Scientists Decry "Horrifying" UK Border Test Plan
cremeglace writes "Scientists are dismayed and outraged at a new project by the UK border agency to test DNA, hair, and nails to determine the nationality of asylum seekers and help decide if they can enter the UK. 'Horrifying,' 'naive,' and 'flawed' are among the words geneticists and isotope specialists have used to describe the 'Human Provenance pilot project.' The methods being used to determine ancestry include fingerprinting of mitochondrial DNA and isotope analysis of hair and nails. ScienceInsider blog notes that it is 'not clear who is conducting the DNA and isotope analyses for the Border Agency,' and that the agency has not 'cited any scientific papers that validate its DNA and isotope methods.' There is also a followup post with more information on the tests that are being used, and some reactions from experts in genetic forensic analysis. This story was first reported in The Observer on Sunday."
The thing about letting in absolutely anyone is that it doesn't protect the benefits of exclusivity. It also doesn't reinforce the cultural and social preferences of those people a country belongs to.
With culture comes religious and political baggage. For example, Muslims tend to bring Islam with them when they arrive in a Western country. Religion is bad, primitive religion is worse, and there is every reason for Westerners who value personal freedom to keep out religious enemies just as they would reject political enemies (religion is merely superstitious politics).
It's a bit of a wrench when people raised on simplistic, very blind idealism find that other people can use their naive ideals against them. To the extent that you allow a population of social primitives into your home, they will make it over in the image of the societies they left, especially when their religion is predatory. People cherish the idea that their ideals will magically protect them (rather a secular religion IMO) but are coming up against reality.
Europe belongs to Europeans. They should decide if there is a moral obligation to turn it into Arabia and Africa, or not. I would think they suffered enough getting Christianity off their backs, but it appears Euros don't remember history any better than Yanks.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re your last paragraph, that's exactly what we used to do, but not at a county level, a *parish* level. To leave and settle in another parish, you needed a piece of paper called a testificat, signed by your minister, stating your good character. I'm not sure if it's ever been formally abolished, either.
[FUCK BETA]
Do you also want the system like Canada where doctors end up working as janitors?
Note: I'm a Briton who emmigrated to Canada in 1996, and now hold a passport there. I returned to the UK a couple of months ago. I think you're wrong about immigration. Your comments are bigotted - this country needs a culture of acceptance, like Canada has.
That's complete nonesense.
You've fallen for the line that there is some abstract entity called 'country' which can benefit from an influx of these so-called intelligent 'immigrants'.
When it comes to considering whether to allow immigration the question should be: does it benefit citizens IN THE LONG TERM. If the answer is no then they shouldn't be let in.
Let's look at the three main arguments for allow immigrants:
1) highly skilled.
Firstly, what's the chance that Bonga-Bonga land is going to produce anyone that's highly skilled? Secondly if they could, why would they come here? And thirdly if we need them INVEST IN OUR PEOPLE!
In fact you could argue that by letting them come here we're depriving their homeland of their expertise.
2) Immigrants will help pay the pensions
Immigrants get old as well. So all you do is push the problem back. And that assumes they don't just stick their snouts in the benefits trough.
3) Immigrants will do jobs that we (citizens) don't want to do.
Firstly, immigrants don't stick with doing the crappy under-paid jobs. Next generation they too will be declining to do them. So unless you're willing to make them a slave-race that isn't going to work for long. And supply and demand: increase wages to a level that attracts people who want those jobs, don't import foreigners.
There is literally no good reason for a rich country like the UK to allow immigration from the third world.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
You are failing to make the distinction between a state founded as an ethnic and national project, as many European and East Asian countries are, as opposed to countries that are not, e.g. Australia, United States, Canada.
While I am by no means a UKIP/BNP voter, I think that in any given country, the concerns of the ethnic majority, about having their way of life disrupted, and their culture diluted by people from poor countries who don't respect their hosts, is justified.
East Asia, by and large, are doing a very good job at avoiding cultural suicide, by severely restricting mass immigration from poor countries, or countries with lesser-developed cultures. Europe, OTOH, has failed, and with the ghettoization of its inner cities, has only recently woken up to that fact.
What the fuck is going on over there?
Seriously, cameras in people's homes to make sure their kids are being "properly parented;" testing DNA at the border to determine ethnicity (and who knows what else, because what does race have to do with nationality these days)... Branding children as future criminals at age 5 based on hyperactive or normal anti-social kid behavior....and there's more that I can't even remember now.
England is becoming some nightmare 1984/Gattaca mashup...Brave New World indeed.
Not really a valid comparison, as Canada is the world's second biggest country, and could fit the population of Britian in several times over without even noticing, but Britain is way more accepting of immigration than Canada.
To move to Cananda, they require you speak English or French, preferably both, you generally need a degree, and a job. Or a lot of money. To move to the UK, you don't need anything other than directions to the welfare office. There's not much threat of being deported, it's very easy just to disappear.
Why don't you ask the primary school teachers who are seeing classes filled with kids who barely speak English, as to the benefits of unrestricted immigration. Never mind us accepting them, why don't immigrants to Britain accept us? Why don't they learn the language and secure employment before getting on the plain?
We have millions unemployed, we don't need any immigrants to work as janitors.