|
Post by desman2 on Mar 8, 2016 13:52:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 8, 2016 16:49:35 GMT
Sobering Des, and true. No idea what the solution is, given all the parties now involved in Syria/Iraq/Libya , but some sort of "peace" or settlement needs to be achieved ("imposed" even) in those countries if we hope to tackle the refugee crisis. ...apologies, nothing like stating the obvious.
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Mar 9, 2016 13:37:15 GMT
It sucks but I think we need to agree to cough up a decent wad of cash to get this sorted asap. The way I see it is that we need to help out refugees where possible but this is causing so much strain that those just coming over for jobs need to be shipped back pronto. They already have rules for deciding who counts as a refugee anyways. Then we need the cash to get countries like Turkey on board to stem the flow a bit while we take in those who we can and have the money to house them and school their kids. Hopefully when Syria and Iraq get stable again many of them will be able to return home and like and understand us more than before. Even if you're against spending our money to help desperate people now, a few hundred thousand friends in the Middle East a few years down the line has got to be worth an investment. And what about the other ~93% of asylum applicants who arent from those countries? Incredibly naive to think they will all go home again.
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 11, 2016 7:41:04 GMT
It sucks but I think we need to agree to cough up a decent wad of cash to get this sorted asap. The way I see it is that we need to help out refugees where possible but this is causing so much strain that those just coming over for jobs need to be shipped back pronto. They already have rules for deciding who counts as a refugee anyways. Then we need the cash to get countries like Turkey on board to stem the flow a bit while we take in those who we can and have the money to house them and school their kids. Hopefully when Syria and Iraq get stable again many of them will be able to return home and like and understand us more than before. Even if you're against spending our money to help desperate people now, a few hundred thousand friends in the Middle East a few years down the line has got to be worth an investment. And what about the other ~93% of asylum applicants who arent from those countries? Incredibly naive to think they will all go home again. Is that number right? Most of the numbers I've seen said most were from Iraq/Syria/Afghanistan with some from Eritrea, all of which can pretty easily claim asylum. As far as I know, countries like Morocco and Nigeria are considered stable enough to send people back unless they're in personal danger because of something else. From what I saw, there just isn't enough cash to process the asylum applications properly and house and track asylum seekers while they're waiting. If we want to sort it out then we'll probably need to spunk a wad of cash to get the processing done properly. If you're just in the UK from Morocco to look for a job, then you should do it through the normal visa channels and otherwise be sent home.
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Mar 11, 2016 9:27:19 GMT
And what about the other ~93% of asylum applicants who arent from those countries? Incredibly naive to think they will all go home again. Is that number right? Most of the numbers I've seen said most were from Iraq/Syria/Afghanistan with some from Eritrea, all of which can pretty easily claim asylum. As far as I know, countries like Morocco and Nigeria are considered stable enough to send people back unless they're in personal danger because of something else. From what I saw, there just isn't enough cash to process the asylum applications properly and house and track asylum seekers while they're waiting. If we want to sort it out then we'll probably need to spunk a wad of cash to get the processing done properly. If you're just in the UK from Morocco to look for a job, then you should do it through the normal visa channels and otherwise be sent home. 7% were from Syria and Iraq. However how do you really know? Many either genuinely or conveniently dont have passports to prove their origin.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 12, 2016 8:21:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ryan4england on Mar 12, 2016 9:10:35 GMT
It's. Recipe for a massacre or two or three letting foreign unknowns into the country. We're out there fighting these Islamic loons to push them back and at the same time inviting unknowns from the same frigging places into the country with benefits!
