# Proposed nasty changes to UK immigration laws



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

I am an international student here in Britain and have graduated with my PhD this year. I came intending to stay, all things going well, and even brought my horse across from the States. Over the course of my studies here, I have sadly watched the government become increasingly anti-immigrant and start treating international students as nothing more than disposable cash cows. When I started my PhD, there was a two year visa one could apply for after their studies which would give you two years to find a "proper" job or a spouse/civil partner. It was all pretty friendly. This scheme disappeared in April of this year. Now they want international students to pay exorbitant fees and then just ****** off afterwards. International students and academics bring diversity, money, and prestige to UK unis. 

Then, to add insult to injury, in June the government announced that it would be changing the family immigration rules on July 9th. Under these proposed changes, a UK citizen cannot bring in a non-EU spouse or civil partner unless he or she makes over £18,600 per year. This disqualifies 47% of British people generally and 58% of British people aged 20-30 from settling in the UK with the partner of their choice. You think this might not affect you, but then it might. What if you or your son or daughter falls in love with one of your or their foreign classmates while at uni? I doubt he or she will make the income threshold as a fresh graduate. Or what if they are studying or travelling abroad and wish to marry a citizen of that country and then come back here? The right to a family and privacy should not belong only to the rich. "Immigrants" are not this dirty underclass looking to suck the life out of the British welfare state, no matter what rubbish Theresa May and the Daily Mail may spout. We are graduates, hard workers, we have come to love this country (for some reason; it doesn't seem to care much for us) and in some cases, the people in it. It's heartless. After six years of studying in the UK, I have developed a life here; friends, my husband, my pony.... Many others will be in similar situations or even have children.

This is going to create a "brain drain" and isn't going to help the country in the long run. Probably the opposite, as the smart people trained in British unis leave and perhaps, their British partners will have to leave, to go into exile with them. 

As for me, my British husband does not make the income threshold but we have sent in our visa application, which will be reviewed under the old rules. So we should, fingers crossed, be okay. But thousands of people will be unable to do this. Should they be denied the right to have their families or worse, be separated from their families, due to Coalition's attempts to score political points against what is, lets face it, a pretty voiceless group? 

The change hasn't happened yet. It will be discussed and probably (unless a big enough fuss is kicked up) implemented on July 9th. I'm just raising awareness however I can, as the media isn't. But if you think it matters, or if it effects you, write to your MP or post about it on Facebook or whatever. This is ridiculous, mean, not to mention in possible violation of EU law, and I am hoping someone in Westminster sees sense.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

I'm sorry about your situation, silver! 

What can I say... Immigration laws (int students as well as getting green card) here in US seem to be more strict. I assume there should be an explanation why they make it more tight in UK.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Mmmmm, the UK for to long has been an open house, walk in here you go, have all of our benefits, it is a small island, and lets face it is well over crowded.

I agree immigration brings diversity, but hey, my country of choice, USA, wouldn't even consider DH and I, to well off, but not well off enough, and despite the 'special relationship' between the UK and USA, there is no easy entry for white, lower middle class people.

Canada though, well they welcomed us with open arms once we had jumped through all the hoops and passed all the tests.

I know more about leaving the UK than trying to get in, and my first though was "why do you want to get in there"

I don't know how the new rules stack up against other countries, but I do feel sorry for anyone who thought that they were going to be OK and a rule change blows their life apart, that sucks big time


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Golden Horse said:


> I agree immigration brings diversity, but hey, my country of choice, USA, wouldn't even consider DH and I, to well off, but not well off enough, and despite the 'special relationship' between the UK and USA, there is no easy entry for white, lower middle class people.


True. Immigrating to Canada is a piece of cake comparable to immigrating to US (unless you do it through the marriage).


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

The US is really nasty to immigrants. If we can't stay in Britain (our immigration lawyer was very optimistic so hoping this is all academic), we'll not easily be able to go to the US, either. The best option at that point is to move to another EU country like Ireland, which would make my husband and I subject to more friendly, liberal laws under his rights as an EEA citizen. It makes no bloody sense to me, either.


----------



## gunslinger (Sep 17, 2011)

None of my business, but of what country are you a citizen, and why don't you want to return there?


----------



## Lakotababii (Nov 28, 2010)

Makes me happy I was lucky enough to be born exactly where I want to build my life. I've heard the US is hard to get in to. Glad I'm a natural citizen.

OP I hope you can get where you want to go, wherever that may be.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

gunslinger said:


> None of my business, but of what country are you a citizen, and why don't you want to return there?


I don't know about OP, but I can name lots of countries people try not to return to: many (if not most or all) in Africa, Asia, some European countries, you name it.


----------



## AlexS (Aug 9, 2010)

I moved to the US from the UK with my ex, when we split up I wanted to stay here, but it's extremely difficult - thankfully I met my husband and married. If I had not, I would have to prove that I have an exceptional skill to get a visa. 

That exceptional skill is almost impossible to be able to demonstrate as you have to show that you are unique and an American could not be hired over you. Well even if I were a brain surgeon, an American brain surgeon could do the same job. The only situation I think where you could prove this, is if you are some kind of artist, so your work is truly unique to you.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

AlexS said:


> That exceptional skill is almost impossible to be able to demonstrate as you have to show that you are unique and an American could not be hired over you. Well even if I were a brain surgeon, an American brain surgeon could do the same job. The only situation I think where you could prove this, is if you are some kind of artist, so your work is truly unique to you.


