Viewing Thread:
"What do you think?"

I was reading in New Statesman Magazine... The recon that nearly 1/3 of the White British Population in the next General Election will vote either BNP or UKIP, as they believe that New Labour have given very little to the British People... instead more money goes to imigrants. Even today those 4 terrorists are being allowed back into the UK.. SCREW THAT... should have left them at Cuba. I'm not a facist, but I can see their point about controlling imigration, you have not got the slightest clue who the hell the people are coming in; they might bomb a school (like what happened in Russia), or commit acts of evil things against the British citizens.

kevstar wrote:
> Still want to discuss ignorance kevstar? Or is this another of the
> many points raised you'll run away crying from?
>

So...it was something you wanted to run squealing from then? Figures...

>
> Yes it does quote...In terms of economic activity, migrants are less
> likely to be employed (see Figure 3). This is explained, in part,
> by relatively high inactivity rates amongst female migrants and the
> high proportion of international students.

~sigh~ And, as I answered when you last raised this rather tired point, students aren't going to provide any immediate economic benefit. I also asked you whether you wanted to ban international students as well. But, as per usual, you ignored the point as it challenged your prejudice and may have forced you to (horror of horrors) think.

I also asked you whether you had considered that the husbands of the female migrants might be the breadwinner. And again, you tried to ignore the point in favour of saying "But...but darkies are bad".

So, for those reasons, I've stated that you've misunderstood and misrepresented the graph that you mention. Furthermore, you're ignoring the conclusion of the report that states that we get a measurable and quantifiable benefit from migrants, as well as raising the possibility of benefits garnered from those not giving a direct net profit to the economy. Do you understand kevstar? Did you actually read that?

Tell me, would you therefore say that honest, british born students and housewives should be deported for not providing any economic benefits? Are you saying that students and housewives are less active than workers, and therefore less valuable? Because that's what you seem to be suggesting. And that's rather ironic, coming from the man on sick leave from work and currently contributing precisely nothing to the economy, don't you think?



>

>
> according to you yeah, but to millions of other people like me, it
> just doesn't wash down.

According to me and everyone else who's posted in reply to you..

I know. And d'you know why, when there is no evidence to support your view, that it doesn't wash down? Because you're a bigot who doesn't want it to be true. You desperately want to believe that foreigners are responsible for all your ills.

I repeat; when you keep saying "Just because there is no evidence, doesn't mean I'm not right." You keep talking about "indicators" that immigrants are bad for the country. But you give no evidence for them. And when someone gives you an alternate explanation for a particular indicator, how do you respond? You say "Rubbish" and leave it at that. It's quite plain that you're a racist who doesn't want to think about it. And I realise I'm not going to change your view. However, I AM making you confront the ugly truth of your opinions. Which makes every part of this little debate worthwhile.


> Wrong again, your just clinging onto your idea that i'm racist when
> i've never said one bad thing regarding black people or any other
> race for that matter.


No, but as I keep telling you, when you dismiss any arguments in favour of immigration without even bothering to say why you're dismissing them, it becomes fairly clear what a bigot you are.

I mean, you're determined that you're not racist because "I've never said I hate black people" and "My landlord is jewist and my sisters boyfriend is black" (like that proves anything; my landlord was a tosspot at uni, and my sister in law is a corpulent satan). But here's the thing; burglars don't wear striped jumpers and burglar masks to identify themselves to the public. Paedophiles don't say in casual conversation "Mm, I do love being balls-deep in a 6 year old boy...". And racists rarely say "I tell you what I can't stand; foreigners and darkies." in public. One has to be able to tell these things from the way a person acts and reacts during a debate about race or immigration. And you, my dear boy, fall squarely into the "I hate foreigners and think they're all nasty" category.


>
> No, because although you have given me evidence to support that
> immigration is good on the whole (again something which I agreed with
> from the start). I still think that the system was still open to
> abuse, thats what I had a problem with, the fact that the people
> abusing our system is damaging our services and making overcrowding
> worse that it should be.

And yet, all these "indicators" you talk about that show the system is being abused...there are alternate possibilities for them, aren't there? And what do you say when confronted with them? You say "no, it's not that. It's the immigrants' fault." How come you're so unwilling to look at the main causes of the problems with services? How come you're determined that there is an overcrowding problem, even though there is no such thing?

Oh, and you're backpeddling again; you didn't agree one bit with immigration being a good thing. Up to and including the last post you made, you were trying to cast doubt on whether we even get any economic benefits from immigration.


>
> The thing I keep saying, our services. our hospitals, our housing and
> our schools. Listen you goofball, if we had the capacity in our
> services to deal with theese people I would not have a problem. But
> we don't, how are you meant to make improvements to our services if
> they don't know how manys coming in to cater for? Could you answer me
> that one please, cos it seems impossible to me.


Yes, I can. We do something called "Forecast how many people the system will need to deal with". It's something that is done in business all the time. For example, I'm sure (well...I hope) you've heard of "Cashflow Forecasting"? Well, the same thing is done for number of Employees, throughput of customers, etc etc. So exactly the same thing can be done for population and immigration. What, you think that just because you personally can't see how one can calculate future usage of services, it's impossible to do so? Wow...that's mightily egocentric of you.

Tell me; what exactly IS our current service capacity for the NHS? You're saying we don't have the capacity, so you must know roughly how many hospital beds are available.
How many school places do we have? Again, you're saying you know we're overstretched. So what is the current capacity?

Assuming that our services are overstretched (and I believe they are), why are you looking to blame immigrants as the major cause, and not bothering to address the lack of investment in it by government over the years?

And finally, back to my old favourite which you STILL run crying from rather than answer; how exactly do you propose we generate the money for extra investment when our workforce is aging and reducing, and will fall further still without immigration?


>
> Quote....There is also a high proportion of migrants whose
> qualifications are recorded simply as ‘other’, highlighting the
> problems associated with the recognition of
> foreign qualifications which can limit the employment opportunities
> for those affected.

So that is, in fact, their qualifications. NOT their capacity or willingness to work? Nothing, in fact, to do with what their planned employment is? And it's saying "...it CAN limit..." not "it DOES limit", isn't it?

What a surprise; kevstar once again misrepresents his precious graph. You do realise, don't you, that you're repeating the same 2 or 3 sentences from that report each time, and getting more and more desperate to avoid addressing the simple fact that the report is broadly in favour of immigration?


> The legal channels are of course broad enough to allow anyone with
> the necessary criteria for employment to enter. You've been saying
> all along that that is all you want,
>
> But not when it's open to abuse.

And how, exactly, is it open to abuse? And more to the point, how would you stop the abuse? How would, for example, an arbitary limit stop abuse of the system? All it would do would be to let the relevant quota in. There's no guarantee it would stop false claimants, is it? And if it is open to abuse, how would you stop this abuse? Bear in mind that every suggestion you've already made to stop abuse is, in fact, already in place...

You're also ignoring one other fact; it's open to abuse by the Immigration Officers themselves. Would you care to discuss how many immigrants are refused entry simply because the officer is having a bad day? Or are you delighted that more troublesome brown people are being turned away.





> What about the people waiting for a claim and just dissapear into the
> Country without trace.

Got any figures at all for how many people do that? Or is this another fact you've gleaned from The Sun?

Care to talk about how many of the people falling into the category you mention are put into, essentially, slave labour (and lest you think I'm exagerrating, check out the Ukranian businessman who was jailed last week for getting immigrants through and then indenturing them into slave service)? Or are you too busy nurturing a fantasy that they're all sitting in a council home, laughing at British gullibility? And how would a quota actually stop this happening?



> Not, really. Sure they are some things I don't accept like letting
> people in without the risk of damaging our services.

If that's the case, why do you only ever quote 2 or 3 sentences and try and ignore the reports conclusions?

I've addressed this point about "damage to our services" so many times that it's laughable. It is, however, clear evidence of your racism; rather than actually address the other reasons for rubbish services, you simply ignore them and continue to repeat "Nurrrgh...darkies are destroying them. I have no evidence for it, but it's TRUE!"


> Well there going to do fingerprinting, ID cards and orders to
> airlines to check people coming into the country. Swift removal of
> those not entitled to be in this country was central to the
> credibility of the whole system. A faster process for applications,
> detaining more people, using electronic tags on others, and taking
> special measures against people who destroy passport documents.To
> continue to welcome genuine refugees, supporting the 1951 Geneva
> Convention.But we will also use ID cards to provide a simple and
> secure way of verifying identity, helping them to tackle illegal
> working, organised crime, terrorist activity, identity theft and
> fraudulent access to public services.

I see. And all the money it's going to cost to do this; you don't mind the fact that our services won't be getting invested in in order to do all this? Funny; you're everso keen to stop any money being given to brown folk, but you're absolutely delighted to see money being spent to keep them out. But of course, that doesn't mean you're a racist, does it?

The ID card debate is for another thread, but it may surprise you that ID cards aren't good at stopping crime. Know why? Cos criminals...don't obey the law! Amazing how you missed that. And amazing how you're suddenly willing to trust what the government say when you've spent months criticising them over Iraq, isn't it?

