majority of the migrants land and remain here. Wales and Scotland, which are to all intents and purposes independent and certainly will be by the next election, skew the facts the other way and mask the huge effect immigration is having on England. Scotland and Wales populations are about 97% indigenous, compared to about 80% in England, that is a huge difference and the reason why neither Scotland or Wales are as yet concerned about immigration. Also remember that both Wales and Scotland are largely uninhabited compared to England which makes up 85% of the UK population, despite Wales and Scotland combined being almost the same size as England.

    I don’t think that even the most hardened members of the BNP would complain about the immigration rates in Scotland and Wales, but 85% of us live in England, with 12 million immigrants, compared to Scotland and Wales’ 320,000 immigrants. There are more Jedi in England, than immigrants in Wales and Scotland.

    Your stats also appear to out of date or incorrect. England is already the most overcrowded country in Europe, bar Malta.

    As for another, oft used excuse for immigration, that it has always occurred and that the English/British are really just a mongrel nation, DNA studies have shown countless times that this is false and that only around 5%-10% of the current indigenous population are descended from anything other than the original inhabitants of these Islands or later Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. In other words in 1000+ years only about 5% of the population of England came from outside of England, yet in just the last 50 years 20% of the population is from migration. You cannot compare the two, nor claim that they are anything like the same event. Never before in history has the demographics and culture of a nation changed so quickly, and with so little regard for the indigenous people, without losing a war.

    Finally, the thing that I find so ironic is the very people that would walk over hot coals to preserve the ancestral homelands, cultures and traditions of people like the Maasai from their own Governments, and other peoples and cultures under threat from deforestation, industrialisation and migration of outside peoples, are the ones who find it most repulsive when their own countrymen want to take action to preserve their own culture and heritage.

    It’s as George Orwell said:

    “England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman.”

    Never a truer word spoken. You and others like you, can extol the virtues of immigration to your hearts content, but until someone, somewhere, can explain why multiculturalism and diversity are beneficial to Britain, and its people, I am just going to assume that Orwell was right, and that immigration is only intended to hide the shame that liberals feel for being born English.

  5. I think I’m new to this blog but felt I had to write something in response to Charlie. But where to start?

    England vs UK – you might want England to be a separate country (you might not, I don’t know) but it just isn’t, and certainly not in this context. The United Kingdom is one unitary state and when talking about immigration it only makes sense to talk of population density in relation to the entire state, not specific bits of it. Otherwise, why stick to England? London has a far far higher population density than the England average, and far higher rates of immigration, but no-one ever brings that up. Why? Because it would be transparent crap to talk only about London in this context. People move in and out freely, Londoners use the green space around the city, London doesn’t need to grow its own supply of food (I could go on). And its transparent crap to talk about England on it own, not the UK.

    I’m not sure where you get sweeping statements like “Never before in history has the demographics and culture of a nation changed so quickly” from (evidence?), but here’s a response: so what? I certainly don’t feel a need to defend immigration – it’s just a fact of life, always has been. There’s more of it now, it’s true, and all over the world, due in large part to the processes of globalisation I guess. It’s embedded in the same phenomenon that lets you and I holiday in the Far East, go to a weekend conference in the States, visit relatives in Australia and retire to Spain (and that’s before we get on to keeping our money in Icelandic banks – bad move! – trade on the US stock market etc etc).

    Of course the irony is that globalisation in its neoliberal incarnation is behind many of the insecurities, particularly in the job market, that lead to people stigmatizing immigrants, blaming them for ‘taking out jobs’, ‘ruining our culture’ and so on. But those things are not the fault of immigrants, nor the phenomena of immigration. Look instead to our barely regulated job market, for example – the tiny number of employers prosecuted to paying below the minimum wage, how easy it is for UK companies to fire people compared with many places on the continent.

    I’d turn the question round: why do you feel immigration is such a bad thing? What’s so awful about it, really? Do you actually feel your Englishness is threatened? I’m about as ethnically English as it’s possible to be and I can honestly say no-one’s ever tried to stop me dong the things that make that so – watching the footie, drinking too much beer, laughing at Morris dancers, visiting Stonehenge, eating fried breakfasts, going to raves (well actually people have tried to stop me doing some of those things, but they were even more English than me).

  6. What a fucking surprise, here come the racists, just like at Lib Con!

    Have you considered LO that what you are actualyl doing, by letting the racist nonsense of Dan ‘anti-Semite’ Dare and mono-cultural Charlie, is that you are giving them a platform and that is exactly what they want for their small-minded, bigoted and unworkable views.