Not quite true, Alex. :wink: You could always take the road of F1 -> H1 (or just H1) -> green card and you don't have to be exceptional, BUT it's hard still, because you have to find an employer who'd agree to sponsor your work visa. Marriage seems to be the easiest way to go (unless you violated certain rules).


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

AlexS said:


> I moved to the US from the UK with my ex, when we split up I wanted to stay here, but it's extremely difficult - thankfully I met my husband and married. If I had not, I would have to prove that I have an exceptional skill to get a visa.
> 
> That exceptional skill is almost impossible to be able to demonstrate as you have to show that you are unique and an American could not be hired over you. Well even if I were a brain surgeon, an American brain surgeon could do the same job. The only situation I think where you could prove this, is if you are some kind of artist, so your work is truly unique to you.


 
I don't know how Microsoft gets around that. They hire SOOOO many Indians and Chinese software folks. And you mean these people have some unique skill that American born grads don't? Or that folks from the UK don't?I find that hard to believe. I dont' know how Microsoft does it, but they bring in thousands of foreign workers. The campus looks like "little Asia". 

Seattle area has a very large number of immigrants. You go to the larger malls here and you will almost NOT hear English. I kid you not.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

tinyliny said:


> I don't know how Microsoft gets around that. They hire SOOOO many Indians and Chinese software folks. And you mean these people have some unique skill that American born grads don't? Or that folks from the UK don't?I find that hard to believe. I dont' know how Microsoft does it, but they bring in thousands of foreign workers. The campus looks like "little Asia".


tiny, again no. You do NOT have to be exceptional to get H1 visa if you have an education and job in your field (and employer (Microsoft in your example) sponsors a visa).


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

gunslinger said:


> None of my business, but of what country are you a citizen, and why don't you want to return there?


I'm from the US and there are quite a few reasons why I'd rather stay here. Some are ideological (the right wing yahoo politics in the US drives me nuts) and some are practical (my horse is here and I am not sending her back, as is my husband, and also, my research requires me to be here) and at the end of the day, I really like it in Britain.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

There was a good article in _The Guardian _today exploring the ironies of British expats who live in places like Spain, often in gated communities, who refuse to learn more than a phrase or two of Spanish, adopt Spanish customs, or eat Spanish food, but at the same time will happily rail against all the Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and so forth who come to the UK and want to maintain their own customs.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

0That was the number 1 reason why we eventually moved to Canada rather than Spain, I didn't want to be an English woman living in Spain.

I'm proud to be a British Canadian, I hold 2 passports, (well I will when my Canadian one is issued) and I enjoy being a Canadian and joining in with they way of life.


----------



## gunslinger (Sep 17, 2011)

thesilverspear said:


> I'm from the US and there are quite a few reasons why I'd rather stay here. Some are ideological (the right wing yahoo politics in the US drives me nuts) and some are practical (my horse is here and I am not sending her back, as is my husband, and also, my research requires me to be here) and at the end of the day, I really like it in Britain.


Okay, except there is a liberal in the white house, and the Senate is held by the democrats......"(the right wing yahoo politics in the US drives me nuts)"

Frankly, it's the left wing yahoo politics that drive me nuts....if it matters...

I hope the brits let you stay.....


----------



## PaigeOfPaper (Jul 9, 2012)

Yikes. I'm planning to (hopefully... these are year-in-advance plans so I dunno yet) study in Wales my senior year, so this isn't great news for me... I'd only be there for a semester which isn't a problem, but what if I fall in love with it (I already have, I just have to see if I like it in person xD) and want to move there after graduation... not going to be fun :-/ I understand why immigration laws have to be tough, but at the same time, people moving to the country boosts the economy so you'd *think* they'd want to encourage more people to do that.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

gunslinger said:


> Okay, except there is a liberal in the white house, and the Senate is held by the democrats......"(the right wing yahoo politics in the US drives me nuts)"
> 
> Frankly, it's the left wing yahoo politics that drive me nuts....if it matters...
> 
> I hope the brits let you stay.....


There isn't any real left wing politics. That's the problem and it's precisely why I want to stay in Europe. Not only has "liberal" become a pejorative word, the whole tone of political debate in the US has gone so spectacularly right wing that Obama is now viewed by many as the figurehead of the radical left, which he's not at all. By almost any other standard (except in Iran, perhaps), he is firmly centrist. The US has not had a radical left of any substance or importance for at least the last three decades, if not longer.


----------



## EvilHorseOfDoom (Jun 17, 2012)

thesilverspear said:


> There isn't any real left wing politics. That's the problem and it's precisely why I want to stay in Europe. Not only has "liberal" become a pejorative word, the whole tone of political debate in the US has gone so spectacularly right wing that Obama is now viewed by many as the figurehead of the radical left, which he's not at all. By almost any other standard (except in Iran, perhaps), he is firmly centrist. The US has not had a radical left of any substance or importance for at least the last three decades, if not longer.


Yep, you're so right silverspear. I am always baffled when people describe Obama as a socialist. Here in Australia he'd be considered centre-right and we don't have anything near socialism here.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lakotababii (Nov 28, 2010)

EvilHorseOfDoom said:


> Yep, you're so right silverspear. I am always baffled when people describe Obama as a socialist. Here in Australia he'd be considered centre-right and we don't have anything near socialism here.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



It seriously baffles me that anyone would consider Obama right winged.

I don't agree that there are too many right wing extremists. The word "extremist" is overused. Just cuz someone has strong beliefs doesn't mean that they are extremists. 

