General   (General discussion, talk about anything.)

Another point of view on immigration (not asylum seeking): The Timesyesterday.

An immigration-fuelled surge in Britain's population may help Gordon Brown to escape another embarrassing breach of his public borrowing forecasts and could help to head off interest rate increases.
After official figures showed the UK population climbing at its fastest rate since the Sixties, economists said that this may bolster the economy's sustainable "trend" growth rate, with beneficial effects for both state finances and interest rates.

The point being made was that without immigration, the proportion of the population of working age would fall and the proportion in retirement would rise with a consequent damaging effect on the economy. Changes of this sort are a matter of concern in Germany and Japan.
Quote: In Britain, the impending retirement of women born in the Sixties "baby boom" will soon reduce the pace of increase in the size of the workforce, in turn putting a brake on the economy's trend growth rate.

On another matter - asylum seekers who may also be terrorists. A court has decided that a 35-year-old Islamist may be deported to Algeria because of possible links with terrorists. This is seen as a victory for the Home Office. The point is that these decisions are not made by the government but by courts. He hasn't actually been found guilty of terrorist activities although he was charged and aquitted last year. Three of the jurors who helped to aquit him have issued a statement about his impending deportation:
This is contrary to anything we thought was possible in a democratic, free society. So who is supporting freedom? Those who wish to deport him despite the fact that he hasn't been found guilty of any crime, or the jurors who believe that he should be allowed to stay here.

Getwom