    Dan Dare has said as much over at Lib Con, when he wasn’t banned for being a racist (and that took long enough). Starve the motherfuckers of oxygen, don’t let their bullshit stand, otherwise you’re feeding the beast.

    1. I’m not a no platformer, but I do appreciate your views on it.

      I think people who visit this site are more than capable of making up their own minds, I don’t think Dan Dare or Charlie will wine many converts.

      The point of the posts I’ll be running on migration are just to get my ducks in a row and to calmly explain why they’re all wrong.

      1. You would be a no platform chap though if they peppered their nonsense with racist terms and insults, you would deny them air then but, when it merely contains racist ideas, expressed in non-offensive language (so only the ideas are offensive) they have a platform.

        I have no doubt that your readership finds these clowns hilarious and they will change not a single one of your reader’s minds but that is not their aim, their aim is to present their arguments as valid counterpoints to yours, just as creationists try and posit their ideas as equals to science.

        But the ideas are not of equal merit.

        1. Unfortunately, unlike creationists, the ‘Britain is full’ nutters are actually culturally-dominant in the UK, and those of us with some basic decency are in the minority, so we need to be *seen* to be fighting their actual ‘arguments’, flimsy as they are…

          1. those of us with some basic decency are in the minority

            Again with the moral high ground. You believe that your views are decent, fair and just and therefore everyone else is indecent, unfair, and unjust. Who are you to decide what is fair and decent behaviour? If it is not the consensus, generally speaking, it is because it is wrong! Or do you seriously believe in your arrogance that you know something everyone else does not, that people like you are really some kind of misunderstood geniuses, and everyone else are fools?

            Affordable housing is at an all time low, is that fair or decent? 20% of murderers currently in prison are foreign born immigrants, is that fair or just, or even defensible? Unemployment is the highest it has been for 16 years, again, is that fair? 25% of criminals in UK prisons are immigrants, again is that fair?

            I am not sure what is worse, your naivety in thinking that your views are right, or your narrow mindedness in refusing to see that you could be wrong, regardless of any evidence.

            History is littered with such ‘moral’ people who know best, and god help everyone else when they got into power.

          2. Hey Charlie, just wanted to point out something to you. Both of these are statements that you made:

            “20% of murderers currently in prison are foreign born immigrants”

            And above…

            “Scotland and Wales populations are about 97% indigenous, compared to about 80% in England”

            Now, it’s been a couple of years since I took that statistics class in college, and math was never really my strong suit, but unless I am mistaken you just basically admitted that the percentage of the population of murderers in prison that are foreign born is EQUAL to the percentage of the population that is also foreign born. Again, I might be just drawing empty conclusions, but that means to me that the “foreigners” and the “indigenous” are equally murderous based on those statistics that you provided, or else the percentage would be skewered, right?

            (Not to mention the fact that indigenous are least likely to get caught and minorities/foreigners are more likely to be false imprisoned, but that’s a whole other conversation)

          3. Matt, I can see how where the confusion would come in but you're mixing two different numbers. 20% of the population of England are non-indigenous (i.e. non Anglo Saxon, Celtic, Viking etc) and are the result of immigration over the past 50 years, whereas the foreign-born immigrants are those not born in the UK, they are not interchangeable. Only around 8% of people currently living in the UK are believed to be foreign born, so the crime rate is in fact more than double what it should be. 

            (I disagree with the rest of what you said, there's no evidence to suggest this besides, wouldn't a foreigner find it easier to disappear?)

          4. I disagree Andrew with this fighting their arguments line, things like this blog post actually give air to them.

            Undeserved air.

            Let them use their own shitty bits of the Internet to peddle this shite, not to use perfectly decent parts as outposts for their bigotry.

            And arguing with them is pointless, as this thread demonstrates.

          1. I’m not afraid of anything anonymous coward hiding behind fake names.

            Arguing with racists, as illustrated right here, is pointless.

            Racism is not based on facts, evidence and knowledge but prejudice.

            Point by point rebuttals are all well and good but the racist just ignores these.

            Again, we have plenty of evidence in this very thread.

            As for your stupid question, my answer is:

            No.

            Now fuck off.

          2. Classic! He hasn’t said anything remotely racist, just asked you to clarify your view and you brand him a racist!

            And there was you raging about prejudice just two posts ago!

  7. Pah. The “Britain is full” argument is so bogus.

    1. The Highlands and Islands are suffering depopulation. Lived there. They’re crying out for people to move there; the pressure of services is on there being too *FEW* people and putting rural schools and the like at risk of closing.