You couldn't make that shit up & it's only a matter of time before the next bombing/shooting in u.k
It's like taking the wasps nest from outside the house & putting it in your bedroom so they don't get wet. Sometimes you can be too nice for your 'own' good
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Mar 12, 2016 9:12:37 GMT
Asylum stats are readily available ( link) and they make for interesting reading. 26,000 applications in 2015 of which 17,000 were refused. So just 11,000 asylum seekers were taken in. Not very many IMO. More than half of all asylum seekers come from 5 countries; Eritrea, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, and Jordan. The following graph is also quite interesting showing the impact of border controls outside our national borders. What does this mean though? Well, it supports an "out" argument that being in the EU prejudices against deserving people from outside Europe in favour of economic migrants within Europe. Of course this subtlety gets lost in the overall immigration phobia promoted by the likes of UKIP and frequently seen on threads on this forum. Edit - the contribution immediately above being a case in point!
|
|
|
Post by ryan4england on Mar 12, 2016 9:27:26 GMT
Asylum stats are readily available ( link) and they make for interesting reading. 26,000 applications in 2015 of which 17,000 were refused. So just 11,000 asylum seekers were taken in. Not very many IMO. More than half of all asylum seekers come from 5 countries; Eritrea, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, and Jordan. The following graph is also quite interesting showing the impact of border controls outside our national borders. What does this mean though? Well, it supports an "out" argument that being in the EU prejudices against deserving people from outside Europe in favour of economic migrants within Europe. Of course this subtlety gets lost in the overall immigration phobia promoted by the likes of UKIP and frequently seen on threads on this forum. Edit - the contribution immediately above being a case in point! Do you not think the point above is valid then? You say 11'000 isn't a lot but it only takes 2 or 3 to kill thousands of innocent brits. Besides our goverment should start looking after number 1 first and foremost like the elderly & vulnerable British people before inviting sanctuary to others, charity starts at home. The nhs is at breaking point, waiting lists for medical reasons are criminal and we invite loads more in to put on further strain. We also send out billions in foreign aid every year, we like looking after everybody but our own.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Mar 12, 2016 10:20:41 GMT
Asylum stats are readily available ( link) and they make for interesting reading. 26,000 applications in 2015 of which 17,000 were refused. So just 11,000 asylum seekers were taken in. Not very many IMO. More than half of all asylum seekers come from 5 countries; Eritrea, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, and Jordan. The following graph is also quite interesting showing the impact of border controls outside our national borders. What does this mean though? Well, it supports an "out" argument that being in the EU prejudices against deserving people from outside Europe in favour of economic migrants within Europe. Of course this subtlety gets lost in the overall immigration phobia promoted by the likes of UKIP and frequently seen on threads on this forum. Edit - the contribution immediately above being a case in point! Do you not think the point above is valid then? You say 11'000 isn't a lot but it only takes 2 or 3 to kill thousands of innocent brits. Besides our goverment should start looking after number 1 first and foremost like the elderly & vulnerable British people before inviting sanctuary to others, charity starts at home. The nhs is at breaking point, waiting lists for medical reasons are criminal and we invite loads more in to put on further strain. We also send out billions in foreign aid every year, we like looking after everybody but our own. No - your point is not valid. It's bollocks.
|
|
|
Post by ryan4england on Mar 12, 2016 10:24:20 GMT
Do you not think the point above is valid then? You say 11'000 isn't a lot but it only takes 2 or 3 to kill thousands of innocent brits. Besides our goverment should start looking after number 1 first and foremost like the elderly & vulnerable British people before inviting sanctuary to others, charity starts at home. The nhs is at breaking point, waiting lists for medical reasons are criminal and we invite loads more in to put on further strain. We also send out billions in foreign aid every year, we like looking after everybody but our own. No - your point is not valid. It's bollocks. can you write to the government then and tell them you have room in your house to put them up and will put food on the table for them because I don't want to pay for it
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 12, 2016 10:54:55 GMT
Asylum stats are readily available ( link) and they make for interesting reading. 26,000 applications in 2015 of which 17,000 were refused. So just 11,000 asylum seekers were taken in. Not very many IMO. More than half of all asylum seekers come from 5 countries; Eritrea, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, and Jordan. The following graph is also quite interesting showing the impact of border controls outside our national borders. What does this mean though? Well, it supports an "out" argument that being in the EU prejudices against deserving people from outside Europe in favour of economic migrants within Europe. Of course this subtlety gets lost in the overall immigration phobia promoted by the likes of UKIP and frequently seen on threads on this forum. Edit - the contribution immediately above being a case in point! Patrick UKIP are simply saying that we need controlled immigration, wherever they comes from. Immigrants,legal or otherwise, into the EU can make their way to the UK, legally or not. Also free movement of people prevents the control of our