The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
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.
Page:
kevstar wrote:
> Quote from Sky news....The Prime Minister has accepted that people
> have justifiable concerns about immigration.
>
>
> So as I first thought, I was justified in having my concerns. Hey
> it's a shame the people who called me racist are not only wrong, but
> also ignorant too.
~sigh~
Thing is, your concerns were addressed. And you still insisted that darkies were bad.
>
>
> Quote from observer.... Immigrants' rights to settle permanently in
> Britain will be drastically curbed as the government admits for the
> first time that the nation's 'hospitality' has been tested by abuses
> of the immigration and asylum system.
>
> Hmmm, isn't this what I was saying, but because there's no figures to
> back a concern, it automatically makes me racist when mentioned? This
> just shows you don't need figures to be right about something.
Heh. Yeah, I mean who needs facts eh? Why bother with a fact when you can just say something and then say "Well, this is what I think even though there is no evidence for it." I mean, I could say that you're a hermaphrodite who lost his virginity to a Basset hound. Just because I have no evidence for it, doesn't mean I'm not right about it...
Anyway, just to demonstrate to you that the nation isn't stampeding toward your Aryan dream;
[URL]http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1274532.html?menu=[/URL]
Oh, and even Charles Clarke said when announcing this that;
"Migration for work, migration to study is a good thing".
Shame you don't think so, innit?
>
> Note to light, do you still think immigration is
> "controlled" now the goverment admits that theres abuses to
> the Asylum and immigration system.
Yes, I do. And the reason I think this? Well, because the nation has been whipped up into a frenzy about immigrants by the media. And it's an election year. So the parties who want to get into power have to be seen to be doing something that people are (rightly or wrongly) worried about.
Are there abuses of these controls? Of course there are; there are abuses to every system. The key is stopping them. And I like the idea of those abuses being stopped.
Now then; do you notice what is missing from these measures? Have you seen that there are no proposals whatsoever to put a limit on the number of immigrants? Did you spot that kevstar? Now pardon me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that the main point that you were in favour of? Didn't you say we needed to put a limit on? Yet the government don't see any need to do that, do they? They just want to improve the system. You do know that will mean that there will be more immigrants coming as a result, don't you?
> Quote from Sky news....The Prime Minister has accepted that people
> have justifiable concerns about immigration.
>
>
> So as I first thought, I was justified in having my concerns. Hey
> it's a shame the people who called me racist are not only wrong, but
> also ignorant too.
~sigh~
Thing is, your concerns were addressed. And you still insisted that darkies were bad.
>
>
> Quote from observer.... Immigrants' rights to settle permanently in
> Britain will be drastically curbed as the government admits for the
> first time that the nation's 'hospitality' has been tested by abuses
> of the immigration and asylum system.
>
> Hmmm, isn't this what I was saying, but because there's no figures to
> back a concern, it automatically makes me racist when mentioned? This
> just shows you don't need figures to be right about something.
Heh. Yeah, I mean who needs facts eh? Why bother with a fact when you can just say something and then say "Well, this is what I think even though there is no evidence for it." I mean, I could say that you're a hermaphrodite who lost his virginity to a Basset hound. Just because I have no evidence for it, doesn't mean I'm not right about it...
Anyway, just to demonstrate to you that the nation isn't stampeding toward your Aryan dream;
[URL]http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1274532.html?menu=[/URL]
Oh, and even Charles Clarke said when announcing this that;
"Migration for work, migration to study is a good thing".
Shame you don't think so, innit?
>
> Note to light, do you still think immigration is
> "controlled" now the goverment admits that theres abuses to
> the Asylum and immigration system.
Yes, I do. And the reason I think this? Well, because the nation has been whipped up into a frenzy about immigrants by the media. And it's an election year. So the parties who want to get into power have to be seen to be doing something that people are (rightly or wrongly) worried about.
Are there abuses of these controls? Of course there are; there are abuses to every system. The key is stopping them. And I like the idea of those abuses being stopped.