>
> Crack down hard on organised immigration crime which targets the most
> vulnerable, the poorest and the young. There will be a new drive to
> prevent illegal entry, to crack down on illegal working and a tough
> policy of removals for those who should not be here. There will be
> on-the-spot fines for employers who collude with illegal immigration.
> They will fingerprint visitors who need visas and those planning
> longer stays before they arrive. They will use there powers to demand
> financial bonds from migrants in specific categories where there has
> been evidence of abuse, to guarantee their return home. And over
> time, they will move towards the point where it becomes the norm that
> those who fail can be detained, and removals become easier.


Jesus...did you just cut and paste this again?

I didn't ask you "What are the new measures"? If I wanted that, I would have read the site you cut and pasted this all from. I asked you "What impact will the new measures have". I should also have asked "What is your evidence that it will have this impact?".

I'm asking all this because I don't actually think you understand the possible impacts. I think you're a racist who will say absolutely anything to justify keeping immigrants out.


> And also, if the figures don't change, or if the net profit from
> economic immigration goes down, presumably you'll admit you're 100%
> wrong?
>
> Yes I would be wrong.

My God; a first admission of possible fallacy? Excellent...

Now that you've accepted that, don't you also accept that the net profit from immigrants will probably go down if we're spending more money on White-Elephant immigration crackdowns?


>
> No, the reason i'm dismissing it is because I dont think it makes
> sense to allow anyone who wants to come in who fits the criteria
> without having the services to cope.

And yet, the report gives numerous reasons for it's conclusion that immigration benefits our country. And takes account of the reasons how immigration doesn't benefit. Your precious "they will destroy our services" argument isn't anywhere to be seen in there, is it? In fact, it makes a point of dismissing that argument as "a myth", doesn't it?

Getting a better picture of why I see you as a bigot yet?

>
> I made it a issue yes, to show how there (not all) coming here
> bringing there familys in, and as the link states how a number of
> theese people although some are working, the rest of the family does
> not. Now this will again be a burden on our services.

And again, I'll say to you that the The point I made was that every criticism you make of immigrants can be applied to chavs. To you, your chav family, and your chav friends. So why aren't you demanding a clampdown on chav birthrates? Or are you on the cusp of suggesting mandatory sterilisation, and perhaps eugenic study of them? It would fit in with the rest of your views...


>
> Yeah, insults I can take, but not when there directed to my family,
> your just a bigheaded prat, you have this thing in your head that I
> hate immigrants, well I don't, notice how many names you called me. I
> think it's you with the problem.

Yes, I did notice how many names I called you. Don't get all upset because they're funnier and more upsetting to you than the names you've called me (goofball? Dear oh dear...do people really say that?).

The reason I directed insults to your family was to give you a little lesson; it's hurtful, and almost always incorrect, to make assumptions about someone's entire family based on one person and very little evidence. Yet you're happy to assume an immigrants extended family are brought in to sponge off the state. And you do so based on...very little (or no) evidence. So d'you see why I take such issue with what you're saying?

Oh, and I'm bigheaded because, well, I'm better than you. In every conceivable way. Sorry, but don't blame me for actually knowing about the subject we're debating.


>
> Yeahh, cos I never said I did like chavs, personally I do think they
> do more damage than immigrants, they should be kept of street
> corners, they should think about who's area there wrecking before
> they smash a phone box or bus stop up so yeah, I don't dislike them
> all though. Why, cos you see light, just like any race or society,
> you get the good ones and the bad ones. Most chavs do eventually grow
> out of what they do, the problem is, they leave there influentual
> vandal skills to the next generation.

That has to rate as one of the most confused, and rather pitiful, attempts at sarcasm I've ever read. What's more, it gives me yet another opportunity to expose your wrongheaded bigotry...

How come you're so willing to forgive the damage done to society by chavs ("aw, they all grow up and that's fine", Which it is to be fair), yet you're adamant that any immigrant who isn't working at all times is a burdon on society and should be deported?


>
> it's actually called AVM which means there is a problem with the
> vessles in my brain, it cost £15,000 to have the operation but
> takes over a year (because it's radio surgery)for it to sort out, so
> yeah, I may just have that inability to get out of bed.

Again, this is another example of how easy it is to make a blanket statement about something based on no evidence. I'm sorry to hear about your health issues, and I hope you recover. But wasn't it rather hurtful to have someone who has no knowledge of what you're going through dismiss you as a sponger? So how come you seem to feel you're justified in trying to dismiss immigrants when you have, by your own admission, no factual evidence at all?


>
> No, i'm saying we should stop the people who abuse the system thats
> all.

Even when the report you linked to says that it's a myth that immigrants are the cause of most benefit fraud?

Well, I'M saying that you're spending most of your time fretting about a small minority of the system being abused. Less than 10% of claimants are immigrants. Unless all 10% are on the fiddle, that means that the VAST majority of benefit fraud is carried out by British people, doesn't it?


> Deport to where exactly

A question that I could ask you about your desire to deport asylum seekers who face torture or death in their home country you selfish little goitre.


> No, because i've payed my taxes whilst at work, and plan to do the
> same once better. I'm talking about people who stay on theese type of
> benefits.

But you're not at work now. So you're draining our services, aren't you?

So why are you only talking about the immigrants who stay on benefits? Why are you talking about a minority when you could be talking about the majority of fraudsters? You're very forgiving of anyone else, just not foreigners. Where is YOUR EVIDENCE for immigrants committing large scale benefit fraud? And do you actually understand what "Myth" means? (clue: It's not just a computer game...).


>
>
> Rubbish you called me racist practically from the first post
> onwards.


Nope; and if you look back through the thread, you'll see that's not the case. Mind you, I'm expecting a lot of you; you always ignore anything that you don't like, so you'll doubtless continue to say "I have no evidence he called me a racist from the first post, and in fact all of the evidence proves he didn't. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong..."

>
> Do you know that for a fact do you? And if so, despite your crappy
> explination which I don't accept, it doesn't mean we should let
> anyone who's entitled to if (as you say) it's going to put more
> strain to the point of collapse.

Well, yes I do know it for a fact. I provided a link quite some time ago in this thread that explained the lack of investment in public services and the negative effect. So, you see, it's not just MY crappy explanation. It's the crappy explanation of the Home Office. And seeing as you're willing to accept what Charles Clarke said, I'd presume you're willing to accept another home office report?

Why, kevstar; are you telling me that...that you didn't bother to read the article that I gave you the link for? Because if you are, that would tend to suggest that, well, you're a racist who didn't want to read anything that challenges your bigoted views. Would you like me to post the link for you again, or do you prefer to maintain your baseless xenophobia?


> But I havn't had the reason to still allow more people in on theese
> poor services.

What, you mean apart from the billions of times i've said "we need immigrants to replace our aging and reducing workforce, because without them being replaced we won't have sufficient money to invest in public services, and the services will decay further still"? Apart from that reason you mean?


> I'm not saying it's there fault at all, if anything it's the
> goverments fault.

So...you're saying the government are at fault for letting in immigrants, but they're not at fault for not investing in public services? Yeah, you're CLEARLY not a racist...


> No i'm talking about the 1 in 5 failed asylum seekers getting
> deported back.

Mm, the system does need speeding up. However, if they're being deported back to torture or death, what do you suggest then?

And also, asylum seekers are quite different from economic migrants, aren't they?


> well the massive backlog of Asylum applications at a cost of nearly
> £2billion last year, the fact that I dont accept your reasons
> on the NHS to make it better. And the fact letting more people in
> won't solve the housing crisis.

And that cost of 2 billion; where are those figures from please? Are they included in the net profit of 3 billion we made from economic immigrants?

You've said you don't accept the reasons for the NHS or housing crisis. But you've not told me why. I can only assume you don't accept them because you want it to be the darkies fault.


> No it was Mr Clarke who gave theese figure whilst talking on
> breakfast with Frost.

Ahh, Mr Clarke. Tell me, do you still think that the government lied about the Iraq war? And if so why are you so willing to unquestioningly trust the government now?

>
> No, it's because the reasons I give are rejected by you and vice
> versa.

Thing is, I give reasons and facts as to why I reject your reasons. I also give evidence and facts to back up my reasons. You admit you don't actually know about the immigration system. Whereas I do. So d'you see why I think you're a lying little bigot?

And in any case, just how is what you say an answer to "Why mustn't it be working"?


> So your again saying they don't, look at the graph again and it shows
> how many people are on whatever benefits...


...and look at the part of the report where it mentions the MYTH of immigrants coming here to sponge off benefits. Really, do you understand what a myth is?


>
> Uk born have more employed people than migrants.
> Theres more migrants self employed than us which shows this is where
> immigrants contribute most. And then, the inactive part, more
> migrants are inactive than the UK born.
>
> The benefits...More migrants on child benefits than UK born.
> More migrants on Unemployment benefit than UK born.
> More immigrants on income support than UK born.
> There is more UK born on sickness benefits than migrants though.
>
>
> And you wonder why I worry, so for you have dismissed theese claims
> every time there mentioned, you ask where they are? Well it's in the
> link I provided in key questions parts 14 and 15 out of 44.


Dear oh dear...you've gone for out and out lying again I see.

Tell me, when migrants make up less than 10% of the benefit claimant system, how can there possibly be more of them on benefits than there are UK born people?

Could it...could it be that you've misunderstood yet another part of the report? My...I do believe it could.