Sure, there are strong beliefs, but they are on BOTH sides. I could label just about anyone an extremist if I felt like it. But extremist is not a word that should be used just because you feel like their cause is not worth pursuing. Liberals and conservatives both fight hard for what they believe in, and that is commendable.


----------



## EvilHorseOfDoom (Jun 17, 2012)

Lakotababii said:


> It seriously baffles me that anyone would consider Obama right winged.
> 
> I don't agree that there are too many right wing extremists. The word "extremist" is overused. Just cuz someone has strong beliefs doesn't mean that they are extremists.
> 
> Sure, there are strong beliefs, but they are on BOTH sides. I could label just about anyone an extremist if I felt like it. But extremist is not a word that should be used just because you feel like their cause is not worth pursuing. Liberals and conservatives both fight hard for what they believe in, and that is commendable.


Oh I wouldn't call him a rightwinger exactly. But his policies really aren't very left (or not what we'd consider left here), probably because he wouldn't be able to get anything too radical through Congress anyway, and he's still pretty strong on the ol' free market so he's definitely not a socialist lol. Our "left" party is the Labor party - but it has "left", "centre" and "right" elements, it just has links to the unions so is left of the Liberal Party and the National (country) Party. And a fair number of Liberal Party policies are quite left in approach (if you consider left to be increased state control - the NT Intervention being one example of this). In general, I'd describe Labor in Australia as centre/centre-right, and Liberals as rightwing. 

But politics in Australia is a joke - they grab hold of one or two little issues that the rightwing current affairs programs have made a hullabaloo about, and compete about which one has the most "hardline" approach (never mind if it works, gotta get tough on criminals/immigrants/unemployed people/Indigenous people/drug addicts/people who park in no standing zones). As long as a three-word slogan can be attached to a policy, it's good to go *sigh*


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

Yes, what EvilHorseofDoom (great handle, by the way) said. Obama is not wildly right-wing, but he's not wildly left, either. As I said earlier, he's firmly centrist and to be honest, slightly right of centre. If he were in Britain, he would probably be a moderate Tory. For instance, as Evilhorse stated, he still very much embraces and supports the free market as the solution to most of the world's problems. The main difference on this issue between him (or the Democratic party, really) and US conservatives is that he wants to regulate it a weensie bit, whereas they believe in the sanctity of absolute laissez-faire capitalism. Nevermind that laissez faire has been tried before, at end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century, and it didn't work then, either. 

You'll not convince me that politics in the US have not gotten extreme. And extremely right. There is now this marriage between economic libertarians and evangelicals which dominates political discourse. The truly progressive left wing is more or less silenced and the stuff the right screams about as being left wing, socialist, and horrible isn't really left at all.


----------



## gunslinger (Sep 17, 2011)

So, I guess you've read his book "Dreams of My Father"?

In his own words, he had a communist mentor and attended communist rallies.

What about the 20 year relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Black Liberation Theology?

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck........


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

And there are times that I'm glad that I didn't get into America, yur political system isn't all that great folks, and I can't believe that you can't see the issues.

We'll never know what Obama was capable of because of the other side chanting 'NO WE CAN'T' to everything that has has tried to do.

Progress is so difficult


----------



## northwesten (Apr 28, 2012)

I was pretty dam annoyed and this WHY I feel trapped in the US. I want to return to the UK but I can't... if these changes go though. 

Thing is these MP are total &P^@#$%. Immigration was becoming an issue but NON EU was not been an issue. The issue with the Immigration was the open boarder with the other EU country like the Eastern EU family come right over. This too me like open the boarder to mexico and say hey come over. 

So with crap hitting the fan in Eastern part of the EU like greece going to make it worse. To insult the public and people in UK they KEEP saying NON EU members we will control. The Parliament can not stop EU members states to come to the UK UNDER EU laws!! which is wrong. I am all for Immigration but under a control manner. This why we have the best multi-cultural society in the world I think. Over 300 years of Immigration and with the EU we just opened the flood gates. So who gets hurt? None EU country's that bring in family and good talent that helps our country. 

I am so angry what's going on in the UK ever since I moved to the US! Moving to the US and looking back in made me realize how much we getting played. 

*end rant*


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

I will get back to you on my reading of how he phrases it in his book. But I don't buy the media's usage of the word "communist" for a moment. They usually conflate it with "socialist," "progressive," and any liberal vaguely interested in challenging the economic status quo, who thinks the country should have more communitarian, rather than individualistic, social policies. 

I think it is hilarious, and sad, that modern discourse is borrowing rhetoric from worst excesses of the 1920s and 1950s, yet there is no Soviet Union ostensibly taking over Europe. The spread of communism and the "domino effect" was seen as a national security threat (one which, in retrospect, is now understood as a load of tosh). Putting yourself in the shoes of 1950s and 60s politicians, however, you can sympathise with them a bit, but only a bit as they were more than happy to label anyone who attacked the status quo as a "communist" and use such discourse as a tool to quash dissenting opinions, more often than not those of civil rights activists and indeed, anyone calling for more humanitarian platforms. 

But it's 2012. So the only response is, really? I mean, Joe McCarthy must be having an epic keg party, celebrating in his grave. So, really? Communism? That old chestnut?