Now then; do you notice what is missing from these measures? Have you seen that there are no proposals whatsoever to put a limit on the number of immigrants? Did you spot that kevstar? Now pardon me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that the main point that you were in favour of? Didn't you say we needed to put a limit on? Yet the government don't see any need to do that, do they? They just want to improve the system. You do know that will mean that there will be more immigrants coming as a result, don't you?
kevstar wrote:
> Rubbish, your just knocking back anything anyone has to say when
> mentioning immigrants. What makes you think that all immigrants are
> black in anyways, cos thats the way your sounding to me.
I'm addressing the fact that you, in a post you made last week, said;
"Well this topic isn't about white folks, is it."
Didn't you my dear little bigoted boy? So you see, I'm addressing the fact that YOU seem to think all immigrants are non-white. Hell, gerrid even mentioned how you didn't seem to be considering white Eastern European immigrants. Amazing really; you always go for the "I know you are but what am I" approach when you're confronted with your racism.
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.
>
> Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that we need to encourage
> chavs into squalid little jobs in order to stop them going to nasty
> dirty foreigners. Any ideas on how you'd achieve this minor miracle?
>
> Well the proposed moves regarding incapacity benefit should help,
> although they should apply to thoose already on sick.
I'm sorry, what? Are you trying to imply that we need to get people suffering from incapacitating injuries into godawful jobs? Is that what you're saying?
And if it is, tell me; how is that going to encourage chavs into squalid little jobs? Did I miss something? Is being a chav regarded as a disability for the purposes of incapacity benefit?
> This is where your ignorant mind comes into play, when have I said
> that immigrants don't do a good job? And when havn't I had respect
> for the ones that do work? What I dont have respect for, is people
> coming on to our shores with the impresion there here to do nothing
> but good for the Country, but actually do quite the opposite and
> scrounge of our benefits. It's just like anything you see, you get
> the good ones, and you get the bad ones.
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. 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", and went on to make unsupported claims that "they" are here to plunder the UK's benefit system. And do you remember that the report you linked to discussed the myth of immigrants coming here solely to scrounge? 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> Gateshead actually, so your alright. I'd like to make a note to
> others that anyone who has an opinion about immigration not working,
> your not racist.
However, when all of the those opinions about immigration not working are utterly discredited, and you still repeat them and pretend that you haven't had your ass handed to you on a plate concerning them, that tends to indicate that you're racist, doesn't it? I mean God, I find myself worrying for the Jewish community in Gateshead in case you're wandering up to them and asking them if they want to take a shower in your airtight garage.
> They why is it not working, if it was then we wouldn't be in this
> mess would we.
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.
> Yeahh, and that evidence is based on putting "other" in
> there application form when asked about what job skills they have,
> hey thats going to work every time. I mean, what sort of rubbish is
> all that about.
Bwahahahahahahahhahahaaaaaa! Yeah, of course that's the case kevstar! Obviously; I can see why you, a person who's reaction to being told that his assumptions about immigration are incorrect was "I can't be expected to know that", would know everything about immigration forms.
Give me some evidence that this is what actually happens. Because it sounds like something your dad told you, and you accepted.
> 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, 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?
> Well, I think it isn't under controll. Lets just take the figure
> quoted in the link I provided earlier. It says how they contributed
> about £2bln nearly 3. I just wonder how much it costs to
> pollice the borders, cost of apealls, cost of administration, the
> cost in deporting them back and anything else I may have forgot. No I
> didn't see thoose costs in the link, I wonder why not. Is it because
> they might be hiding them from us?
YOU think it's not under control? But you don't have any evidence for that belief, do you?
Ah yes; the link that states that immigrants make us a net profit? Do you understand what that means? It means that, taking into account the costs of administration, appeals, deporting any unsuccessful immigrants (and your pathetic example of "policing the borders" is rather dumb; we do that to stop smuggling as well you know. Do you imagine that the brave police are on constant vigil for brown invaders?) and anything else you may have forgotten, we STILL MAKE A COUPLE OF BILLION PER YEAR YOU NUMBNUTTED BRAIN DONER.
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?
>
> Haaa, you racist piece of junked up crap if ever I heard one. You
> see, when people call us white folks names, it's not bieng racist is
> it. You are saying that all chavs are uneducated and baby machines?
> And you have the cheek to call me racist, you hypocrite.