> Yes it does you just havn't looked.

'fraid I have. And it states explicitly that it includes students and housewives in those figures. Shame you don't seem to understand the meaning of that.

>
> If proven Asylum seekers come then fine, we need to respect theese
> people and help get there lives on track cos thats what there here
> for.

Okay; how will a quota help them prove they're genuine?

> So you admit some do, so your admitting it does happen, then why may
> I ask do you think it's just a simple few? If it is happening a few
> or not, it's still a flaw isn't it light? And if theres a flaw in the
> system then it should be adressed, correct. Thank you.

Jesus, did you actually think I was saying that all immigrants are pictures of morality? Christ, just because someone is a different race, doesn't stop 'em from being a &*^t.

Anyway, why do I think it's just a simple few? Well, because there is no evidence to say otherwise. If we have figures to demonstrate that's not the case, I'll be appalled.

Yet you're adamant that there are lots of them, and you're basing it on...the same lack of facts. You have no figures to prove it, do you? Which rather makes you a bigot, no?

Oh, and I notice you're quick to jump triumphantly and say "Aha! You admit there is a flaw in the system! Darkies MUST be bad news!", yet you're much more willing to say that chavs are alright cos they move on and grow up...you're not willing to address the more major flaws, are you? Why is that kevstar?


> So your saying theres no reason at all to be worried?

~sigh~ No. I'm saying, as I've said from the start, that there needs to be an honest debate about it. A debate where one side doesn't say "Well, I don't accept these facts because I don't like them." A debate where one side doesn't bother to read or understand what the situation actually is. A debate that doesn't involve bigots like you in other words.


> That may be because I havn't got my head stuck up my backside, is it.
> it's called a concern.

Thing is, I've found an awful lot of facts and evidence nestling up there in my backside haven't I? Whereas you don't seem to have found much in the way of evidence. You just keeping repeating "I'm concerned". So I suppose we could say that, with you self-confessed lack of knowledge on the subject, you're the ill-informed one, aren't you? Are you sure you brain condition isn't affecting your thinking?

> Absolute rubbish, I dont accept the evidence because the evidence is
> based on flaws, missing information.

Whereas of course both of the sentences you keep referring to in the report are based on 100% accurate information and full figures, aren't they?

Oh no, hang on; you said that you only had "indicators" to back up your opinion, didn't you? Indicators based on flaws, and missing information...



> And the rest of the opinion polls.


...the opinion polls published in Newspapers that say "Immigrants are bad". Tell me, do those polls ask the people what they know about immigration?

Jesus, if you took a poll in 1942 Germany it would have said that Jews should be exterminated. Are you saying that that view is correct? Actually, you probably are...

> You do talk rubbish don't you.

I wasn't aware that "Facts" were classified as "rubbish" in your world...


> And whats there to debate about, cos everything thats been done
> regarding immigration has already been done without debate, so
> according to you logic that makes the current system a joke cos it's
> never been debated yet.

Ah, so now you're saying we shouldn't actually bother to try and find out whether there is any problem? You're saying that we should just accept your ill-conceived opinions and keep the darkies out?

This is why I say you're a racist; you're not interested in finding out if there actually is a problem. You only care about keeping out horrid brown people.

Oh, and to answer your question; every aspect of our culture and laws should be debated periodically to ensure they're working. Mostly, that debate takes place in Parliament. I was talking about a more public debate. Where mongbots like you can have the information fed to you on a spoon, rather than having to read long words in the Hansard reports. You cretin.


> Again this is your mind at work here, when have I ever regarded
> immigrants as evil. all you've done is repeatably called immigrants
> names yourself, You appologised before yet still do it, I think if
> anyones a racist it's you.

Once more;

Look up
1. Irony
2. Sarcasm.

And note that I'm taking the proverbial out of your attitude to immigrants.
When everyone else in this thread is calling you bigoted and racist, and no-one is accusing me of it except you, don't you think that perhaps that may be for a reason?

>
> No, because it's not solving the problem of overcrowding.

The non-existant problem of overcrowding that you've yet to provide a shred of evidence for?

> Or you with the ammount of illegal immigrants. Theese people coming
> in will only stretch our services simple as that, theres more people
> coming in that going out fact.

The thing about illegal immigrants is, they're illegal. So they don't come through the immigration channels. They pay no attention to quota's. They just come in. Only better policing will stop that. Care to explain how we'll afford the extra policing with a reducing and aging workforce that contributes less and less to the economy with economic immigrants to replace them?

And whereabouts do you get your figures for more coming in than going out please?


>
> Hows that, what i'm sayiong is I believe that we need to improove our
> services first in order to allow immigration to work properly, if
> that means more borrowing so be it.

I see. And presumably you know exactly what an increased rate of borrowing does to the rate of inflation, to the economy, and to the investment in public services? I'll give you a clue; it increases the one you don't want to increase, and reduces the 2 that you don't want decreasing.

Jesus, talking about economics with you is like discussing Satre with a bowl of fruit.


> Well, they can't, and shouldn't if he's sponging, however if there
> was more houses, it would bring the prices down. All they would need
> to do then is get a job. And the majority of 1st gen immigrants
> worked there way into the housing market cos houses were a lot
> cheaper then you see.#


Ahh, I see; so it's not the fault of the immigrants coming in now. It's all those nasty foreigners who came in earlier? Right...of course. I knew it had to be the fault of foreigners somehow. I mean, there's absolutely no way that the housing crisis could be ANYTHING to do with the shortsightedness of the housing market, could there? No, it has to be the immigrants' fault...




>
> I can't see it working, why, well for every doctor who comes in, how
> many other immigrants will come in on top of that one doctor. Which
> means the waiting lists won't really be reduced at all will they. So
> your logic we have more doctors, but along with them we also have the
> other immigrants, do you know what that will mean, we have to build
> more hospitals and surgeries and everything else that comes with it.
> This is why I don't agree with your so called logic.

Well, no because (and read this carefully dear boy) we don't have a system which says "for every 500 immigrants, make sure one of them is a doctor". We simply let in anyone who can contribute. And if we're making it more enticing for a doctor to move here, then we'll get more doctors on average. Do you see?

What you're also doing there is assuming that all the immigrants who come in will go straight on the waiting list. Which is, basically, because you're a bigot who will go to extreme lengths to think the worst of immigrants.

Perhaps expecting you to understand logic was a step too far for your simple little mind...



>
>
> Well they will, how won't they? Unless according to you every
> immigrant will be good and not do anything whatso ever bad, and you
> say I live in a fantasy world.

Mwahahahahahahaaaaa! So, despite the fact that immigrants will take up a tiny percentage of our prison population compared to british people, and despite the fact that we deport immigrants convicted of crimes (or didn't you know that), you're saying they'll cause overcrowding in prisons?

And you STILL wonder why I call you a racist?


Incidentally, when you decide you're going to ignore a point, or not answer it cos you're too frightened to have to think about it, or just because you're far too stupid to even know the answer, could you just cut it from your post? Because otherwise, you leave long tracts of stuff in there that you haven't answered. And it makes you look stupid, and the post too long. Cheers sweetheart.

ShutupshutupshutupShutupshutupshutupShutupshutupshutup
ShutupshutupshutupShutupshutupshutupShutupshutupshutup
ShutupshutupshutupShutupshutupshutupShutupshutupshutup
ShutupshutupshutupShutupshutupshutupShutupshutupshutup

Wow, that was, like, the longest post ever. I wonder what it was about...

Why don't you two exchange phone numbers, it would be much quicker than all that typing!
;)

Still want to discuss ignorance kevstar? Or is this another of the
> many points raised you'll run away crying from?
>
>
> And the report that you
> linked to proved that they did. Your lack of respect was shown when
> you said that "immigrants are less active than us",
>
> Which it states in the link I provided you with, look in the graph
> and it tells you, that is not lack of respect.
>
> No, it says no such thing. Anywhere. At all. Because you see, unlike
> you, I've read the report contained in that link. And what it says
> is...well, I've already posted the conclusion. So you know fine well
> it says no such thing.

Yes it does quote...In terms of economic activity, migrants are less likely to be employed (see Figure 3). This is explained, in part,
by relatively high inactivity rates amongst female migrants and the high proportion of international students.


And the graph I was reffering to in the figure 3.
>
> Wow; outright lies on your part now. And you STILL say you're not
> racist?
>
>
> I didn't say that, I said that some of them are (or thats what I
> meant), and the plans out today confirms this suspicion.
>
> No; the plans announced by Charles Clarke pander to exactly the same
> ignorant headwrong that you're trying to force people to accept as
> unvarnished truth. Notice how he didn't give any figures to back him
> up? Cos, funnily, no such figures exist. Know why? Cos it's a myth.


according to you yeah, but to millions of other people like me, it just doesn't wash down.
>
>
> Do you remember that kevstar? Because you keep
> repeating that point even though it's been discredited, don't you?
>
>
> The reason I'm calling you such a rancid little bigot is because
> you've had facts and figures displayed to you that show that your
> opinion is based on erroneous assumptions. And you are reacting
> by....repeating the erroneous assumptions; clinging to them like a
> lifejacket.
>
> No answer to this kevstar? Funny that; almost like you don't want to
> admit that you realise you're basing everything you say on half truth
> and lies.