    2. There’s two thirds of a million empty, crumbling, rotting homes in England alone:

    http://www.emptyhomes.com/usefulresources/stats/2009breakdown.htm

    Add on the number of properties unoccupied for more than 6 months and you’re getting on for nearly a million.

    3. Add on the empty properties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and that figure gets higher.

    4. Add on the many brownfield sites that are undeveloped – I’m looking at several out of my window as I type this, which are just wastelands and tipping areas, and we’re into the millions.

    5. Add on properties on an annual or whatever basis that become available because people migrate.

    Britain isn’t full. It’s not anywhere close. It’s a myth.

    And looking at that list of places with a higher density, Netherlands and South Korea are actually pretty attractive places to live in anyway, with better medical care, broadband connectivity and school education achievement rates than Britain. Shows what can be done in a large population country.

  8. I haven’t noticed anything much of substance yet from LO and the ‘fill ‘er up’ brigade except for the ongoing recitation of the truism that many more people could be physically accommodated in Britain.

    That’s certainly true. The entire population of the world could stand shoulder to shoulder on the Isle of Wight it that argument is pursued to its illogical conclusion.

    Another example of the same mentality is the one peddled by the immigration charlatan Philippe Legrain. He states (correctly) that the entire global population could be accommodated within the territory of the former Yugoslavia at a density approximating that of present-day Manhattan.

    But the question that never gets aired is: why would anybody want to? In the same vein, why would anyone want another 10 million people in the UK? What’s the point? What’s it for?

    Got the answers LO?

    1. “I haven’t noticed anything much of substance yet from LO and the ‘fill ‘er up’ brigade except for the ongoing recitation of the truism that many more people could be physically accommodated in Britain.”

      Because, as I said, I’m bored of this. I’m slowly building up my arguments and ammunition, it’ll take months I expect; I’m in no rush.

      Anyway, tonight I’ve finished work at 5 and had better things to do since then.

      The argument being refuted is that Britain is full up, it evidently is not. This argument is lost by your side, you can phrase it differently, but that is for another post. Britain is not “full.”

      “In the same vein, why would anyone want another 10 million people in the UK? What’s the point? What’s it for?!”

      Why wouldn’t we? You ask you question is such a way as though the burden of proof rests on me, but we can rephrase it so the burden of proof rests on you. Behold:

      Why would we want to stand in the way of the natural migration of people. What’s the point? What’s it for?!

  9. Turning a question around isn’t a very original or effective gambit LO, can’t you offer anything better than that?

    As for burden of proof, it is you who is claiming that a dramatic increase in population and the attendant demographic transformation are desirable outcomes, but you appear to be unable or unwilling to articulate why that should be the case.

    1. “Turning a question around isn’t a very original or effective gambit LO, can’t you offer anything better than that?”

      Neither is begging the question. You’re question assumed the existence of states with absolute terrotorial integrity.

      My question assumed that people have always migrated and would ocntinue to want to do so.

      Which sounds like the more reasonable assumption?

      1. Both propositions are true.

        Sovereign states, even poorly managed ones like the UK, have the authority to admit or exclude whomever they wish, regardless of the mechanisms that drive international migration.

        Some states – especially the oil states of the Middle East and various Asian countries – have the political will to resist migration, while others have not.

        You should read Chritian Joppke’s classic paper “Why liberal states accept unwanted immigration” for an explanation as to why countries like the UK been unable to summon up the political will to maintain their territorial integrity.

        http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41042

    2. Dan, I don’t think LO is saying that increases in population and demographic transformation are goals we should be pursuing; rather that there’s no good reason for considering them the gigantic problem some people seem to.

      And his turning the question around is pretty valid. Could you please describe the concrete improvements Britain would have seen had immigration not taken place, or that it would see if immigration were stopped or severely limited?

      As far as I can tell, Britain would still be a densely populated country, though slightly less so than it is now. There would still be housing and economic pressures. The culture would still be different, given that cultures evolve enormously. For example, even had Britain admitted no immigrants at all over the past decade, the biggest cultural shift the country has seen in that time – the large-scale increase of American cultural influence – would still have occurred. I don’t really see immigrants as the cause of Britain’s major problems, and I certainly haven’t seen any proof that stopping them entering and/or booting them out would restore the country to some bygone cultural era.

      1. I suppose it depends Bella to a large extent on your vision for the country in which you were born and the society which your ancestors created and bequeathed to you.