poulation, and draw on resources.. Personally I believe that we are full and stretched as it is. Many others agree, and UKIP is the catalyst for the referendum, so as a relatively new party they have already set the agenda. I don't think that many people are now accusing UKIP of scaremongering.Turkey becoming a membr of the EU is a possibilty.The Turks want it, and no one is ruling it out. To point this out is not scaremongering, which seems to be the reason put forward when some people do not want to face the issues.Immigration has become the main issue across Europe for many people. Please open the Daily Mail thread,in my post above, and look at the fifth picture....what are the true figures, why are we not being told, particularly if increased immigration is a good thing? I wish that there were no problems in the world, no need for asylum/immigration, but we can't solve all the problems, Of course we should help, but as Ryan says, most people look after themselves first. We have plenty of problems in this country. It is where you draw the line about what is possible, reasonable ,realistic and a maker of conscience . If a member of your family is struggling ,you would not give your money away until you have helped them.Through taxes, this is what we ae doing. For me the main UKIP argument is about democracy though. Incidentally if you listen to Louise Bours talk about the Health Service,the policy on HS2 , other policies are not bad.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Mar 12, 2016 11:04:16 GMT
Asylum stats are readily available ( link) and they make for interesting reading. 26,000 applications in 2015 of which 17,000 were refused. So just 11,000 asylum seekers were taken in. Not very many IMO. More than half of all asylum seekers come from 5 countries; Eritrea, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, and Jordan. The following graph is also quite interesting showing the impact of border controls outside our national borders. What does this mean though? Well, it supports an "out" argument that being in the EU prejudices against deserving people from outside Europe in favour of economic migrants within Europe. Of course this subtlety gets lost in the overall immigration phobia promoted by the likes of UKIP and frequently seen on threads on this forum. Edit - the contribution immediately above being a case in point! Patrick UKIP are simply saying that we need controlled immigration, wherever they comes from. Immigrants,legal or otherwise, into the EU can make their way to the UK, legally or not. Also free movement of people prevents the control of our poulation, and draw on resources.. Personally I believe that we are full and stretched as it is. Many others agree, and UKIP is the catalyst for the referendum, so as a relatively new party they have already set the agenda. I don't think that many people are now accusing UKIP of scaremongering.Turkey becoming a membr of the EU is a possibilty.The Turks want it, and no one is ruling it out. To point this out is not scaremongering, which seems to be the reason put forward when some people do not want to face the issues.Immigration has become the main issue across Europe for many people. Please open the Daily Mail thread,in my post above, and look at the fifth picture....what are the true figures, why are we not being told, particularly if increased immigration is a good thing? For me the main UKIP argument is about democracy though. Incidentally if you listen to Louise Bours talk about the Health Service,the policy on HS2 , other policies are not bad. Sorry pal - I find UKIP simply appalling. They pander to the worst prejudices like those seen in the ranting above. That's not to say I'm not impressed by some arguments from the out camp. That Rees Mog (?) Tory fella was very convincing and articulate on AQ last Friday. Same goes on this board - there are excellent points being raised not just the bollocks our resident haters post (which I'm going to ignore).
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 12, 2016 11:13:55 GMT
Patrick UKIP are simply saying that we need controlled immigration, wherever they comes from. Immigrants,legal or otherwise, into the EU can make their way to the UK, legally or not. Also free movement of people prevents the control of our poulation, and draw on resources.. Personally I believe that we are full and stretched as it is. Many others agree, and UKIP is the catalyst for the referendum, so as a relatively new party they have already set the agenda. I don't think that many people are now accusing UKIP of scaremongering.Turkey becoming a membr of the EU is a possibilty.The Turks want it, and no one is ruling it out. To point this out is not scaremongering, which seems to be the reason put forward when some people do not want to face the issues.Immigration has become the main issue across Europe for many people. Please open the Daily Mail thread,in my post above, and look at the fifth picture....what are the true figures, why are we not being told, particularly if increased immigration is a good thing? For me the main UKIP argument is about democracy though. Incidentally if you listen to Louise Bours talk about the Health Service,the policy on HS2 , other policies are not bad. Sorry pal - I find UKIP simply appalling. They pander to the worst prejudices like those seen in the ranting above. That's not to say I'm not impressed by some arguments from the out camp. That Rees Mog (?) Tory fella was very convincing and articulate on AQ last Friday. Same goes on this board - there are excellent points being raised not just the bollocks our resident haters post (which I'm going to ignore). Patrick they are not pandering to anyone, that's why they are successful, they are just saying what they believe, and alot of reasonable people across Europe connect with some of their views. To lump everyone of the near 4 million who voted for them as "appalling", if that's what you mean ( I don't know if you are distinguishing between voters/members) seems a bit unlike your reasoned aproach.Many reasonable people believe in the same things as UKIP.