Wrong again, your just clinging onto your idea that i'm racist when i've never said one bad thing regarding black people or any other race for that matter.
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't mind any race, you just think I do. As it happens my
> landlord
> is Jewish and we get on fine, my sisters boyfriend is black and I
> don't have any problems with him.
>
> Yeah, most ignorant bigots like you tend to trot out the "some
> of my best friends are...." in response to having their bigotry
> pointed out.

Well, it's true, and I don't need your opinion to say say if i'm a racist or not.
>
> I think you have a problem with foreigners of any colour kevstar.
> You're quite typically english in that regard. And I think you have
> that problem because you're being reduced to making statements along
> the lines of "Just because there is no evidence of this, and
> just because I have no personal experience of this happening, and
> just because all the available facts show that I'm completely
> incorrect, that doesn't mean I'm wrong" in order to justify why
> you want to put a limit on immigration. Surely you can see why I
> would think that?


No, because although you have given me evidence to support that immigration is good on the whole (again something which I agreed with from the start). I still think that the system was still open to abuse, thats what I had a problem with, the fact that the people abusing our system is damaging our services and making overcrowding worse that it should be.

>
>
> What mess are we in exactly? You keep saying that we're in a mess;
> so
> what is it? Explain it to me, and give me some examples and
> evidence.

The thing I keep saying, our services. our hospitals, our housing and our schools. Listen you goofball, if we had the capacity in our services to deal with theese people I would not have a problem. But we don't, how are you meant to make improvements to our services if they don't know how manys coming in to cater for? Could you answer me that one please, cos it seems impossible to me.

>

>
>
>
> Give me some evidence that this is what actually happens. Because it
> sounds like something your dad told you, and you accepted.



>
>
> It's in the link I provided, no graph, but it's in writing somewhere
> in there.
>
> Is it really kevstar? Because I've read that thing. And d'you know
> what? It says no such thing. So unless you're going to give me some
> evidence, I'm going to point at you, call you a lying little toad,
> and then laugh at you for being trapped in such a fearful, ignorant
> little world.

Quote....There is also a high proportion of migrants whose
qualifications are recorded simply as ‘other’, highlighting the problems associated with the recognition of
foreign qualifications which can limit the employment opportunities for those affected.



> Well if the legal channels were broad enough to allow anyone with
> the
> criteria to enter, who wished to, it would effectively be an open
> door. Or wouldn't it, and how not.
>
> Ahh, you're learning then; nice to see someone basically using my
> own
> particular style of argument against me. Makes a change from you
> cutting and pasting an argument from the BNP website I suppose.
> Unfortunately for you, I actually know what I'm talking about...
>
> The legal channels are of course broad enough to allow anyone with
> the necessary criteria for employment to enter. You've been saying
> all along that that is all you want,

But not when it's open to abuse.

and you just want to keep out
> those evil darkies who want to steal your benefits (incidentally,
> are
> you on benefits?). It wouldn't be an open door, because the
> immigrant
> would have to provide proof of ability to work,
>
> Again by putting other on the application form as a job skill. This
> is a flaw in the system if ever I saw one.
>
> Wow, you're just desperate to cling to that one aren't you? Tell me;
> do you actually believe that immigration officers see the box ticked
> "Other" and then say "well, that's all the proof I
> need; c'mon in! The benefit office is 3rd on the left!".
>
> You do understand that people have to expand on that, don't you? I
> mean, you do know that people are interviewed to get into the
> country, right? Whats that...? You didn't know? What, was your whole
> plan going to be "Remove the 'Other' option from the
> form"?


>
> I repeat; give me some evidence about this kevstar. Because, so far,
> I think you're lying.
>
>
> or actual employment.
> And even then, immigration officers can reject someone if they don't
> believe the immigrants story. So you see, it's not an open door. Do
> you understand kevstar? Am I getting through to that
> "Nyyurrrghhh....NO DARKIES!" brain of yours?


What about the people waiting for a claim and just dissapear into the Country without trace.
>
> Apparently, no; I'm not getting through your retarded and bigoted
> skull.
>
>
>
>
> Numbnutted? thats a first, the fact is, it could be more. I'm just
> very interested to see what contribution they will make once theese
> new laws come into play.
>
> Ah, marvellous; boasts of virility to a stranger on the internet.
> Always the sign of a balanced mind...
>
> So in this post, you're using the report to justify some of the
> things you're saying. But in this same post, you're saying that
> anything the report says that you disagree with (which is most of it)
> is probably not true? Is that right?

Not, really. Sure they are some things I don't accept like letting people in without the risk of damaging our services.
>
> The fact is, you're basing your argument on what you read in the
> Daily Mail. There could be more? Yeah, and Elvis could be
> living in Aldershot. Kilroy might be interested in racial harmony.
> Neither of these things have much evidence to support them. And
> neither does what you're saying.
>
> What contribution "they" will make after the new laws? Why
> don't you explain to me what the new laws are kevstar. Because, and
> I'll be honest here, I don't think you know.

Well there going to do fingerprinting, ID cards and orders to airlines to check people coming into the country. Swift removal of those not entitled to be in this country was central to the credibility of the whole system. A faster process for applications, detaining more people, using electronic tags on others, and taking special measures against people who destroy passport documents.To continue to welcome genuine refugees, supporting the 1951 Geneva Convention.But we will also use ID cards to provide a simple and secure way of verifying identity, helping them to tackle illegal working, organised crime, terrorist activity, identity theft and fraudulent access to public services.

Crack down hard on organised immigration crime which targets the most vulnerable, the poorest and the young. There will be a new drive to prevent illegal entry, to crack down on illegal working and a tough policy of removals for those who should not be here. There will be on-the-spot fines for employers who collude with illegal immigration. They will fingerprint visitors who need visas and those planning longer stays before they arrive. They will use there powers to demand financial bonds from migrants in specific categories where there has been evidence of abuse, to guarantee their return home. And over time, they will move towards the point where it becomes the norm that those who fail can be detained, and removals become easier.











> And also, if the figures don't change, or if the net profit from
> economic immigration goes down, presumably you'll admit you're 100%
> wrong?

Yes I would be wrong.

Of course you won't; you'll probably blame immigrants for
> wrecking the economy...
>
>
> As a side point, I find it hilarious that you're now trying to
> discredit the report you tried to use to support your own argument.
> You didn't see those costs in the link? Well...you didn't actually
> see the whole point of that report either, did you?
>
> The reason I gave that link was to show the potentual problems that
> may occur.
>
> No it wasn't kevstar. The reason you gave that link was that you saw
> one graph, misunderstood it, and assumed the whole thing backed up
> what you said. You're know in the hilarious position of
> simultaneously using it to prove you're right, whilst dismissing it
> because it doesn't agree with you. And, worryingly, you actually seem
> to believe it makes you look like something other than a shallow,
> wrong-headed dolt.

No, the reason i'm dismissing it is because I dont think it makes sense to allow anyone who wants to come in who fits the criteria without having the services to cope.
>
>
>
> My oh my; is your whole approach to argument going to be to repeat
> the same insults back to me despite the fact that they make no
> sense?
> Doubly fun when you then follow it up with a blanket statement like
> "the immigrants (are the ones) who are having big
> families".
>
> Now then; why don't you read what I said again. I said that
> "the
> biggest families I know are chav families". Not
> "Immigrants
> never have big families". Not "immigrants all have 2.4
> children". What I was saying was that your wailing hatred of
> immigrants based on their family size is ridiculous because chavs
> tend to spew huge numbers of mewling brats out of their slack flues
> with alarming regularity.
>
> I made it a issue yes, to show how there (not all) coming here
> bringing there familys in, and as the link states how a number of
> theese people although some are working, the rest of the family does
> not. Now this will again be a burden on our services.
>
> The point I made was that every criticism
> you make of immigrants can be applied to you, your chav family, and
> your chav friends. Do you see?

>
>
> Me or my family or my friends are not chavs, thats an insult you
> prat. I dont wear tracksuits, trainers or have a big family. I've
> worked all my adult life except for the last year, which I am now on
> the sick. I should be going to work again in another 6-8 monthsor
> so,
> so dont try and make me out to be a chav.
>
> I know perfectly well it's an insult. You might have noticed that I'm
> rather good at them.

Yeah, insults I can take, but not when there directed to my family, your just a bigheaded prat, you have this thing in your head that I hate immigrants, well I don't, notice how many names you called me. I think it's you with the problem.

Especially when it comes to ignorant bigots like
> you. And chavs like you. And dimwitted cocktoads like you.
>
> By the way, having criticised me for saying that all chavs are
> ignorant baby-factories, I find it rather fun that you've now shown
> that you think exactly the same of them as I do.

Yeahh, cos I never said I did like chavs, personally I do think they do more damage than immigrants, they should be kept of street corners, they should think about who's area there wrecking before they smash a phone box or bus stop up so yeah, I don't dislike them all though. Why, cos you see light, just like any race or society, you get the good ones and the bad ones. Most chavs do eventually grow out of what they do, the problem is, they leave there influentual vandal skills to the next generation.