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

thesilverspear said:


> Yes, what EvilHorseofDoom (great handle, by the way) said. Obama is not wildly right-wing, but he's not wildly left, either. As I said earlier, he's firmly centrist and to be honest, slightly right of centre. If he were in Britain, he would probably be a moderate Tory. For instance, as Evilhorse stated, he still very much embraces and supports the free market as the solution to most of the world's problems. The main difference on this issue between him (or the Democratic party, really) and US conservatives is that he wants to regulate it a weensie bit, whereas they believe in the sanctity of absolute laissez-faire capitalism. Nevermind that laissez faire has been tried before, at end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century, and it didn't work then, either.
> 
> You'll not convince me that politics in the US have not gotten extreme. And extremely right. There is now this marriage between economic libertarians and evangelicals which dominates political discourse. The truly progressive left wing is more or less silenced and the stuff the right screams about as being left wing, socialist, and horrible isn't really left at all.


I am going to be polite and not make any assumptions, but your observation that Obama is a centrist or even a little right of center is a bit of a joke. His philosophy is liberal, he campaigned and ran as a liberal, and has governed as a liberal. There is absolutely nothing centrist or conservative about him.

Furthermore, he is not in Britain - he is here. Britain has its own problems, as does all of Europe - prompted by a failed experiment of the very socialism you tout. I am always puzzled when people try to defend a failed system and criticize a successful one. You have made it quite clear where your loyalty lies, so why not worry about your own issues and let us worry about ours?

Yes, the U.S. is conservative. 40% of Americans are conservative, 35% are moderate, and only 21% are liberal. That's what we are, and what we have always been, just as other countries are what they are. Sorry if it bothers you that we are conservative, but honestly it isn't any of your concern, is it? We don't dwell on the fact that Britain and Europe are liberal because we recognize that it isn't really any of our business...


----------



## EvilHorseOfDoom (Jun 17, 2012)

Faceman, the EU problems have nothing to do with socialism. Italy was rife with corruption under Berlusconi, the Greeks didn't pay their taxes (a very rightwing approach to citizenship). The GFC was in part caused by a lack of regulation, partly by a lack of good, ethical governance within large corporates. David Cameron has made a meal of things in the UK by using a very rightwing approach and cutting benefits left, right and centre. I research social impact and I can tell you now that the cracks formed by these short term savings will be very expensive to fix in the long-term. Better to buy a safety net for Humpty Dumpty than wait for him to fall and try to put him back together again.

I'm not a socialist myself, I believe that the market can offer solutions. But I also believe it can fail without proper systems in place to support it - and that view is backed by evidence provided by history. It seems even those on the right don't truly believe in a hands off approach and lassaiz-faire capitalism or the big investment banks would have been left for dead instead of being bailed out...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Bearkiller (Aug 10, 2011)

thesilverspear said:


> Yes, what EvilHorseofDoom (great handle, by the way) said. Obama is not wildly right-wing, but he's not wildly left, either. As I said earlier, he's firmly centrist and to be honest, slightly right of centre. If he were in Britain, he would probably be a moderate Tory. For instance, as Evilhorse stated, he still very much embraces and supports the free market as the solution to most of the world's problems. The main difference on this issue between him (or the Democratic party, really) and US conservatives is that he wants to regulate it a weensie bit, whereas they believe in the sanctity of absolute laissez-faire capitalism. Nevermind that laissez faire has been tried before, at end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century, and it didn't work then, either.
> 
> You'll not convince me that politics in the US have not gotten extreme. And extremely right. There is now this marriage between economic libertarians and evangelicals which dominates political discourse. The truly progressive left wing is more or less silenced and the stuff the right screams about as being left wing, socialist, and horrible isn't really left at all.


 
You're right. It's best you stay where you are. This is coming from a libertarian evangelical all wrapped into one. I am married to another libertarian evengelical so I guess you are right..............





Golden Horse said:


> And there are times that I'm glad that I didn't get into America, yur political system isn't all that great folks, and I can't believe that you can't see the issues.
> 
> We'll never know what Obama was capable of because of the other side chanting 'NO WE CAN'T' to everything that has has tried to do.
> 
> Progress is so difficult


 
I'm glad you didn't get in also. They must have seen you coming from miles away.  Our culture has been corrupted too much already by socialist Europians. Do you forget that Obama had complete control of the house and senate for his first 2 years? He could have passed whatever he wanted. I decided to pass a "stimulous" package that padded the pockets of his donors and liberal friends instead of attacking real issues. Like illegal immigration.


----------



## northwesten (Apr 28, 2012)

Faceman said:


> Furthermore, he is not in Britain - he is here. Britain has its own problems, as does all of Europe - prompted by a failed experiment of the very socialism you tout. I am always puzzled when people try to defend a failed system and criticize a successful one. You have made it quite clear where your loyalty lies, so why not worry about your own issues and let us worry about ours?


What socialism are you talking about? I find Americans throwing word around that don't even know what it means nor understanding. UK is not a socialist country at all... I agree the US politics is extreme and it is! Never known a country to throw mud so much and misinformation throw around to confuse the public. 

I find in US labeling people like socialist to communist throw so much this past 4 years... Only thing failing government back in UK is they not listening to the people and throwing power to the European Union which is Corrupt. Other than that I think we do pretty well thank you very much!




Bearkiller said:


> I'm glad you didn't get in also. They must have seen you coming from miles away.  Our culture has been corrupted too much already by socialist Europians.


AGAIN *Epic facepalm*  .....


----------



## EvilHorseOfDoom (Jun 17, 2012)

northwesten said:


> What socialism are you talking about? I find Americans throwing word around that don't even know what it means nor understanding. UK is not a socialist country at all... I agree the US politics is extreme and it is! Never known a country to throw mud so much and misinformation throw around to confuse the public.
> 
> I find in US labeling people like socialist to communist throw so much this past 4 years... Only thing failing government back in UK is they not listening to the people and throwing power to the European Union which is Corrupt. Other than that I think we do pretty well thank you very much!