> If you look in the link I provided, it state that it's the immigrants
> who are having big familys.
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. 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?
Am I saying all chavs are uneducated? Yup; that's sort of what the term means. The reason someone is branded a chav is because they're uneducated, usually jobless, and mostly (though not always) selfish and hateful. You don't get upper class chavs in universities my dear boy. It's a term for a social grouping, not a racial one.
Incidentally, I am white, blonde haired, and blue eyed. Would you like to tell me how I'm being racist please?
>
> 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.
>
> Listen, people like me are not racist, there concerned, is there a
> problem with that. Have I said that all immigrants are bad, no. Have
> I said that we shouldn't have immigration, no. So why dont you take a
> hike somewhere, listen to what i'm saying, and tell me exactlly what
> it is i'm bieng racist about. And it's funny you know because it's
> not just white people who are raising questions about immigration.
> You have it so far up you nose, you just assume there all white.
I'd believe you were it not for one thing; I've addressed every one of your 'concerns' and given evidence and facts as to why those concerns are ill-informed and in dire need of further discussion. And your response was...to repeat that you have concerns. You clearly don't want to have your concerns addressed. All you want is to be right, and you have no problem with making up fantasy-facts to try and support your case.
You've said immigration should be capped, but all the criteria you've come up with for capping already exist. 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.
How are you being racist? You're being racist about the assumption that immigrants come here to sponge off benefits. You're being racist about the assumption that "they are less active than us". You're being racist when you said that this topic "wasn't about white folks". You're being racist when you say that immigrants only pretend to come here to work. And you're being racist when you try to ignore all the evidence against what you're saying, but you just repeat it anyway. Is that enough reasons why you're a racist kevstar?
Oh, and I know it's not just white people raising concerns about immigration. The thing is you see, I don't assume anyone who raises concerns IS a racist. 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?
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?
"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, but I'm always willing to watch you try to avoid answering another question.
The housing crisis? Could you tell me how immigrants are driving up house prices please? How will they help stop it? Well, with a healthy economy, there will be more money going round which means earnings and savings will increase which in turn means people can afford houses easier.
The NHS? We need billions in investment and our aging workforce means we'll have to borrow it. Unless...we get an influx of workers from overseas who will keep our economy vaguely healthy and thus allow us to invest in the NHS.
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. 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?
By the way, are you gonna admit that you cut and pasted your entire post that this reply stemmed from, or should I embarrass you by providing the link to it? Your choice.
> Rubbish, your just knocking back anything anyone has to say when
> mentioning immigrants. What makes you think that all immigrants are
> black in anyways, cos thats the way your sounding to me.
I'm addressing the fact that you, in a post you made last week, said;
"Well this topic isn't about white folks, is it."
Didn't you my dear little bigoted boy? So you see, I'm addressing the fact that YOU seem to think all immigrants are non-white. Hell, gerrid even mentioned how you didn't seem to be considering white Eastern European immigrants. Amazing really; you always go for the "I know you are but what am I" approach when you're confronted with your racism.
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.
>
> Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that we need to encourage
> chavs into squalid little jobs in order to stop them going to nasty
> dirty foreigners. Any ideas on how you'd achieve this minor miracle?
>
> Well the proposed moves regarding incapacity benefit should help,
> although they should apply to thoose already on sick.
I'm sorry, what? Are you trying to imply that we need to get people suffering from incapacitating injuries into godawful jobs? Is that what you're saying?
And if it is, tell me; how is that going to encourage chavs into squalid little jobs? Did I miss something? Is being a chav regarded as a disability for the purposes of incapacity benefit?
> This is where your ignorant mind comes into play, when have I said
> that immigrants don't do a good job? And when havn't I had respect
> for the ones that do work? What I dont have respect for, is people
> coming on to our shores with the impresion there here to do nothing
> but good for the Country, but actually do quite the opposite and
> scrounge of our benefits. It's just like anything you see, you get
> the good ones, and you get the bad ones.
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. 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", and went on to make unsupported claims that "they" are here to plunder the UK's benefit system. And do you remember that the report you linked to discussed the myth of immigrants coming here solely to scrounge? 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> Gateshead actually, so your alright. I'd like to make a note to
> others that anyone who has an opinion about immigration not working,
> your not racist.