>
> On benefits eh? So you, on long term sick (for what? Inability to get
> out of bed in the morning?),

it's actually called AVM which means there is a problem with the vessles in my brain, it cost £15,000 to have the operation but takes over a year (because it's radio surgery)for it to sort out, so yeah, I may just have that inability to get out of bed.

and costing this country money, are
> trying to say that we shouldn't allow in people who will cost the
> country money? Wow...hypocrisy anyone?

No, i'm saying we should stop the people who abuse the system thats all.

Does that mean I can apply to
> have you deported for being a drain on the NHS

Deport to where exactly

, and responsible for
> the housing crisis (to use your logic)?


No, because i've payed my taxes whilst at work, and plan to do the same once better. I'm talking about people who stay on theese type of benefits.
>
>
>
>
>
> Ok, well it may be because you're the only person who's actcually
> reffered a black person as darkie. It may be because you call me a
> racist without good reason.
>
> ~sigh~ Go and look up the following words in a dictionary;
>
> 1. Irony
> 2. Sarcasm.
>
> I use the term "darkies" to take the p!ss out of you,
> because it's very obviously the way you're thinking. If I've actually
> offended anyone from any ethnicity by using the term, then I
> apologise, and I'll explain that it's a dig at you. People with brain
> cells can see that. Oh...yeah, I'm assuming you have brain cells.
>
> And I have extremely good reason to call you a racist. I only started
> doing so once it was clear that you were. And it became clear that
> you were when you started repeating discredited and/or untrue
> arguments to maintain your petty hatred of foreigners.


Rubbish you called me racist practically from the first post onwards.
>
>
>
>
>
> Now then, back to the topic; you didn't answer the question. What is
> the problem? Or the problems? C'mon kevstar; what are the problems
> created by immigrants that you know so much about.
>
>
> As I keep saying, the strain it seems to be putting on our services,
> the abuse of the british good will. the 1 in 5 only getting deported
> back.
>
> And, as I keep saying and you keep ignoring, the strain is due to
> lack of public investment.

Do you know that for a fact do you? And if so, despite your crappy explination which I don't accept, it doesn't mean we should let anyone who's entitled to if (as you say) it's going to put more strain to the point of collapse.

>
> Y'see, this is why I'm calling you racist; you've had the reasons for
> poor public services given to you.

But I havn't had the reason to still allow more people in on theese poor services.

You've offered nothing by way of
> rebuttal. And yet you still wail "It's immigrants' fault! Kick
> them out so I can enjoy my sickie in peace!"


I'm not saying it's there fault at all, if anything it's the goverments fault.


>
> 1 in 5 getting deported back? Well...could it be cos the other 4 in 5
> come here to work?


No i'm talking about the 1 in 5 failed asylum seekers getting deported back.
>
>
>
>
> Rubbish, I rejected your evidence, and it seems I was good to do
> that
> too.
>
> Baaaaaaahahahahahahahahaaaa! Yeah, course you were kevstar. Course
> you were. That's why you offered nothing whatsoever to rebutt it. You
> just said "I'm right" and clamped your hands over your ears
> singing "lalalalalalalIcan'thearyou" afterwards.
>
> So tell me; why were you good to do that my dear boy? I'm all ears.

well the massive backlog of Asylum applications at a cost of nearly £2billion last year, the fact that I dont accept your reasons on the NHS to make it better. And the fact letting more people in won't solve the housing crisis.
>
>
> You've said immigration should be capped, but all the criteria
> you've
> come up with for capping already exist.
>
> No it's not, not at all, there isn't a set limit on the amount we
> take. We took around 145,000 immigrants last year and tens of
> thousands of Asylum seekers, just say for arguments sake, thats
> 180,000 every year. Is there 180,000 houses bieng built each
> year(not
> that every person will have there own house). No wonder waiting
> lists
> arn't going down.
>
> God, you get dumber every post...
>
> I know that no limit exists. What I am saying is that the criteria
> you seem to think should exist for capping, already exist for
> immigration without capping. Want me to draw you a crayon picture to
> make it clearer?
>
> Back to the 180,000 from Immigration Watch UK eh? Shall we start
> discussing the number of people who leave the country every year? Or
> will you just ignore and avoid discussing that?


No it was Mr Clarke who gave theese figure whilst talking on breakfast with Frost.
>
>
>
>
> And your response to that
> was..."well, it mustn't be working". Why mustn't it be
> working? I've asked you that, and you've refused to answer. So the
> obvious assumption is that you think it isn't working because you
> can
> see too many brown faces in the crowd.


No, it's because the reasons I give are rejected by you and vice versa.
>
>
> No I just went with the obvious fact that
>
> ....that what? C'mon dipsh!t; what's the obvious fact?
>
> How are you being racist? You're being racist about the assumption
> that immigrants come here to sponge off benefits.
>
> Not all, but they are a fair few that are, so that doesn't make me
> wrong, next.
>
> Heh. And your evidence that "a fair few" are is? How many
> immigrants are sponging off benefits? GIVE ME SOME EVIDENCE YOU
> MONGTARD. Because just saying "I think this" isn't
> evidence. Especially when it would appear you don't think. At all.

So your again saying they don't, look at the graph again and it shows how many people are on whatever benefits...

Uk born have more employed people than migrants.
Theres more migrants self employed than us which shows this is where immigrants contribute most. And then, the inactive part, more migrants are inactive than the UK born.

The benefits...More migrants on child benefits than UK born.
More migrants on Unemployment benefit than UK born.
More immigrants on income support than UK born.
There is more UK born on sickness benefits than migrants though.


And you wonder why I worry, so for you have dismissed theese claims every time there mentioned, you ask where they are? Well it's in the link I provided in key questions parts 14 and 15 out of 44.
>
>
>
> Thats what it said in the link, as mentioned before it's one of the
> graphs, so again that doesn't make me wrong.
>
> No it doesn't. C'mon kevstar, give me the exact quote that states
> that immigrants are less active than people born here.
>

Yes it does you just havn't looked.
>
>
> Well its not, this whole debate has been about immigrants, I mean we
> havn't even mentioned Asylum seekers yet never mind whites.
>
> And yet it was you who in the last post tried to say "why are
> you assuming I'm talking about non-white people?", wasn't it?
>
> Make up your mind kevstar; you're contradicting yourself with every
> post.
>
> And what about Asylum seekers? You gonna say we should send 'em back
> to die?

If proven Asylum seekers come then fine, we need to respect theese people and help get there lives on track cos thats what there here for.
>
>
> Well some of them do (never did I say all of them.)
>
> Yes, some do. And there are no figures at all to say how many. Yet
> you're saying lots do. And you're doing so based on...what exactly?

So you admit some do, so your admitting it does happen, then why may I ask do you think it's just a simple few? If it is happening a few or not, it's still a flaw isn't it light? And if theres a flaw in the system then it should be adressed, correct. Thank you.
>
>
> Well its because I don't accept the evidence, and rightly so because
> according to the evidence you provided, there shuldn't be a problem.
> But wait a minute, there is a problem, isn't there light?
>
> Nope. The problem is that bigots like you have been whipped up into a
> frenzy by the media into thinking that everything that is wrong with
> our great and green land is the fault of evil, dirty foreigners.

So your saying theres no reason at all to be worried?

> Curiously, no-one provides any facts or evidence to prove this. They
> just say it. And idiots who want to believe it (yes, that's you)
> believe it.

That may be because I havn't got my head stuck up my backside, is it. it's called a concern.
>
> The only reason you don't accept the evidence is cos you don't want
> to. And you don't want to because you're a racist.

Absolute rubbish, I dont accept the evidence because the evidence is based on flaws, missing information.



D'you see what I
> did there? I used logic. That'll help you in life. You might like to
> try it.
>
>
> Is that enough reasons why you're a racist
> kevstar?
>
> No, because most of thoose reasons are rubbish, you talking out the
> back of your pants.
>
> Heh. Yeah, I usually regard trifling things as "facts" and
> "evidence" as rubbish, whereas I always unquestioningly
> accept it when someone says "I think this because...well, just
> because. Oh, and 93% of Sun readers say so".

And the rest of the opinion polls.

>
> No...hang on, that's you isn't it?
>
> Look, I understand you don't want to either accept or admit your
> racism. It's not popular these days and generally people hate
> racists. Especially lazy racists who stay at home all day and then
> try to blame economic problems of their own making on foreigners.

You do talk rubbish don't you.
>
>
> Haaaaaaaaaaaa, not the it sounds to me.
>
> Well no, it wouldn't. Because your motivations are racist. However,
> if you'd care to look at the first post I made in this thread, I
> stated that the issue needs to be debated honestly in order to get
> proper facts so that racists (like you) can be enraged further.


And whats there to debate about, cos everything thats been done regarding immigration has already been done without debate, so according to you logic that makes the current system a joke cos it's never been debated yet.
>
>
> I only assume that when they have their
> specific concerns addressed, but still bleat on about how immigrants
> are evil.