Yep! And the EU is just like FIFA without the football...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## northwesten (Apr 28, 2012)

EvilHorseOfDoom said:


> Yep! And the EU is just like FIFA without the football...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You got me on FiFA I never like footbal nor follow what's going on in it.

Rugby my game *cough*


----------



## BCtazzie (Jun 7, 2011)

Those are tough new changes.

For me, I'm currently going through the whole Family Class (common law) for permanent resident (and a new visa). The forms and evidence they want to support proof of James and I being together for at least 12 months is rather easy (We've had everything in joint names for 4 years). 

The only hickup is that due to the cost cutting to CIC it is now taking them 12 months to open any envelopes. Mine should be open in June next year, unless more cuts are made. Which puts me on an "implied status" meaning I can work legally, pay taxes etc etc but, my Provence health care will end due to not having a new visa until they open the envelope up, unless I have the paper work for them they will not recognize my status, although I am legal and in status, just as Implied. No biggy, I can buy travel insurance for time been but, say if by chance we fall pregnant (50% of pregnancies are not planned, no method is 100% fool proof) we are not covered for anything. In the event, god forbid, there is a family emergency back in Australia (death, major medical etc etc) if I leave Canada my application is cancelled. So I will be back to re-filling the paper work and un-able to work.

We will be moving back to Alberta in the spring (James job) so the fun I am going to have to get a job with an expired visa but, still in status and legal to work, just without having any current paper work. My current visa expires in Nov this year, application was sent June 17th. If I was an employer, I wouldn't want to take the chance in hiring someone who's physical visa is expired, even if they are on Implied, it's too much risk.

Say I was immigrating via the PNP, my length time for visa re-newal (while waiting PR status) is 6 weeks. Mine, 12 months or more.


Some immigration rules really make the mind boggle.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

Where are you guys getting this stuff? 

First of all, not all countries in Europe are "socialist." In fact, none are completely "socialist" but some have more state-owned resources and state-run programs than others. As Evilhorse said, the ones with economies in the hole right now are ones where corruption has been rife for years and people didn't pay taxes (a very American idea!). I am sure the Swedes, Danes, Germans, Norwegians would be shocked to learn that their "socialist" states are failing. All are residents of countries with social welfare systems that would put the UK and US to shame and they are doing fine. The assertion that the UK is socialist is laughable. The current government is slashing budgets left and right and they still haven't turned the economy around. 

I'm really curious about the argument that "our culture has been corrupted by socialist Europeans." I have no idea what that means. I mean, what? You do realise that if you're a white American, your ancestors were European and it was European culture which formed the building blocks for American culture. Right? 

The current discursive climate does not leave room for nuance, but nuance is what's needed. Not extremes. A state which runs on complete laissez-fair capitalism won't work. Neither will one which has complete ownership and control of all industries. I think the free market is very good at some things, like developing technology and general entrepreneurship. I think it's terrible at others, like providing healthcare and public transport. 

BCTazzie, it's coldly comforting knowing that Canada is just as mental as Britain! I thought Canada was supposed to be friendly.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Bearkiller said:


> I'm glad you didn't get in also. They must have seen you coming from miles away.  Our culture has been corrupted too much already by socialist Europians.



I am deeply offended by that personal comment and am about to report it. I love America but unfortunately some of its people are not so pleasant.

Just as a thought, where did the majority of Americans come from, at least in the early days.


----------



## Lakotababii (Nov 28, 2010)

Can I just say that, although I don't agree with some of the posters, I RESPECTFULLY disagree

This comment has absolutely no place in any debate. It is just mean. It does nothing except degrade another human being. Seriously we are all adults.




Bearkiller said:


> I'm glad you didn't get in also. They must have seen you coming from miles away.  Our culture has been corrupted too much already by socialist Europians..


 I am too an Evangelical. I am too a conservative, my entire family leans right, by quite a bit. I am also married to a right wing conservative. 

I can, however, be an adult and realize that just because someone doesn't agree with me does not mean that they shouldn't be allowed into the country.

Socialism in and of itself has some good ideas. I don't disagree with the concept, I just don't think it a practical way to run anything for numerous reasons, which is why I don't support it. Do I think free market is better, yes, but it also has its limitations.

I do agree that Obama could have gotten more done, to a point. He pushed through the healthcare bill pretty dang fast if you ask me. Obamacare seems to be where he earned his "socialist" name as it is a more socialist type ideal, on a basic level at least. Obama is a liberal, he holds left winged views. And yes, I understand that left here is different than left in Europe. But since the idea of universal health care is a big topic in America right now, we compare ourselves to Europe. Europe has universal health care, for the most part. Since we consider UHC to be a socialist type idea, we consider Europe to lean towards socialist ideas as well. 

I find it humorous that not paying taxes was said to be an American ideal. And just earlier in the conversation someone said something about being up to date in the year 2012, with the 60 and 50s being gone. Well then lets get up to date on America shall we? Sure we are for reducing taxes, but the right side doesn't want to get rid of taxes. The whole anti-tax thing started with the American revolution, where taxes were too high, as set by England. That was a while ago. We still hold those values of trying to maintain lower taxes, but to say that we are not for paying our taxes is false. 

I also find it humorous that someone pointed out how free market and American ideals don't work. Really? That's funny because we have the longest lasting original constitution of any country, and the govt, although changing, has not ever been overthrown or redrafted. Whereas socialist countries (I'll use the USSR as an example because they were brought up earlier) have had numerous revolutions and changing in constitutions. If I had to pick one that didn't work, it would be socialism.