However, when all of the those opinions about immigration not working are utterly discredited, and you still repeat them and pretend that you haven't had your ass handed to you on a plate concerning them, that tends to indicate that you're racist, doesn't it? I mean God, I find myself worrying for the Jewish community in Gateshead in case you're wandering up to them and asking them if they want to take a shower in your airtight garage.
> They why is it not working, if it was then we wouldn't be in this
> mess would we.
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.
> Yeahh, and that evidence is based on putting "other" in
> there application form when asked about what job skills they have,
> hey thats going to work every time. I mean, what sort of rubbish is
> all that about.
Bwahahahahahahahhahahaaaaaa! Yeah, of course that's the case kevstar! Obviously; I can see why you, a person who's reaction to being told that his assumptions about immigration are incorrect was "I can't be expected to know that", would know everything about immigration forms.
Give me some evidence that this is what actually happens. Because it sounds like something your dad told you, and you accepted.
> 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, 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?
> Well, I think it isn't under controll. Lets just take the figure
> quoted in the link I provided earlier. It says how they contributed
> about £2bln nearly 3. I just wonder how much it costs to
> pollice the borders, cost of apealls, cost of administration, the
> cost in deporting them back and anything else I may have forgot. No I
> didn't see thoose costs in the link, I wonder why not. Is it because
> they might be hiding them from us?
YOU think it's not under control? But you don't have any evidence for that belief, do you?
Ah yes; the link that states that immigrants make us a net profit? Do you understand what that means? It means that, taking into account the costs of administration, appeals, deporting any unsuccessful immigrants (and your pathetic example of "policing the borders" is rather dumb; we do that to stop smuggling as well you know. Do you imagine that the brave police are on constant vigil for brown invaders?) and anything else you may have forgotten, we STILL MAKE A COUPLE OF BILLION PER YEAR YOU NUMBNUTTED BRAIN DONER.
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?
>
> Haaa, you racist piece of junked up crap if ever I heard one. You
> see, when people call us white folks names, it's not bieng racist is
> it. You are saying that all chavs are uneducated and baby machines?
> And you have the cheek to call me racist, you hypocrite.
> If you look in the link I provided, it state that it's the immigrants
> who are having big familys.
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. 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?
Am I saying all chavs are uneducated? Yup; that's sort of what the term means. The reason someone is branded a chav is because they're uneducated, usually jobless, and mostly (though not always) selfish and hateful. You don't get upper class chavs in universities my dear boy. It's a term for a social grouping, not a racial one.
Incidentally, I am white, blonde haired, and blue eyed. Would you like to tell me how I'm being racist please?
>
> 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.
>
> Listen, people like me are not racist, there concerned, is there a
> problem with that. Have I said that all immigrants are bad, no. Have
> I said that we shouldn't have immigration, no. So why dont you take a
> hike somewhere, listen to what i'm saying, and tell me exactlly what
> it is i'm bieng racist about. And it's funny you know because it's
> not just white people who are raising questions about immigration.
> You have it so far up you nose, you just assume there all white.
I'd believe you were it not for one thing; I've addressed every one of your 'concerns' and given evidence and facts as to why those concerns are ill-informed and in dire need of further discussion. And your response was...to repeat that you have concerns. You clearly don't want to have your concerns addressed. All you want is to be right, and you have no problem with making up fantasy-facts to try and support your case.
You've said immigration should be capped, but all the criteria you've come up with for capping already exist. 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.
How are you being racist? You're being racist about the assumption that immigrants come here to sponge off benefits. You're being racist about the assumption that "they are less active than us". You're being racist when you said that this topic "wasn't about white folks". You're being racist when you say that immigrants only pretend to come here to work. And you're being racist when you try to ignore all the evidence against what you're saying, but you just repeat it anyway. Is that enough reasons why you're a racist kevstar?
Oh, and I know it's not just white people raising concerns about immigration. The thing is you see, I don't assume anyone who raises concerns IS a racist. 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?
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?
"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, but I'm always willing to watch you try to avoid answering another question.