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Mar 12, 2016 11:20:44 GMT
We only get to see what our beloved establishment controlled media want us to see when it comes to refugees. If you look online you will see just how horrific some of the things they do are. Women and kids are one thing, but the majoruty dont fall into that catagory and they are the ones I dont want.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Mar 12, 2016 12:47:20 GMT
Sorry pal - I find UKIP simply appalling. They pander to the worst prejudices like those seen in the ranting above. That's not to say I'm not impressed by some arguments from the out camp. That Rees Mog (?) Tory fella was very convincing and articulate on AQ last Friday. Same goes on this board - there are excellent points being raised not just the bollocks our resident haters post (which I'm going to ignore). Patrick they are not pandering to anyone, that's why they are successful, they are just saying what they believe, and alot of reasonable people across Europe connect with some of their views. To lump everyone of the near 4 million who voted for them as "appalling", if that's what you mean ( I don't know if you are distinguishing between voters/members) seems a bit unlike your reasoned aproach.Many reasonable people believe in the same things as UKIP. It's the xenophobic emphasis UKIP takes I don't like. I suspect UKIP's single MP has similar views. It doesn't have to be that way. Another example - last week's QT had some highly articulate well argued "out" contributions from the audience. Light years away from some of the xenophobic showboating UKIP indulges in and we see on here from time to time (for examples Ryan4England's contribution above). Of course, many of these folks will find common cause with UKIP and that of course is fine and understandable. They are the only party with an unequivocal out position. I suspect, if there was an alternative "out" party, that didn't play the games Farage plays, it would do rather well. On that point - what do you make of R4E's comments. Fair or bollocks?
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Mar 12, 2016 12:59:49 GMT
Patrick they are not pandering to anyone, that's why they are successful, they are just saying what they believe, and alot of reasonable people across Europe connect with some of their views. To lump everyone of the near 4 million who voted for them as "appalling", if that's what you mean ( I don't know if you are distinguishing between voters/members) seems a bit unlike your reasoned aproach.Many reasonable people believe in the same things as UKIP. It's the xenophobic emphasis UKIP takes I don't like. I suspect UKIP's single MP has similar views. It doesn't have to be that way. Another example - last week's QT had some highly articulate well argued "out" contributions from the audience. Light years away from some of the xenophobic showboating UKIP indulges in and we see on here from time to time (for examples Ryan4England's contribution above). Of course, many of these folks will find common cause with UKIP and that of course is fine and understandable. They are the only party with an unequivocal out position. I suspect, if there was an alternative "out" party, that didn't play the games Farage plays, it would do rather well. On that point - what do you make of R4E's comments. Fair or bollocks? Their would have been had Corbyn stuck to his lifelong principles instead of getting tucked up.
|
|
|
Post by themistocles on Mar 12, 2016 13:22:41 GMT
Anyone else tired of the preaching of xenophobia every comment if people don't follow the same agenda as a certain wing party ?