Again this is your mind at work here, when have I ever regarded immigrants as evil. all you've done is repeatably called immigrants names yourself, You appologised before yet still do it, I think if anyones a racist it's you.
>
>
> What has been discussed is how there contributing £2-3bn a
> year. That doesn't neccessary mean it's working, not one bit.
> Overcrowding is still my major concern, the popullation in Britain
> is
> still rising, you saying repeat what we done after the war to cover
> the pensioners, because hey, it worked after the war(even though
> there was not nearly the amount of people in this Country them, or
> the fact that the NHS then could could actually cope with an
> influx),
> I say it won't stop our NHS from stretching even more, it wont stop
> the housing crisis, it wont reduce the classes in schools, it wont
> stop the prisons from filling, will it, if so how.
>
> Ha.
>
> Ahaha.
>
> AAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
>
> So, we get 2-3 billion a year, the report you linked to says that we
> can easily get more, and it praises the contribution made by
> immigrants to UK culture in general....but it's not necessarily
> working?
>
> No, because it's not solving the problem of overcrowding.
>
> Overcrowding is a major concern? And yet, I've addressed the fact
> that you've not bothered to include figures for emigration when you
> talk about the city the size of Oxford coming in every year. So it's
> not actually a problem, is it?


Or you with the ammount of illegal immigrants. Theese people coming in will only stretch our services simple as that, theres more people coming in that going out fact.
>

>
>
> "what we done after the war"? My, I can see I'm debating
> with a genius here...Now then;
> what we did after the war was to
> replace our workforce, and that's exactly why we need immigrants
> still. I've said it worked after the war, because it did. Can you
> give any reasons why it won't work? You haven't so far
>
> Ohh, but i did, I said it won't work now because the place is
> overcrowded for our sevices to cope with another mass immigration,
> fact.
>
> So, on the one hand you're saying that the place is overcrowded. And
> on the other, you're accepting that we have too few people of working
> age and that our workforce is aging and reducing. That makes no sense
> dear boy. It's what we call in the thinking world
> "illogical".

Hows that, what i'm sayiong is I believe that we need to improove our services first in order to allow immigration to work properly, if that means more borrowing so be it.


>
> well, there doing this because there isn't many houses about, due to
> overcrowding! The fewer the houses, the more it costs, I thought you
> could have worked that one out.
>
> So these immigrants; if they're just here sponging off the
> state...how can they afford houses? If the house prices are up (and
> they are), only the people who are best off can afford them, right?
> So how can a lazy, sponging immigrant afford a house?


Well, they can't, and shouldn't if he's sponging, however if there was more houses, it would bring the prices down. All they would need to do then is get a job. And the majority of 1st gen immigrants worked there way into the housing market cos houses were a lot cheaper then you see.

>
>
>
>
>
> Rubbish.
>
> Wow, how very well argued. If only I could have done that when I was
> a solicitor;
>
> "Your honour, the case for the prosecution is rubbish"
> 'Well, in that case I find your client not guilty. Next.'
>
> Why is it rubbish kevstar? Please; do tell.
>
>
> And this method is really going to cut waiting lists, isn't it.
>
> Yes. Yes it is. Because with more money, we have more doctors. And
> with more doctors, we have more people being treated. And with more
> people being treated, we have shorter waiting lists. Do you see that
> "logic" thing again?

I can't see it working, why, well for every doctor who comes in, how many other immigrants will come in on top of that one doctor. Which means the waiting lists won't really be reduced at all will they. So your logic we have more doctors, but along with them we also have the other immigrants, do you know what that will mean, we have to build more hospitals and surgeries and everything else that comes with it. This is why I don't agree with your so called logic.

>
>
> The prisons from filling? Wow...are you assuming that all immigrants
> are criminals when you say that? Anyway, to prevent that happening
> we
> need to address social issues and we also need to address poverty.
> As
> it's mainly chavs who populate our prisons (I was a solicitor for a
> while and I worked in the Criminal justice system. Every client,
> without exception, was a nasty little chav), we need to do something
> about dealing with these feral dogboys. Preferably via education.
>
> Most of theese people I feel, would rather work than get educated if
> given the choice And what makes you think they won't disrupt the
> class, after all thats the problem, you may get some of theese
> people
> who really do wan't a education, but you'll get just as much doing
> everything in there means to disrupt them.
>
> Nice avoidance of the question about how immigrants affect the prison
> population!


Well they will, how won't they? Unless according to you every immigrant will be good and not do anything whatso ever bad, and you say I live in a fantasy world.
>
> So what you're saying is that we should leave the chavs alone to do
> what they want, and clamp down on immigrants? Is that what you're
> saying?

No, i'm saying we should try and stop the ones abusing the system, the same would apply to the benefit chavs, cos your right about one thing, there doing just as bad as what the immigrant abusers.
>
>
> For
> which we need money. Which we'll only get with a young and large
> workforce. Which we'll only get via immigration.
>
>
> So; there are your questions answered. Care to begin your avoidance
> of mine?
>
> ...for example, by avoiding most of what I've said, or answering it
> with the same tired and discredited points you've already made?

kevstar wrote:

> You ask why I don't reply to you questions, well your
> asking things thats already been raised.

Yes they were raised but you didn't answer a single one of them. That is why I consolidated them into an easy to answer list of points. If you really want to prove your credibility you will go and rebutt all of them.

I notice now how your stance has changd from "we need a limit on immigrants coming into the country", to "we need to stop people breaking the law and abusing our systems". Well done for realising that one! It's SO OBVIOUSLY what you've been saying all along, isn't it? Oh, wait, no. you've been saying that immigrants stretch our services and fill up our country so we shouldn't let anymore in. I don't see ANYONE agreeing with that. In fact what i do see is dozens of people saying that this ISN'T the case, and backing it up with facts. Surely this should prove to you that you are wrong.

kevstar wrote:
> Mr Clark said himself that people were abusing the system, I doubt he
> would say something like this if it wasn't true.

My God, you're a politicians dream; you believe what they say...Tell me; you've been laying into Blair about the Iraq war and saying that he's lied to us. Why are you so willing to believe a politician

> He only admited it
> yesterday, so I guess he will have some sort of report somewhere.
> Wait for his speach today and it may say something then.

So this is more of your "who needs facts" style of argument then?

>
> There not laying it in the immigrants door, they have proposals in
> place to try and reduce the amount of people on incapacity benefit,
> so that indicates there going right across the board, people just get
> that impression.

And you don't help by saying things like "Even if the facts don't agree with me, I'm still right". Do you?

kevstar wrote:
> Cycloon wrote:
> Kevstar, I find it ironic that you seem to accept that because
> politician say 'there's a problem with immigration', and everyone
> says 'waa, immigrants!' that you actually think there is - HAVE you
> seen any facts?
>
> No, there is no facts, this is half the point. What there is however,
> is indications to my points.

There are alternate explanations for these indications. And evidence for them. Which you reject with a "rubbish" and a "darkies are bad".

> Theres no facts as such to say that
> immigration is working.

Apart from the report you linked to saying that we make a net 3 billion profit from immigration...

> What I do I see is 140-150,000 per year
> coming through when no improvement to our services are bieng made. I
> also see that they were signs that people are abusing our welfare
> system, the graph in the link sahowing how many immigrants are on
> benefits shows that.

No, it doesn't. It says that some immigrants are a net loss to the economy because of their low paying jobs. It actually says that the idea of immigrants abusing the welfare system is a myth. Doesn't it?

Why are you so deperately clinging to that graph when everything else in the report (including the conclusion) says that immigration is a good thing?

kevstar wrote:
> Amazing really; you always go for the
> "I know you are but what am I" approach when you're
> confronted with your racism.
>
> And when exactly has that seemed the case?

Well, when you said "maybe you're the bigot" when I pointed out what a bigot you are perhaps? Or when you've accused me, a white male, of being racist against white people after I've pointed out how racist you are? There's twice it's seemed the case.

Are you going to address the fact that you made this topic about skin colour, or are you going to avoid it like a coward?

>
> Incidentally, I'm not knocking everything back. I'm knocking back
> everything you say. There's a difference. And the reason I'm
> knocking
> it back is because it's ill-conceived xenophbic headsmeg. And I'm
> knocking it back by giving evidence and examples. You on the other
> hand are whining, and avoiding answering questions.

...and throughout this post, you're proving me right by posting more ignorant bigotry whilst avoiding addressing a single thing that rebutts all of your pointless idiocy.


> No what i'm saying, just like immigrant abusing our welfare system,
> it's the same with us British too. We need to get people with back
> problems and depresion back into work. Cos I tell you what; A lot of
> theese people are also abusing the system.

And yet, you're still failing to provide any evidence of immigrants abusing the system. You're also continuing to ignore the fact that the home office report you provided the link for states, explicitly, that the myth of immigrants abusing the system en masse is just that; a myth. A fantasy. Untrue. Just like your whole argument...

I'll agree with you on one thing though; benefit fraud does need to be clamped down on. Alas, if it's people like you doing the clamping, you'll spend all your time looking for proof that immigrants are the main offenders.

Still, all that said; how exactly are you going to get chavs back to work? Clamping down on fraud is one thing. How do you get them working?


> Heh. So I'm ignorant? Wow; I hadn't realised that producing reams of
> evidence for my views and giving examples made one ignorant. Clearly
> I should be taking your approach of making stuff up as I go along...
>
> Well, you've said that you don't think immigrants should be allowed
> in unless they contribute to the economy.
>
> Is this saying there bad?

Nope. It's saying that there's no point introducing an economic migrant unless he or she are there for economic reasons. Because, you see, the definition of an Economic Migrant is that they're migrating in order to find work.

