I'm shattered after a late night and a Munchkin who decided I needed an 5.30am start to the day! I'm off for a kip soon but just thought I'd swing by here first.
On the more philosophical front, the world has changed, most notably the traffic and communication between countries - it's got smaller in a very real sense. Part of me feels that the tighter the laws are on immigration the more people come illegally and that means no tax revenue and costly intervention seeking/returning them. We are a rich country, despite our constant moans and groans this country is a place people want to be and our surrounding sea is dwindling in power as a moat.
In view of the changes in the last century I think the need to think in terms of a world view rather than an insular one becomes more and more salient. Ultimately I see the only truly successful way to reduce immigration longterm is the improvement of life where people are born outside the UK and, of course, perhaps to lose some of the privilege we have begun to take for granted. This was why I agreed re us probably having peaked in terms of national standards of living. For the life of me I cannot see how any other means will stop the movement of people around the world.
It's not just comparative wealth at play either. When I was a teenager I didn't talk to people every day across the globe, I do now, and everywhere I've been where that's the case that ol' human emotion means bonds get made and eventually people travel. As if that wasn't enough war plays a massive role and as peoples fear dwindling resources the willingness to go to war increases, at least that is what I think - I think our North Sea Oil is running out, I think we are at war for oil.
I could write the above quickly without faffing for references as it's all pontification anyway!
On the reference front re NHS treatment. I have a medical friend frustrated by the limits to treatment they are allowed to give to many immigrants, like many who enter such a profession she finds it impossible to weigh up first where someone was born in order to decided what the clinical response should be. I found this while swimming round the net yesterday but couldn't find the report it referred to:
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/News/Recentstories/DH_102993
Bearing in mind it talks about allowing more care and was dated 2009, by inference (and I think logical inference) the care now suggested was previously and very recently denied. My bottom line is I don't want to be treated by doctors and nurses who weigh their response to suffering according to nationality, whatever it costs in money to allow them to care I also accept there would be a considerable cost both in compassion and in who is willing to work for the NHS entailed by denying vital care. Perhaps, in view of my world view I figure the former cost will either be paid willingly by us or unwillingly (that we have no means to forever hold the advantages we now enjoy - no society does, and few have seen times like this in regard to travel and communication). We have though, some chance, however small to keep our compassion - without that the NHS would never have come into being so it should not be undervalued.
"Whatever it is, it spits and it goes 'WAAARGHHHHHHHH' - that's probably enough to suggest you shouldn't argue with it." Mousy.
After spending 7 years on the council house waiting list (sharing a bedroom with my 2 kids) and constantly reading the bollox the Daily Mail keeps putting out, it kinda put a bee in my bonnett, and I guess the buzz is still echoing around my head now. 