"We want a controlled immigration system " left winger- " you xenophobic uneducated moron"
"We want out if the EU" LW- "you xenophobic uneducated Moron"
"British jobs for British people" LW- "you xenophobic uneducated moron"
"We don't support Jeremy Corbyn" LW - "you xenophobic uneducated moron"
"I'm not left wing" LW- "you xenophobic racist uneducated moron"
"But what about the other successful nations with point based immigration systems" LW - "you xenophobic uneducated moron"
"Keep trident" LW- "you xenophobic uneducated moron"
"I'm proud of the brave British soldiers who fight for the safety of this country" LW- those people of murderous scum you xenophobic uneducated moron"
" I'm a university student but haven't been brainwashed by akala and the likes " LW - but you're a student, you have to be an anarchist Liberal"
"I'm a university student who works hard, has a job, isn't of my tits everyday off some kind of narcotic and intends to pay back the loan I've been given"
LW - you xenophobic uneducated moron, viva LA revolution"
" explain why you've called me xenophobic and racist"
LW- errrrrrm fuck you everything is a conspiracy theory you Nazi fascist now where is the next Akala Union lecture"
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 12, 2016 13:42:30 GMT
Patrick they are not pandering to anyone, that's why they are successful, they are just saying what they believe, and alot of reasonable people across Europe connect with some of their views. To lump everyone of the near 4 million who voted for them as "appalling", if that's what you mean ( I don't know if you are distinguishing between voters/members) seems a bit unlike your reasoned aproach.Many reasonable people believe in the same things as UKIP. It's the xenophobic emphasis UKIP takes I don't like. I suspect UKIP's single MP has similar views. It doesn't have to be that way. Another example - last week's QT had some highly articulate well argued "out" contributions from the audience. Light years away from some of the xenophobic showboating UKIP indulges in and we see on here from time to time (for examples Ryan4England's contribution above). Of course, many of these folks will find common cause with UKIP and that of course is fine and understandable. They are the only party with an unequivocal out position. I suspect, if there was an alternative "out" party, that didn't play the games Farage plays, it would do rather well. On that point - what do you make of R4E's comments. Fair or bollocks? I am a member of UKIP, have met Farage, Wolfe,Bours, Nuttall and others. I have done alot of anti racist work, love Europe and Europeans, visited Mosques, not Xenophobic. I don't know if R4E is a member of UKIP or not, so whatever his views, they may not represent UKIP. But to try to answer your question ; Do you not think the point above is valid then? You say 11'000 isn't a lot but it only takes 2 or 3 to kill thousands of innocent brits.= It is not just 11000 asylum seekers, it's another 11000 amongst the roughly 5to 600,000 gross immigrants in the last 2 years ( not checked recently but I think the numbers have been going up for years, despite Cameron's promise), plus the potentially 1000's more in the future, so for me all immigration is significant. I guess that he is right that potential terrorists could be amongst them, I don't know, but I think it is a fair point Besides our goverment should start looking after number 1 first and foremost like the elderly & vulnerable British people before inviting sanctuary to others, charity starts at home. The nhs is at breaking point, waiting lists for medical reasons are criminal and we invite loads more in to put on further strain.= I agree with this, The NHS is at breaking point, our infrastructure of schools, housing, transport, policing etc is under strain. I would have thought that most people in the UK believe this...why add to the demand? We also send out billions in foreign aid every year, we like looking after everybody but our own.=I would definitely look at how we spend our foreign aid money. It does not seem right to me to give money away, not exactly sure where it is going, who is profiting, when we do have problems in this country such as mental health issues in young people, the loneliness of some of our elderly, the plight of the homeless etc.For example ask someone struggling financially, if they should give away some of their personal money, I don't think that they would. I am not saying that we should not help. Will there be a point at which you will think that Immigration should be better controlled? Or a point at which the UK is overcrowded (genuine question by the way) I don't really see how his points are bollocks, so I will go for fair. Within the UKIP context though the main issue is democracy Patrick, what did you think about the stats in the fifth picture in the Daily Mail
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Mar 12, 2016 14:58:39 GMT
Asylum stats are readily available ( link) and they make for interesting reading. 26,000 applications in 2015 of which 17,000 were refused. So just 11,000 asylum seekers were taken in. Not very many IMO. More than half of all asylum seekers come from 5 countries; Eritrea, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, and Jordan. The following graph is also quite interesting showing the impact of border controls outside our national borders. What does this mean though? Well, it supports an "out" argument that being in the EU prejudices against deserving people from outside Europe in favour of economic migrants within Europe. Of course this subtlety gets lost in the overall immigration phobia promoted by the likes of UKIP and frequently seen on threads on this forum. Edit - the contribution immediately above being a case in point! See that is where statistics can be misleading. Year ending June 2015? What year have you ever seen that ended in June? Of course, that looks a lot better than showing the uptick in the second half of 2015. According to the ONS 40,000 asylum applications came in during 2015, and 14,000 were granted.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Mar 12, 2016 16:05:04 GMT