Why, are you trying to imply (rather clumsily admittedly) that I was saying people fleeing torture or execution should be turned away if they can't contribute to the economy? Or were you just conforming to your dumbassed previous posts, and forgetting that there are different types of immigrants. They can't all be classified as "Darkies I hate" and "Darkies I'll tolerate" you know.

Still want to discuss ignorance kevstar? Or is this another of the many points raised you'll run away crying from?

>
> And the report that you
> linked to proved that they did. Your lack of respect was shown when
> you said that "immigrants are less active than us",
>
> Which it states in the link I provided you with, look in the graph
> and it tells you, that is not lack of respect.

No, it says no such thing. Anywhere. At all. Because you see, unlike you, I've read the report contained in that link. And what it says is...well, I've already posted the conclusion. So you know fine well it says no such thing.

Wow; outright lies on your part now. And you STILL say you're not racist?

>
> I didn't say that, I said that some of them are (or thats what I
> meant), and the plans out today confirms this suspicion.

No; the plans announced by Charles Clarke pander to exactly the same ignorant headwrong that you're trying to force people to accept as unvarnished truth. Notice how he didn't give any figures to back him up? Cos, funnily, no such figures exist. Know why? Cos it's a myth.

>
> Do you remember that kevstar? Because you keep
> repeating that point even though it's been discredited, don't you?

>
> The reason I'm calling you such a rancid little bigot is because
> you've had facts and figures displayed to you that show that your
> opinion is based on erroneous assumptions. And you are reacting
> by....repeating the erroneous assumptions; clinging to them like a
> lifejacket.

No answer to this kevstar? Funny that; almost like you don't want to admit that you realise you're basing everything you say on half truth and lies.
>
>


>
> I don't mind any race, you just think I do. As it happens my landlord
> is Jewish and we get on fine, my sisters boyfriend is black and I
> don't have any problems with him.

Yeah, most ignorant bigots like you tend to trot out the "some of my best friends are...." in response to having their bigotry pointed out.

I think you have a problem with foreigners of any colour kevstar. You're quite typically english in that regard. And I think you have that problem because you're being reduced to making statements along the lines of "Just because there is no evidence of this, and just because I have no personal experience of this happening, and just because all the available facts show that I'm completely incorrect, that doesn't mean I'm wrong" in order to justify why you want to put a limit on immigration. Surely you can see why I would think that?


> What mess are we in exactly? You keep saying that we're in a mess;
> so
> what is it? Explain it to me, and give me some examples and
> evidence.

Well...lookee here; no evidence. No examples. No argument. You're not just a bigot; you're a coward too.



> Give me some evidence that this is what actually happens. Because it
> sounds like something your dad told you, and you accepted.
>
>
> It's in the link I provided, no graph, but it's in writing somewhere
> in there.

Is it really kevstar? Because I've read that thing. And d'you know what? It says no such thing. So unless you're going to give me some evidence, I'm going to point at you, call you a lying little toad, and then laugh at you for being trapped in such a fearful, ignorant little world.

>
>
> Well if the legal channels were broad enough to allow anyone with
> the
> criteria to enter, who wished to, it would effectively be an open
> door. Or wouldn't it, and how not.
>
> Ahh, you're learning then; nice to see someone basically using my
> own
> particular style of argument against me. Makes a change from you
> cutting and pasting an argument from the BNP website I suppose.
> Unfortunately for you, I actually know what I'm talking about...
>
> The legal channels are of course broad enough to allow anyone with
> the necessary criteria for employment to enter. You've been saying
> all along that that is all you want, and you just want to keep out
> those evil darkies who want to steal your benefits (incidentally,
> are
> you on benefits?). It wouldn't be an open door, because the
> immigrant
> would have to provide proof of ability to work,
>
> Again by putting other on the application form as a job skill. This
> is a flaw in the system if ever I saw one.

Wow, you're just desperate to cling to that one aren't you? Tell me; do you actually believe that immigration officers see the box ticked "Other" and then say "well, that's all the proof I need; c'mon in! The benefit office is 3rd on the left!".

You do understand that people have to expand on that, don't you? I mean, you do know that people are interviewed to get into the country, right? Whats that...? You didn't know? What, was your whole plan going to be "Remove the 'Other' option from the form"?

I repeat; give me some evidence about this kevstar. Because, so far, I think you're lying.

>
> or actual employment.
> And even then, immigration officers can reject someone if they don't
> believe the immigrants story. So you see, it's not an open door. Do
> you understand kevstar? Am I getting through to that
> "Nyyurrrghhh....NO DARKIES!" brain of yours?

Apparently, no; I'm not getting through your retarded and bigoted skull.
>
>

>
> Numbnutted? thats a first, the fact is, it could be more. I'm just
> very interested to see what contribution they will make once theese
> new laws come into play.

Ah, marvellous; boasts of virility to a stranger on the internet. Always the sign of a balanced mind...

So in this post, you're using the report to justify some of the things you're saying. But in this same post, you're saying that anything the report says that you disagree with (which is most of it) is probably not true? Is that right?

The fact is, you're basing your argument on what you read in the Daily Mail. There could be more? Yeah, and Elvis could be living in Aldershot. Kilroy might be interested in racial harmony. Neither of these things have much evidence to support them. And neither does what you're saying.

What contribution "they" will make after the new laws? Why don't you explain to me what the new laws are kevstar. Because, and I'll be honest here, I don't think you know.
And also, if the figures don't change, or if the net profit from economic immigration goes down, presumably you'll admit you're 100% wrong? Of course you won't; you'll probably blame immigrants for wrecking the economy...
>
>
> As a side point, I find it hilarious that you're now trying to
> discredit the report you tried to use to support your own argument.
> You didn't see those costs in the link? Well...you didn't actually
> see the whole point of that report either, did you?
>
> The reason I gave that link was to show the potentual problems that
> may occur.

No it wasn't kevstar. The reason you gave that link was that you saw one graph, misunderstood it, and assumed the whole thing backed up what you said. You're know in the hilarious position of simultaneously using it to prove you're right, whilst dismissing it because it doesn't agree with you. And, worryingly, you actually seem to believe it makes you look like something other than a shallow, wrong-headed dolt.
>

>
> My oh my; is your whole approach to argument going to be to repeat
> the same insults back to me despite the fact that they make no
> sense?
> Doubly fun when you then follow it up with a blanket statement like
> "the immigrants (are the ones) who are having big
> families".
>
> Now then; why don't you read what I said again. I said that
> "the
> biggest families I know are chav families". Not
> "Immigrants
> never have big families". Not "immigrants all have 2.4
> children". What I was saying was that your wailing hatred of
> immigrants based on their family size is ridiculous because chavs
> tend to spew huge numbers of mewling brats out of their slack flues
> with alarming regularity.
>
> I made it a issue yes, to show how there (not all) coming here
> bringing there familys in, and as the link states how a number of
> theese people although some are working, the rest of the family does
> not. Now this will again be a burden on our services.
>
> The point I made was that every criticism
> you make of immigrants can be applied to you, your chav family, and
> your chav friends. Do you see?
>
>
> Me or my family or my friends are not chavs, thats an insult you
> prat. I dont wear tracksuits, trainers or have a big family. I've
> worked all my adult life except for the last year, which I am now on
> the sick. I should be going to work again in another 6-8 monthsor so,
> so dont try and make me out to be a chav.

I know perfectly well it's an insult. You might have noticed that I'm rather good at them. Especially when it comes to ignorant bigots like you. And chavs like you. And dimwitted cocktoads like you.

By the way, having criticised me for saying that all chavs are ignorant baby-factories, I find it rather fun that you've now shown that you think exactly the same of them as I do.

On benefits eh? So you, on long term sick (for what? Inability to get out of bed in the morning?), and costing this country money, are trying to say that we shouldn't allow in people who will cost the country money? Wow...hypocrisy anyone? Does that mean I can apply to have you deported for being a drain on the NHS, and responsible for the housing crisis (to use your logic)?

>
>

>
> Ok, well it may be because you're the only person who's actcually
> reffered a black person as darkie. It may be because you call me a
> racist without good reason.

~sigh~ Go and look up the following words in a dictionary;

1. Irony
2. Sarcasm.

I use the term "darkies" to take the p!ss out of you, because it's very obviously the way you're thinking. If I've actually offended anyone from any ethnicity by using the term, then I apologise, and I'll explain that it's a dig at you. People with brain cells can see that. Oh...yeah, I'm assuming you have brain cells.

And I have extremely good reason to call you a racist. I only started doing so once it was clear that you were. And it became clear that you were when you started repeating discredited and/or untrue arguments to maintain your petty hatred of foreigners.

>
>
>
> Rubbish, you don't even know what colour I am, for all you know I
> could be black, brown or yellow, thats called prejudging.
>
> True enough. However, two things immediately occur;
>
> 1. In this very post you said "when people call us white
> folks names". That's sort of a giveaway. You racist.
>
> 2. You've obviously assumed I'm non-white as you've rather amusingly
> accused me of being a racist.
>
> Now then, back to the topic; you didn't answer the question. What is
> the problem? Or the problems? C'mon kevstar; what are the problems
> created by immigrants that you know so much about.
>
>
> As I keep saying, the strain it seems to be putting on our services,
> the abuse of the british good will. the 1 in 5 only getting deported
> back.