So yes, I understand that politics are different here in the US as compared to Europe, but then again, that's why our country was originally founded, because we wanted nothing to do with Europe's ideal society.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

northwesten said:


> What socialism are you talking about? I find Americans throwing word around that don't even know what it means nor understanding. UK is not a socialist country at all... I agree the US politics is extreme and it is! Never known a country to throw mud so much and misinformation throw around to confuse the public.


As that comment was directed at me, I hate to tell you this, but I have forgotten more about politics and economics than you will ever know. As a matter of fact, I was debating the advantages and disadvantages of socialism well before you were born. As most kids that attended college in the 60's in the US, I studied and explored socialism thoroughly - both academically and socially. Do not tell me what I do and don't know, thank you...


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Golden Horse said:


> I am deeply offended by that personal comment and am about to report it. I love America but unfortunately some of its people are not so pleasant.
> 
> Just as a thought, where did the majority of Americans come from, at least in the early days.


Yeah,I agree - that was uncalled for. There is no need to reduce opposing ideologies to prejudicial cracks like that or the one I just replied to above...


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

Yes, Lakota, I am all for reasoned argument. 

The Democrats have been trying to get universal healthcare for years and Obama is the first one to have actually achieved something. It's not perfect and I think a single-payer system is better, but it certainly takes some steps towards improving the rather disastrous system the US has at the moment. I believe Europe was looked to during the debates because most European countries have healthcare systems that work reasonably well. I'm reluctant to call that "socialism," as state-provided healthcare has been in existence in various forms long before such ideas were associated with "socialists" (a political theory term which has a long and varied history and more than one meaning). 

My crack about Americans not wanting to pay taxes was written with tongue firmly in cheek. In any case, the taxation issue with the American Revolution emerged out of the fact that colonists had not been paying *any* taxes to the British government, full stop. Then after the French and Indian War, Britain was feeling a bit skint and Parliament thought they should start taxing the colonies. As the colonies had been happily not paying tax for years, they had a view on this. 

I did say that a complete laissez-faire free market doesn't work. All the "regulations" which cause conservatives to have a hairy fit? They are there for a reason. The "Gilded Age" at the end of the 19th century was such an era where free markets were given their reins. What you then had was a situation where wealth was extremely concentrated in the hands of very few, monopolies, or "trusts," as they were known, were becoming huge and corrupting the political process, exploitation of workers was rampant, working conditions horrible, poverty and the disempowerment of the lower classes extreme. This is what eventually brought on the Progressive Era, the political mobilisation which addressed some of these issues and sought to improve conditions for the working classes. 

The USSR is a really bad example of socialism not working. Prior to the Russian Revolution, it was ruled by the Tsars, who were a centuries-old dictatorship of oligarchs. After the Revolution, the Bolsheviks came into power, keeping the dictatorship but getting rid of the oligarchs. The Bolsheviks got the Russian people behind them, preaching the ideals of communism, which would bring a measure of egalitarianism to a system that was very, very feudal. But that kind of egalitarian society never emerged out of it. It just goes to show that revolutions do not necessarily change a country's political culture. 

In fact, it has been suggested by social and political theorists that the Soviet economy was not really socialist at all, as the existence of a bureaucratic and hierarchical elite was integral to its functioning and it calculated its production using profit and distributed surplus profit and goods amongst managers and senior officials as bonuses. So while businesses were for the most part state-owned, they still operated on the principles of capitalism.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

thesilverspear said:


> In fact, it has been suggested by social and political theorists that the Soviet economy was not really socialist at all, as the existence of a bureaucratic and hierarchical elite was integral to its functioning and it calculated its production using profit and distributed surplus profit and goods amongst managers and senior officials as bonuses. So while businesses were for the most part state-owned, they still operated on the principles of capitalism.


Where this study is coming from? It's simply not true from what I know. There was no such a thing as "bonuses" or distributed profit really. BTW, while I agree that USSR was a great example of economy on failure (partially because everything belonged to the government or "country" if you like), what they have now is no better and can't be called "capitalistic" either.


----------



## Lakotababii (Nov 28, 2010)

thesilverspear said:


> Yes, Lakota, I am all for reasoned argument.
> 
> In fact, it has been suggested by social and political theorists that the Soviet economy was not really socialist at all, as the existence of a bureaucratic and hierarchical elite was integral to its functioning and it calculated its production using profit and distributed surplus profit and goods amongst managers and senior officials as bonuses. So while businesses were for the most part state-owned, they still operated on the principles of capitalism.



Just because profit is involved does not mean a capitalist society was in place. Capitalism is way more complicated than just businesses and profit. 

They WERE socialist, on the basis of they took everyone's wealth and divided it up amongst themselves and the rest of the country. It was state run, with the state determining most of what the people had and did not have. That is socialist. 

Capitalism, in its most basic form, is the idea that businesses and the economy, along with wealth, is determined by individuals. No one tells you what you need to do with your money, you earn it, you keep it, you spend it. 

I fail to see how anything the USSR did was capitalistic. Sure they had corrupt individuals leading it and making money off the system, but that doesn't make it capitalistic, just corrupt. Which is most likely why it failed in the first place.


----------



## northwesten (Apr 28, 2012)

Faceman said:


> As that comment was directed at me, I hate to tell you this, but I have forgotten more about politics and economics than you will ever know. As a matter of fact, I was debating the advantages and disadvantages of socialism well before you were born. As most kids that attended college in the 60's in the US, I studied and explored socialism thoroughly - both academically and socially. *Do not tell me what I do and don't know, thank you..*.