        I agree with you about the cultural influence of the United States, although you may not agree with my assessment that that influence has been largely malevolent for Britain. As to a linkage between that and immigration, I’m uncertain that a direct connection would be possible. I’d suggest that subservience to America and the willingness to accommodate a large and principally ex-colonial migrant population are both connected to the post-imperial delusion that has caused Britain to turn its face against its natural friends and allies on the continent in favour of a misguided ‘globalism’.

        As to what would happen if the migrants were somehow magically not here, and the influx were stopped, the population would immediately return to the level of the early 50s.

        It would then gently decline and over perhaps a century or so eventually reach a point at which long-tern sustainability can be achieved, in both food and energy production, as well as emissions of CO2. Experts argue about what that level should be; the Optimum Population Trust suggests around 30 million.

        Once that point is reached (or once it is clearly in sight) sensible administrative measures can be taken to stimulate the TFR back to replacement level therefore achieving long-term population stability and demographic balance.

  10. Anyone who doubts that there is population pressure on English lifestyles is deluding themselves. Our coastline is overdeveloped, the green belt is under pressure, SSI sites and areas of outstanding natural beauty come under threat whenever commercial interests or state policy dictate. Increased population also means increased energy demand, with corresponding costs to the environment.

    And let’s be clear. What matters isn’t how many acres of empty land there is in Scotland, it’s how densely packed-in the majority of our population is, how long it takes to drive out of London, how expensive it is for people to buy a house in their own village.

    On the other hand, genetic change isn’t significant unless it translates into major cultural change, as in the case of the Norman conquest, which left a tiny 2% genetic trace in our DNA, but led to one of the most complete, brutal and historically significant instance of elite substitution in European history. Compared to that, recent arrivals from the subcontinent have had limited impact.

    1. One more question, I can understand why the silly little exchange above was deleted, but why delete these questions, especially when you go on to answer them anyway?

      Whoops, good spot.

      Bye!

    1. Go on, be honest, at least indulge me if you’re going to censor me:

      Is it because your angry little friend screamed “fuck off” at the first opportunity to some pertinent questions and instead of reacting in kind I mocked him?

      So it’s OK for him to abuse people but not OK for people to mock him in return?

      Yes, yes, yes, I know its “your” blog etc but it is in a public place and decency has no boundaries.

      You are aware that you are banned, its not your views I find petulant or your insults beyond the pale (Dan Dare is still here, just); its your repeated hijacking of other’s identity to smear them.

      Coming here hiding behind a different proxy server isn’t exactly the height of sophistication.

      You won’t get another response, so I hope you’re happy with this one.

  11. Dan Dare is still here, just

    Have I said anything in the current series of immigration discussion that would have caused you to consider a ban?

    1. No, But you have hurled racist abuse at DHG in the past. Why expect me to have a memory only weeks long?

      You are tolerated because you are slightly more interesting than most internet racists.

  12. DHG is a nonentity who has nothing of the slightest interest or value to add to any political discussion.

    I’m surprised that you pander to him in the way you do.

    As you may have noticed I totally ignore him and no longer rise to the bait.

    1. Just cuz I exposed you as a racist you anti-Semite.

      And wow, that’s an awful sweeping statement from you bigot, plus, for a nonentity, I get you mighty cross.

      No go and annoy someone else you racist.

  13. 18th in a list of countries not in Europe. So if I read this correctly, we are the most densely populated country of the 25 countries in the Eurozone. That surely is part of the problem. Europe does not have an integrated approach to immigration with member states offering varying levels of support so the migrating community follows money…..discuss

    1. Actually, thats an interesting point.

      We (the United Kingdom) don’t seem to be the most densely populated in Europe; the Netherlands is. I may have to update this post.

      From 5CC http://www.fivechinesecrackers.com/2010/08/is-england-most-overcrowded-country-in.html

      Official Dutch statistics for population density show that the Netherlands hasn’t had a density as low as England’s is now since some time between 1970 and 1980. The figure for 2010 is projected as 491 people per square km.

      So, since it’s not a mistake, what’s the reason for the discrepancy?

      Around 18.41% of the Netherlands’ area – almost a fifth – is taken up by water, so the Dutch government calculates population density by land area. A much, much lower percentage of England is covered in water, which is why the ONS doesn’t bother adjusting for that.

  14. Interesting discussion here, for the most part.

    It seems as though many of the pieces written online about population density and other stylised facts of the immigration debate focus on the rightness or wrongness of the fact itself and not the broad picture that the fact is supposed to frame.