The housing crisis? Could you tell me how immigrants are driving up house prices please? How will they help stop it? Well, with a healthy economy, there will be more money going round which means earnings and savings will increase which in turn means people can afford houses easier.
The NHS? We need billions in investment and our aging workforce means we'll have to borrow it. Unless...we get an influx of workers from overseas who will keep our economy vaguely healthy and thus allow us to invest in the NHS.
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. 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?
By the way, are you gonna admit that you cut and pasted your entire post that this reply stemmed from, or should I embarrass you by providing the link to it? Your choice.
Quote from Sky news....The Prime Minister has accepted that people have justifiable concerns about immigration.
So as I first thought, I was justified in having my concerns. Hey it's a shame the people who called me racist are not only wrong, but also ignorant too.
Quote from observer.... Immigrants' rights to settle permanently in Britain will be drastically curbed as the government admits for the first time that the nation's 'hospitality' has been tested by abuses of the immigration and asylum system.
Hmmm, isn't this what I was saying, but because there's no figures to back a concern, it automatically makes me racist when mentioned? This just shows you don't need figures to be right about something.
Note to light, do you still think immigration is "controlled" now the goverment admits that theres abuses to the Asylum and immigration system.
So as I first thought, I was justified in having my concerns. Hey it's a shame the people who called me racist are not only wrong, but also ignorant too.
Quote from observer.... Immigrants' rights to settle permanently in Britain will be drastically curbed as the government admits for the first time that the nation's 'hospitality' has been tested by abuses of the immigration and asylum system.
Hmmm, isn't this what I was saying, but because there's no figures to back a concern, it automatically makes me racist when mentioned? This just shows you don't need figures to be right about something.
Note to light, do you still think immigration is "controlled" now the goverment admits that theres abuses to the Asylum and immigration system.
gerrid wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
> Well, I think it isn't under controll.
>
> And there's the jape. You don't know it's not under control. you're
> just guessing. Aren't you? You don't have ANY evidence to suggest
> that it isn't under control. In fact the evidence suggests that it
> IS.
Notice how 4 of the main partys now agree that immigration isn't under control, and that a change inthe system is whats needed, are theese people racist.
>
>
> Lets just take the figure
> quoted in the link I provided earlier. It says how they contributed
> about £2bln nearly 3. I just wonder how much it costs to
> pollice the borders, cost of apealls, cost of administration, the
> cost in deporting them back and anything else I may have forgot. No
> I
> didn't see thoose costs in the link, I wonder why not. Is it because
> they might be hiding them from us?
>
> You are the stupidest person I've ever met. How exactly is tightening
> immigration going to LOWER immigration control costs? You've already
> said that tightening immigration will cause MORE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
> That means MORE money, less immigrants actually coming in - LESS
> MONEY.
Well, thats my point, the figures say that they contributed £2-3bln to the economy, but they didn't mention how much money has been spent on the things mentioned above.
>
>
> You are saying that all chavs are uneducated and baby machines?
>
> Well yes because THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF A CHAV.
>
>
> Listen, people like me are not racist, there concerned,
>
> Yes concerned - but what is your first idea as to deal with these
> concerns? "SHIP OUT ALL THE IMMIGRANTS!". Please would you
> look at all of my points which you have failed to answer.
When did I say ship out all the immigrants you stupid idiot!
The fact
> that you attribute your percieved problems to immigrants, HAVING NO
> EVIDENCE TO BACK YOU UP, is what makes you seem racist. It's just an
> exercise in xenophobia.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke will spell out new measures to deal with abuses of the system - which the Prime Minister has accepted were the cause of justifiable concern.
>
>
> 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,
>
> How do you know it's still rising? Where are your figures? Who tells
> you overcrowding is a concern? Kilroy? Any actual facts here? Oh wait
> no you're just pulling it out of your ass.
Look at the figures in the link previously provided in the post and you'll see. You ask why I don't reply to you questions, well your asking things thats already been raised. For what it's worth, I agree with the new proposals labour Labour have laid out. "proper tests and finger-printing of everybody who gets a visa who is coming into the country" sounds like a good plan and is welcome, so too is thier plans to speed up the removal of failed asylum seekers.