Don't put words in my mouth. 

I asked you a question and stated everyone throwing that name around left right and center because some people on the other party did. So as you did not really answer my question then don't loosy (sp?)though names around at other country's.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

thesilverspear said:


> In fact, it has been suggested by social and political theorists that the Soviet economy was not really socialist at all, as the existence of a bureaucratic and hierarchical elite was integral to its functioning and it calculated its production using profit and distributed surplus profit and goods amongst managers and senior officials as bonuses. So while businesses were for the most part state-owned, they still operated on the principles of capitalism.



It may be old hat, but yes in my degree studies this is the conclusion of the majority of academics, Russia was never truly communist, one of the fundamental requisites of true Communism was the revolution where all the people rose and fought for change. What Russia had was a change of leadership in the way that SilverSpear has outlined. 

All I can say is that those of you who get your main information feed from Fox news, should expand your viewing, we in the UK realized a long time ago that any Murdoch mouthpiece is mainly set up to push only his agenda and has little or no interest in fair and balanced reporting.

Some folk would do well to travel outside of America, and look at it from the outside, because whatever you say you have issues, and these will not be solved with your current political system I fear. 

You have no idea of my political beliefs, some of you are so far to the right that you have lost track of where the centre actually is. All I know is that living in a different country allows me to view the UK in a different light, and to experience a different way of looking at the world from Canada here. I think that it is maybe the more widely travelled people who get to have a more balanced view. But hey I may be wrong and that's fine, at least I'm free to express my views in Canada, the US or the UK, and that is what is important to me.


----------



## northwesten (Apr 28, 2012)

thesilverspear said:


> Yes, Lakota, I am all for reasoned argument.
> 
> The Democrats have been trying to get universal healthcare for years and Obama is the first one to have actually achieved something. It's not perfect and I think a single-payer system is better, but it certainly takes some steps towards improving the rather disastrous system the US has at the moment. I believe Europe was looked to during the debates because most European countries have healthcare systems that work reasonably well. I'm reluctant to call that "socialism," as state-provided healthcare has been in existence in various forms long before such ideas were associated with "socialists" (a political theory term which has a long and varied history and more than one meaning).


Where I am from UK I sure love my NHS. It has it's flaws but not as bad as the US healthcare right now. I mean it cost too dam much and my wife had to drop my healthcare because we can't afford it. We have 2 jobs and yer we fighting to eat and live and keep our cars... 

Though I am complete disagreement on the Obamacare because how they presented it and how they are enforcing it. NHS getting their founds from taxes but Obamacare is forcing people to buy insurance or get taxed. 

Well I hardly see the doctor because I look after my self pretty well and I barley have issues. Though I am going to be forced to buy health insurance and see that money going to fat cats! This annoys me. Hell with me not able to afford health insurance I going to get screwed anyway as I have no access to medicare (federal or state programs) because of my legal statues. So I am wondering when it comes to 2014 am I going to get obamacare? I bet no I would not be able to  

If government going to take over they may as well do it all together! I mean in 2006 if i remember right 12% of UK population had Private insurance. Which is useless to me other there anyhow.


----------



## northwesten (Apr 28, 2012)

Golden Horse said:


> You have no idea of my political beliefs, some of you are so far to the right that you have lost track of where the centre actually is. All I know is that living in a different country allows me to view the UK in a different light, and to experience a different way of looking at the world from Canada here. I think that it is maybe the more widely travelled people who get to have a more balanced view. But hey I may be wrong and that's fine, at least I'm free to express my views in Canada, the US or the UK, and that is what is important to me.



I think your right because I moved to the USA in 08 and when I looked back! I was pretty darn angry what's going on in UK and most of all European Union. I look at US politics and its complexes and I have learned a lot. Also it also shaped my views as well and now I am fighting online for a party in UK (UKIP) to get well known and show how bad the Euro Project has become etc. 

If I was still in the UK I wouldn't;t of found out as much as I do now.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

Lakotababii said:


> Just because profit is involved does not mean a capitalist society was in place. Capitalism is way more complicated than just businesses and profit.
> 
> They WERE socialist, on the basis of they took everyone's wealth and divided it up amongst themselves and the rest of the country. It was state run, with the state determining most of what the people had and did not have. That is socialist.
> 
> ...


Socialism, or communism rather, as a political theory, roughly means dividing up wealth and power evenly so there is no political or economic elite, the eradication of social classes, no extreme bifurcation between wealth and poverty, and the end of labour as a commodity with which others (not the labourers) make profit. Soviet Russia could not have been further from this ideal. While they may have called themselves communists, there was a ruling elite, a hierarchy, and the poor stayed poor. There was a redistribution of wealth, but just from the old ruling classes to the new ruling classes. The underlying principles of capitalism -- as well as feudalism -- are in part the acquisition and accumulation of wealth and power, and these principles continued to form the basis of the Soviet economy and political system after the Revolution. I am not saying that the USSR was "capitalist," but when it developed an economy and government based on hierarchical power relationships, it wasn't being very socialist, either. These sorts of hierarchical relationships are, however, also found in capitalist states.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Faceman said:


> As that comment was directed at me,* I hate to tell you this, but I have forgotten more about politics and economics than you will ever know.* As a matter of fact, I was debating the advantages and disadvantages of socialism well before you were born. As most kids that attended college in the 60's in the US, I studied and explored socialism thoroughly - both academically and socially. Do not tell me what I do and don't know, thank you...