    As I read it, to come 18th in a list of the most densely populated countries in the world means that we are… very densely populated. The real argument is not about, well, Migration Watch claimed that the UK is #16 and it’s actually #18, or the Telegraph said England is the most densely populated country in Europe but really it’s the Netherlands.

    The real argument is, the UK is very densely populated, and it’s going to get more densely populated as the population grows. Many of the people who live here would prefer if that were otherwise. In particular, they don’t want to import foreign populations into what is already a pretty crowded strip of land. Unfortunately for them, no one in the political or intellectual class could care less. (I generalise, but only slightly).

    Now, England is even more densely populated than the UK in toto. Is it bad of me to point that out? I don’t think it is. I live in England. Indeed, most (83%? 85%?) of the UK’s population live in England. In England the population density is by my back of the envelope calculation about 399 people per km^2. Roughly the same as the Netherlands. That puts us in the top 5!

    Of course, the difference in population density between the UK and England is caused by the basic arithmetical property that if you take away less densely populated regions, the average density of what remains is going to go up. But so what? England is one of the most densely populated places in the world: fact! If migration flows continue at trend, that density will increase.

    You might well think that this is all fine: after all, Monaco crams in excess of 30,000 people on a tiny bit of land two square km in size. As one of your commenters noted, we can always fit more in. So let’s say that the anti-immigration crowd have their stylised facts correct, would you then agree that there is a problem? Or if they don’t, at what point do we have a problem? Never?

  15. Pointing out that UK is 51st most densely populated or that the England is 6th excluding places like Hong Kong and the prison territories of the Palestinians does not counter the argument that the UK is overpopulated.
    1000 people per square mile and 6th! Just how far overcrowded and how far up the table do we have to climb before the pro-immigration lobby consider the country overcrowded?
    You yourself state that these figures are “relative” but the relative congestion of other countries should not be a guide as the whether the UK (or England) is overcrowded. One may as well argue that other countries have worse levels of malnutrition.
    And people don’t refer to England to inflate the figures. Personally, I refer to England because it is where I live. Obviously the south east of England could become as populous as a city state but I, for one, do not think this desirable.
    There are 7 billion people on Earth and I judge this as far far too many. I can’t dictate to other countries how many people they should have but I do have the right to argue that the UK is overcrowded and argue against additional people coming in.
    Obviously immigration has done great good. If it were not for immigration then none of us would be here to have this conversation. Obviously asylum seekers must be taken in. I also have sympathy for taking in people trying to better their lives but my concern here is that selfish mega corporations now consider cheap foreign labor as a right with self interested businessmen continually telling us that they could not run their company without educated immigrants.
    Obviously international mega corporations would like to have their workers all based in large crowded centers rather than spread out throughout the world. They would also like to have their workers educated and trained abroad at someone else’s expense. They would then like to pay taxes to support one country while drawing their workers from the entire planet keeping wages down.
    But this is a recipe for massively dense mega cities populated by drudges and sparsely populated areas where people live in poverty.
    The real question is how is it that the British Left have taken up the dogma of unquestioning support for immigration. How is it that the left who are supposed to support the working class of the UK now adopt policies which benefit only the mega corporations and the foreigners that make it in? (the foreigners who do not make it in are worse off as their countries are deprived of the most gifted).
    My belief is that because racism has been such a hideous problem in the past (and continues to be a problem) people make the incorrect assumption that, not only is it racist to criticize immigration, but that it is actually morally right to encourage immigration. It is not.
    Continued unrestricted immigration is a recipe for turning the south East of England into a mega city state. Greater Greater London. Now, OK, some people may like high density living and they are perfectly within their rights to argue this.
    Just as people who are against overpopulation are perfectly within their rights to argue against it.
    If the British Left were really doing it’s job it would be internationalizing labor relations and pushing corporations to spread their employment more evenly across the world benefitting people of all countries while defending the natural environment of the UK (and hence England, which I call home.)

  16. The Palestinian territories – If they exist are a concentration camp, not a country so remove it from the data set.

    Rwanda, Haiti, El Salvador, Burundi, Sri Lanka
    – Are small third world nations so should not be considered

    Israel, Lebanon – Are small city states of Tel Aviv and Beirut not countries, so do not consider them.

    Taiwan, South Korea, Japan – Are mono ethnic states. Japan has its population under control and is reducing it. UK gave up on monoculturalism.

    Netherlands, Belgium are the best comparison to the UK

    India, Bangladesh, Philippines – The future of the UK. You want it to be Japan. You will end up with South Asia.

    Vietnam, no comment

Comments are closed.