And, as I keep saying and you keep ignoring, the strain is due to lack of public investment.

Y'see, this is why I'm calling you racist; you've had the reasons for poor public services given to you. You've offered nothing by way of rebuttal. And yet you still wail "It's immigrants' fault! Kick them out so I can enjoy my sickie in peace!"

1 in 5 getting deported back? Well...could it be cos the other 4 in 5 come here to work?


>
>
> Rubbish, I rejected your evidence, and it seems I was good to do that
> too.

Baaaaaaahahahahahahahahaaaa! Yeah, course you were kevstar. Course you were. That's why you offered nothing whatsoever to rebutt it. You just said "I'm right" and clamped your hands over your ears singing "lalalalalalalIcan'thearyou" afterwards.

So tell me; why were you good to do that my dear boy? I'm all ears.

>
> You've said immigration should be capped, but all the criteria
> you've
> come up with for capping already exist.
>
> No it's not, not at all, there isn't a set limit on the amount we
> take. We took around 145,000 immigrants last year and tens of
> thousands of Asylum seekers, just say for arguments sake, thats
> 180,000 every year. Is there 180,000 houses bieng built each year(not
> that every person will have there own house). No wonder waiting lists
> arn't going down.

God, you get dumber every post...

I know that no limit exists. What I am saying is that the criteria you seem to think should exist for capping, already exist for immigration without capping. Want me to draw you a crayon picture to make it clearer?

Back to the 180,000 from Immigration Watch UK eh? Shall we start discussing the number of people who leave the country every year? Or will you just ignore and avoid discussing that?

>
>
>
> And your response to that
> was..."well, it mustn't be working". Why mustn't it be
> working? I've asked you that, and you've refused to answer. So the
> obvious assumption is that you think it isn't working because you
> can
> see too many brown faces in the crowd.
>
>
> No I just went with the obvious fact that

....that what? C'mon dipsh!t; what's the obvious fact?
>
> How are you being racist? You're being racist about the assumption
> that immigrants come here to sponge off benefits.
>
> Not all, but they are a fair few that are, so that doesn't make me
> wrong, next.

Heh. And your evidence that "a fair few" are is? How many immigrants are sponging off benefits? GIVE ME SOME EVIDENCE YOU MONGTARD. Because just saying "I think this" isn't evidence. Especially when it would appear you don't think. At all.


>
> Thats what it said in the link, as mentioned before it's one of the
> graphs, so again that doesn't make me wrong.

No it doesn't. C'mon kevstar, give me the exact quote that states that immigrants are less active than people born here.


>
> Well its not, this whole debate has been about immigrants, I mean we
> havn't even mentioned Asylum seekers yet never mind whites.

And yet it was you who in the last post tried to say "why are you assuming I'm talking about non-white people?", wasn't it?

Make up your mind kevstar; you're contradicting yourself with every post.

And what about Asylum seekers? You gonna say we should send 'em back to die?


> Well some of them do (never did I say all of them.)

Yes, some do. And there are no figures at all to say how many. Yet you're saying lots do. And you're doing so based on...what exactly?


> Well its because I don't accept the evidence, and rightly so because
> according to the evidence you provided, there shuldn't be a problem.
> But wait a minute, there is a problem, isn't there light?

Nope. The problem is that bigots like you have been whipped up into a frenzy by the media into thinking that everything that is wrong with our great and green land is the fault of evil, dirty foreigners. Curiously, no-one provides any facts or evidence to prove this. They just say it. And idiots who want to believe it (yes, that's you) believe it.

The only reason you don't accept the evidence is cos you don't want to. And you don't want to because you're a racist. D'you see what I did there? I used logic. That'll help you in life. You might like to try it.

>
> Is that enough reasons why you're a racist
> kevstar?
>
> No, because most of thoose reasons are rubbish, you talking out the
> back of your pants.

Heh. Yeah, I usually regard trifling things as "facts" and "evidence" as rubbish, whereas I always unquestioningly accept it when someone says "I think this because...well, just because. Oh, and 93% of Sun readers say so".

No...hang on, that's you isn't it?

Look, I understand you don't want to either accept or admit your racism. It's not popular these days and generally people hate racists. Especially lazy racists who stay at home all day and then try to blame economic problems of their own making on foreigners.


> Haaaaaaaaaaaa, not the it sounds to me.

Well no, it wouldn't. Because your motivations are racist. However, if you'd care to look at the first post I made in this thread, I stated that the issue needs to be debated honestly in order to get proper facts so that racists (like you) can be enraged further.

>
> I only assume that when they have their
> specific concerns addressed, but still bleat on about how immigrants
> are evil.
>
>
> What has been discussed is how there contributing £2-3bn a
> year. That doesn't neccessary mean it's working, not one bit.
> Overcrowding is still my major concern, the popullation in Britain
> is
> still rising, you saying repeat what we done after the war to cover
> the pensioners, because hey, it worked after the war(even though
> there was not nearly the amount of people in this Country them, or
> the fact that the NHS then could could actually cope with an
> influx),
> I say it won't stop our NHS from stretching even more, it wont stop
> the housing crisis, it wont reduce the classes in schools, it wont
> stop the prisons from filling, will it, if so how.
>
> Ha.
>
> Ahaha.
>
> AAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
>
> So, we get 2-3 billion a year, the report you linked to says that we
> can easily get more, and it praises the contribution made by
> immigrants to UK culture in general....but it's not necessarily
> working?
>
> No, because it's not solving the problem of overcrowding.
>
> Overcrowding is a major concern? And yet, I've addressed the fact
> that you've not bothered to include figures for emigration when you
> talk about the city the size of Oxford coming in every year. So it's
> not actually a problem, is it?

No answer to this?

>
> "what we done after the war"? My, I can see I'm debating
> with a genius here...Now then;
> what we did after the war was to
> replace our workforce, and that's exactly why we need immigrants
> still. I've said it worked after the war, because it did. Can you
> give any reasons why it won't work? You haven't so far
>
> Ohh, but i did, I said it won't work now because the place is
> overcrowded for our sevices to cope with another mass immigration,
> fact.

So, on the one hand you're saying that the place is overcrowded. And on the other, you're accepting that we have too few people of working age and that our workforce is aging and reducing. That makes no sense dear boy. It's what we call in the thinking world "illogical".

What evidence have you of overcrowding? None so far. So your reason for immigration not working is based purely on something you've said and given no evidence for, correct?
And you wonder why i call you racist...


>
> well, there doing this because there isn't many houses about, due to
> overcrowding! The fewer the houses, the more it costs, I thought you
> could have worked that one out.

So these immigrants; if they're just here sponging off the state...how can they afford houses? If the house prices are up (and they are), only the people who are best off can afford them, right? So how can a lazy, sponging immigrant afford a house?




>
> Rubbish.

Wow, how very well argued. If only I could have done that when I was a solicitor;

"Your honour, the case for the prosecution is rubbish"
'Well, in that case I find your client not guilty. Next.'

Why is it rubbish kevstar? Please; do tell.

>
> And this method is really going to cut waiting lists, isn't it.

Yes. Yes it is. Because with more money, we have more doctors. And with more doctors, we have more people being treated. And with more people being treated, we have shorter waiting lists. Do you see that "logic" thing again?
>
>
> The prisons from filling? Wow...are you assuming that all immigrants
> are criminals when you say that? Anyway, to prevent that happening
> we
> need to address social issues and we also need to address poverty.
> As
> it's mainly chavs who populate our prisons (I was a solicitor for a
> while and I worked in the Criminal justice system. Every client,
> without exception, was a nasty little chav), we need to do something
> about dealing with these feral dogboys. Preferably via education.
>
> Most of theese people I feel, would rather work than get educated if
> given the choice And what makes you think they won't disrupt the
> class, after all thats the problem, you may get some of theese people
> who really do wan't a education, but you'll get just as much doing
> everything in there means to disrupt them.

Nice avoidance of the question about how immigrants affect the prison population!

So what you're saying is that we should leave the chavs alone to do what they want, and clamp down on immigrants? Is that what you're saying?

>
> For
> which we need money. Which we'll only get with a young and large
> workforce. Which we'll only get via immigration.
>
>
> So; there are your questions answered. Care to begin your avoidance
> of mine?

...for example, by avoiding most of what I've said, or answering it with the same tired and discredited points you've already made?

kevstar wrote:

> No, there is no facts, this is half the point. What there is however,
> is indications to my points. Theres no facts as such to say that
> immigration is working. What I do I see is 140-150,000 per year
> coming through when no improvement to our services are bieng made.

What that got to do with immigrants though?
Most services get a lot more out of immigrants than they lose.
More of the blame is likely to be down to the lack of funding and bad management.

> I
> also see that they were signs that people are abusing our welfare
> system, the graph in the link sahowing how many immigrants are on
> benefits shows that.

The thing is, most welfare abuse it by "non-immigrants" so if welfare abuse was such an issue then people would want the larger cause dealt with first. Sure, immigrants abuse it too, but it welfare abuse was the issue and not the excuse, then people would go for the majority of abusers, not the minority.

Fair enough on your second point - and haven't people like you always complained of abuse in the system? We all have.....and yet a politician speaks one week and is believed because it fits a point, and he's called a lier the next because his statements don't fit.