Well, it is comments like this that get my dander up. You have tried to call me out, previously, for thinking these types of comments are just plain rude. However, I do have an advanced degree in this subject. You are in MY territory now. I am just staying out of this conversation due to lack of interest, frankly. I think Americans stick their noses into other country's policies way too often.

This is about UK policies, or did I get this OP wrong?


----------



## Bearkiller (Aug 10, 2011)

Golden Horse said:


> some of you are so far to the right that you have lost track of where the centre actually is.


 
People in the "center" are people with out moral conviction. I've got more respect for a far left extremist than any moderate or centrist. At least they have a moral back bone..........


----------



## northwesten (Apr 28, 2012)

Bearkiller said:


> People in the "center" are people with out moral conviction. I've got more respect for a far left extremist than any moderate or centrist. At least they have a moral back bone..........


This not making any sense at all other than pretty much tiring to insult and offend other people. I mean what are you talking about been moral?


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Allison Finch said:


> Well, it is comments like this that get my dander up. You have tried to call me out, previously, for thinking these types of comments are just plain rude. However, I do have an advanced degree in this subject. You are in MY territory now. I am just staying out of this conversation due to lack of interest, frankly. I think Americans stick their noses into other country's policies way too often.
> 
> This is about UK policies, or did I get this OP wrong?


That's what I thought too, until people started making anti-American comments.

And my comment was not directed at you - it was directed at Northwesten...


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

northwesten said:


> This not making any sense at all other than pretty much tiring to insult and offend other people. I mean what are you talking about been moral?


Agree. I am clueless what he means...


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Golden Horse said:


> All I can say is that those of you who get your main information feed from Fox news, should expand your viewing, we in the UK realized a long time ago that any Murdoch mouthpiece is mainly set up to push only his agenda and has little or no interest in fair and balanced reporting.


I don't disagree with that, but what is your point? The exact same thing can be said on the opposite side of the fence about CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR, etc.

Why not just say one shouldn't get their main information from a single biased source?


----------



## northwesten (Apr 28, 2012)

Faceman said:


> That's what I thought too, until people started making anti-American comments.


Making me read back and quickly find something that was anti-american... Nope don't see it.. All I see talking about the political culture! Which too be honest we were given our views of political culture but it was NOT anti american. 

So looks like someone got real defensive when you didn't need to be most of all slapping labels on country's like socialism. Well maybe not you but someone was which I can't remember atm.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Faceman said:


> I don't disagree with that, but what is your point?


Sorry was I not clear, Murdoch I am familiar with, he has been in bed with the British Government for years, he follows his own agenda, I have seen Fox News, DH seems to find it entertaining *shrugs*

I'm afraid I an not up on what of the other channels give what spin, so I could not comment, I will take your point that there is no unbiased reporting in the US to heart.

I am going to bow out before I get into trouble here


----------



## Bearkiller (Aug 10, 2011)

northwesten said:


> This not making any sense at all other than pretty much tiring to insult and offend other people. I mean what are you talking about been moral?





Faceman said:


> Agree. I am clueless what he means...


 
It's not a petty insult. People on the "far left" and "far right" or "zealots", if you will, have core beliefs. Right or wrong. They have beliefs that drive them and they are passionate about. Passionate people are who drive politics and governments. Moderates generally have no principles with which they stand. I'm not so sure what's so confusing about that. Especially for someone as educated and intelligent as faceman. :twisted:


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

I am a centrist, and proud of it.

No one here will make the mistake of saying I don't have strong opinions, though. It just means we have the ability of seeing both sides of an argument and then take a stance. Being centrist also means I can be passionately liberal on one issue but quite conservative on another. 

This does NOT mean I have no moral fiber. Far from it. I believe that if one can ONLY see the extremes of any situation, with no exceptions, then they are the deluded ones.


----------



## northwesten (Apr 28, 2012)

Bearkiller said:


> It's not a petty insult. People on the "far left" and "far right" or "zealots", if you will, have core beliefs. Right or wrong. They have beliefs that drive them and they are passionate about. Passionate people are who drive politics and governments. Moderates generally have no principles with which they stand. I'm not so sure what's so confusing about that. Especially for someone as educated and intelligent as faceman. :twisted:


"Voters who describe themselves as centrist often mean that they are moderate in their political views, advocating neither extreme left-wing politics nor right-wing politics." 

Really? all I am going to say that is a complete Rubbish! I am a moderate and I pretty dam proud of it. Too say people of no Moral is silly and absurd which you have no bases at all to come from period! 

So my last comment still stands! completely baseless. Anyhow better been a moderate than been a sheep that's blind just following the crowed! 




Allison Finch said:


> I am a centrist, and proud of it.
> 
> No one here will make the mistake of saying I don't have strong opinions, though. It just means we have the ability of seeing both sides of an argument and then take a stance. Being centrist also means I can be passionately liberal on one issue but quite conservative on another.
> 
> This does NOT mean I have no moral fiber. Far from it. I believe that if one can ONLY see the extremes of any situation, with no exceptions, then they are the deluded ones.


100% agree


----------



## Puddintat (Jul 24, 2010)

One of the vets at my hospital is from Canada. Every 2 years she has to renew her visa prove that she is not taking a job away from a qualified american veterinarian. Once her husband quit his job and lost his visa so she had to go back home until he got another one. She has since divorced and got a specialty degree in acupuncture so hopefully that will make it easier for her to get a visa. She said if she wanted to get her green card the owner of the hospital would have to open her position to anybody else that wanted to apply for a certain amount of time and if no one came along she could keep her job.


----------