It's the xenophobic emphasis UKIP takes I don't like. I suspect UKIP's single MP has similar views. It doesn't have to be that way. Another example - last week's QT had some highly articulate well argued "out" contributions from the audience. Light years away from some of the xenophobic showboating UKIP indulges in and we see on here from time to time (for examples Ryan4England's contribution above). Of course, many of these folks will find common cause with UKIP and that of course is fine and understandable. They are the only party with an unequivocal out position. I suspect, if there was an alternative "out" party, that didn't play the games Farage plays, it would do rather well. On that point - what do you make of R4E's comments. Fair or bollocks? I am a member of UKIP, have met Farage, Wolfe,Bours, Nuttall and others. I have done alot of anti racist work, love Europe and Europeans, visited Mosques, not Xenophobic. I don't know if R4E is a member of UKIP or not, so whatever his views, they may not represent UKIP. But to try to answer your question ; Do you not think the point above is valid then? You say 11'000 isn't a lot but it only takes 2 or 3 to kill thousands of innocent brits.= It is not just 11000 asylum seekers, it's another 11000 amongst the roughly 5to 600,000 gross immigrants in the last 2 years ( not checked recently but I think the numbers have been going up for years, despite Cameron's promise), plus the potentially 1000's more in the future, so for me all immigration is significant. I guess that he is right that potential terrorists could be amongst them, I don't know, but I think it is a fair point Besides our goverment should start looking after number 1 first and foremost like the elderly & vulnerable British people before inviting sanctuary to others, charity starts at home. The nhs is at breaking point, waiting lists for medical reasons are criminal and we invite loads more in to put on further strain.= I agree with this, The NHS is at breaking point, our infrastructure of schools, housing, transport, policing etc is under strain. I would have thought that most people in the UK believe this...why add to the demand? We also send out billions in foreign aid every year, we like looking after everybody but our own.=I would definitely look at how we spend our foreign aid money. It does not seem right to me to give money away, not exactly sure where it is going, who is profiting, when we do have problems in this country such as mental health issues in young people, the loneliness of some of our elderly, the plight of the homeless etc.For example ask someone struggling financially, if they should give away some of their personal money, I don't think that they would. I am not saying that we should not help. Will there be a point at which you will think that Immigration should be better controlled? Or a point at which the UK is overcrowded (genuine question by the way) I don't really see how his points are bollocks, so I will go for fair. Within the UKIP context though the main issue is democracy Patrick, what did you think about the stats in the fifth picture in the Daily Mail I'm surprised you thing there's anything credible in R4E's comments. You could extend the logic to, let's say, Americans and ban them coming here on the basis there are gun toting loons over there forever shooting places up. One of those fruit cakes could come to this country. As to the stats in that article, I know there are different opinions about how they should be used, but however they are cut it supports my original comment that a valid criticism of the current EU set up is it favours internal European economic migrants over non-European people's in search of help. In the same way that CAP serves to protect European farmers (particularly French ones) punishing European consumers and non- European producers particularly, and critically, depressing economic opportunities in the third world.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 12, 2016 17:09:48 GMT
Interesting. What's wrong with immigrants? Immigrants are fine. They come here legally. They're allowed to live and work here. Immigrants work, pay taxes, go to university, and learn to do stuff. Ironically unlike the average UKIP voter who (rather interestingly) has a tendency toward poor educational attainment - www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/laurence-stellings/ukip-poll-voters_b_6631026.htmlBut which random 7 million immigrants are you talking about, and from when, precisely? Are you talking about the Celts? The Romans? Coming over here...giving us roads and Latin and civilisation and stuff. The Vikings? Coming over here...giving us an entire Anglo-Saxon cultural reference. The Huguenots? The Welsh? fullfact.org/factcheck/immigration/how_many_migrants_come_to_europe_uk_one_million-48273You might mean illegal immigrants; refugees; asylum seekers; pig pokers. Who knows. Each to their own. I took the number from www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-population-country-birthI have no problems with immigrants either. None at all. It is the level of immigration over the last 10 years or so which has caused the problems - in terms of resources and culturally. We're a small densely populated country. We have limited resources. Immigration is running at around 600k/year (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34071492). Just what level of immigration would you start to be concerned about - if it's only a benefit as you insist? 