Hang on a minute Golfpro, my post was a joke as has been noted by just about everyone here. You'll read worse in the Daily Mail, Daily Express, Sun.......

Also, wasn't it you who rather seriously wrote:

"NL taxpayer pays for your education [and the rest] and then you bugger off putting nothing back into the country. Nice of you."

But please, don't let me stop you from picking me, DanB or anyone else up on their posts. If you use the search function and select my user name, you can find a whole rogues gallery of my posts to complain about.

Well said Sylvester. As for me, I've called a "time-out" (as the Americans say) on this topic. There is a potentially interesting debate to be had here, but we can't have it as long as people are getting emotional.

I'm sorry you feel picked on Sylvester. I'm wasn't complaining just using it as an example of a double-standard. Anyway all it wasn't you who called an Indian Student a scrounger and a freeloader.

I'm also not a reader of those papers so I couldn't comment, but if that makes you feel less better by all means. Again, if calling it a joke makes you feel better about youself use that too.

Okay Golfpro. I'm prepared to apologise for my jokey remark, are you prepared to apologise for yours?

My prrof reading is aweful...I should have said....

....I'm sorry you feel picked on Sylvester. I'm wasn't complaining just using it as an example of a double-standard. Anyway all it wasn't you who called an Indian Student a scrounger and a freeloader.

I'm also not a reader of those papers so I couldn't comment, but if that makes you feel better by all means. Again, if calling it a joke makes you feel better about youself use that too.

I'm sure that scrounger and a freeloader was meant in jest by the orginal poster too. Surely.

Nope I stand by mine. I do have issue with anyone claiming asylum in a country and then 'buggering off' before putting anything back.

In which case, each to their own. Can we now move on from this debate?

But Golfpro, would it not be fair to say that there are likely to be a similar number of people migrating from GB to NL as vice-versa? So if you claim asylum in NL and "take more out than you put in" if you will, before coming to the UK and putting more in here, will things not just be balanced out by people doing the opposite?

I don't particularly like people who want to lazily sponge off the state, but I don't think people should feel compelled to personally pay back a specific country in the way you suggest. The upshot of people following this moral obligation would be that (assuming migration between GB and NL is equal) people on both sides would have less career mobility, would lose out individually, and both states would also be likely to miss out.

If there is a history of the NL taking people in before they move to GB to earn real money then, fair enough, you have a point, but surely that would be one for NL to tackle rather than an individual who is, rightly in my book, trying to get where they want to be given the opportunities presenting themselves.

Isn't thre a bit too much offence being taken here by both sides? Whatever someone's opinion, in this case whether in favour of completely free and unrestricted movement of anyone between any countries, or in favour of closed borders, isn't that their own opinion? Challenging someone's opinion is fair enough if you use genuine debate, but as soon as people start getting offended and uppity, it just descends into pandemonium...

I'm not getting uppity.

I am challenging the idea that an individual has a duty to "pay back" a particular state. I think many people are angry that foreigners "sponge" from Britain, but I would argue that we, along with other western countries get the best of the deal when it comes to migration between rich/poor countries.

When we are talking about migration between 2 western countries that are both part of the EU and have similar economies, and have (as far as I know, I stand to be corrected) no particular pattern in the flux of people, I don't think there is any cause for saying that people should have a moral obligation to "pay back" what the state have given them. I am no expert in politics or economics, so if I am wrong, please explain, I am genuinly interested in how a GB and NL could gain from people in each country feeling morally compelled to stay put.

Sorry Ed - I wasn't having a go at you. It just so happened that your post was the one before mine, that's all. Nothing to do with what you've said.

I tend to concur that this thread is best left alone.

Why should it "be left alone?" I'd be interested in your views of my counter-argument. I am not being hostile, I would just like an honest debate to keep the clock ticking over a bit more quickly. So, what say you?

I would prefer the goverment sorted out the scroungers who are born and bred britons, sitting around on there backsides all day long not needing a job because the tax payers keep them in enough money to have an easy life.

I'd much rather give my hard earned money to someone who is going to do something with it rather than chav-scum who will buy drugs/alcohol and cigs with it.