1 million/year? 2 million/year? 5 million? 10? Just where do you draw the line? Can our hospitals take the extra requirements? Our schools? Our roads? Our housing? Our doctor surgeries? Our police?.... Yes the people arriving will help the resource situation, but there is a significant lag. Who covers that? We also need to ensure that we preserve our culture. Nobody else will. Yes our culture will evolve as it's influenced by other cultures, but we run the risk that there will be large parts of Britain who have little of no appreciation of the British culture. One of the reasons the OECD are so keen on this is the same reason the Tories are. A large desperate work force ensure wages are kept down. Flood the job market with people who are willing to work for next to nothing and employers will take advantage of it. I know the left don't seem to give a shit about the workers now, but surely you can see the negative affect of the level of immigration in recent years? I think that UKC puts the situation very well
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2016 19:02:44 GMT
Has anyone seen the series Utopia? I know this is the sort of view that will induce a horrified reaction from a lot of people, even other people on the right-wing, but I genuinely believe we need a global, non-discriminatory random sterilisation program. How you would achieve that I don't know but the world is at breaking point and it's clear there's too many people on this planet. I think I read that global population increases by 1/4 of a million people each day.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2016 19:07:56 GMT
Has anyone seen the series Utopia? I know this is the sort of view that will induce a horrified reaction from a lot of people, even other people on the right-wing, but I genuinely believe we need a global, non-discriminatory random sterilisation program. How you would achieve that I don't know but the world is at breaking point and it's clear there's too many people on this planet. I think I read that global population increases by 1/4 of a million people each day. I don't know how it could be achieved either but a good starting point would be you.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Mar 12, 2016 19:41:42 GMT
Has anyone seen the series Utopia? I know this is the sort of view that will induce a horrified reaction from a lot of people, even other people on the right-wing, but I genuinely believe we need a global, non-discriminatory random sterilisation program. How you would achieve that I don't know but the world is at breaking point and it's clear there's too many people on this planet. I think I read that global population increases by 1/4 of a million people each day. I don't know how it could be achieved either but a good starting point would be you. All those advocating population reduction should start with themselves and it may begin to solve the problem they talk of...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2016 20:05:33 GMT
All those advocating population reduction should start with themselves and it may begin to solve the problem they talk of... I don't know how it could be achieved either but a good starting point would be you. But then it's not non-discriminatory is it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2016 21:38:59 GMT
All those advocating population reduction should start with themselves and it may begin to solve the problem they talk of... I don't know how it could be achieved either but a good starting point would be you. But then it's not non-discriminatory is it. Isn't 'cuntism' allowed then? Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 13, 2016 20:38:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 13, 2016 21:03:50 GMT
Which other countries employ translators in schools, police stations and hospitals? Genuine question, just wondering how many others are as accommodating Schools forced to hire Polish teaching assistants at £65 a day dailym.ai/22bD5nY
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Mar 14, 2016 0:12:13 GMT
Which other countries employ translators in schools, police stations and hospitals? Genuine question, just wondering how many others are as accommodating Schools forced to hire Polish teaching assistants at £65 a day dailym.ai/22bD5nY Slightly off at a tangent... There was a news article on the BBC last week about Cameron's policy to provide extra funding to teach Muslim women English. The reporter was interviewing some Muslim women about the idea - the first lady responded (in Urdu) by saying that as Britain had invaded half the world and not bothered to learn the local languages then why should she? At this point my Mrs, who's a Guardian reading Labour party member, just shouted "fuck off". If you go and live in a country your learn the language. You should do at your own expense (unless you are a genuine refugee). You should do not because a government demands it, but because it's the right thing to do, and it shows respect to your hosts - as you are a guest.
|
|