> kevstar wrote:
> Well, I think it isn't under controll.
>
> And there's the jape. You don't know it's not under control. you're
> just guessing. Aren't you? You don't have ANY evidence to suggest
> that it isn't under control. In fact the evidence suggests that it
> IS.
Notice how 4 of the main partys now agree that immigration isn't under control, and that a change inthe system is whats needed, are theese people racist.
>
>
> Lets just take the figure
> quoted in the link I provided earlier. It says how they contributed
> about £2bln nearly 3. I just wonder how much it costs to
> pollice the borders, cost of apealls, cost of administration, the
> cost in deporting them back and anything else I may have forgot. No
> I
> didn't see thoose costs in the link, I wonder why not. Is it because
> they might be hiding them from us?
>
> You are the stupidest person I've ever met. How exactly is tightening
> immigration going to LOWER immigration control costs? You've already
> said that tightening immigration will cause MORE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
> That means MORE money, less immigrants actually coming in - LESS
> MONEY.
Well, thats my point, the figures say that they contributed £2-3bln to the economy, but they didn't mention how much money has been spent on the things mentioned above.
>
>
> You are saying that all chavs are uneducated and baby machines?
>
> Well yes because THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF A CHAV.
>
>
> Listen, people like me are not racist, there concerned,
>
> Yes concerned - but what is your first idea as to deal with these
> concerns? "SHIP OUT ALL THE IMMIGRANTS!". Please would you
> look at all of my points which you have failed to answer.
When did I say ship out all the immigrants you stupid idiot!
The fact
> that you attribute your percieved problems to immigrants, HAVING NO
> EVIDENCE TO BACK YOU UP, is what makes you seem racist. It's just an
> exercise in xenophobia.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke will spell out new measures to deal with abuses of the system - which the Prime Minister has accepted were the cause of justifiable concern.
>
>
> 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,
>
> How do you know it's still rising? Where are your figures? Who tells
> you overcrowding is a concern? Kilroy? Any actual facts here? Oh wait
> no you're just pulling it out of your ass.
Look at the figures in the link previously provided in the post and you'll see. You ask why I don't reply to you questions, well your asking things thats already been raised. For what it's worth, I agree with the new proposals labour Labour have laid out. "proper tests and finger-printing of everybody who gets a visa who is coming into the country" sounds like a good plan and is welcome, so too is thier plans to speed up the removal of failed asylum seekers.
kevstar wrote:
> Well, I think it isn't under controll.
And there's the jape. You don't know it's not under control. you're just guessing. Aren't you? You don't have ANY evidence to suggest that it isn't under control. In fact the evidence suggests that it IS.
Lets just take the figure
> quoted in the link I provided earlier. It says how they contributed
> about £2bln nearly 3. I just wonder how much it costs to
> pollice the borders, cost of apealls, cost of administration, the
> cost in deporting them back and anything else I may have forgot. No I
> didn't see thoose costs in the link, I wonder why not. Is it because
> they might be hiding them from us?
You are the stupidest person I've ever met. How exactly is tightening immigration going to LOWER immigration control costs? You've already said that tightening immigration will cause MORE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. That means MORE money, less immigrants actually coming in - LESS MONEY.
> You are saying that all chavs are uneducated and baby machines?
Well yes because THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF A CHAV.
> Listen, people like me are not racist, there concerned,
Yes concerned - but what is your first idea as to deal with these concerns? "SHIP OUT ALL THE IMMIGRANTS!". Please would you look at all of my points which you have failed to answer. The fact that you attribute your percieved problems to immigrants, HAVING NO EVIDENCE TO BACK YOU UP, is what makes you seem racist. It's just an exercise in xenophobia.
> 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,
How do you know it's still rising? Where are your figures? Who tells you overcrowding is a concern? Kilroy? Any actual facts here? Oh wait no you're just pulling it out of your ass.
> Well, I think it isn't under controll.
And there's the jape. You don't know it's not under control. you're just guessing. Aren't you? You don't have ANY evidence to suggest that it isn't under control. In fact the evidence suggests that it IS.
Lets just take the figure
> quoted in the link I provided earlier. It says how they contributed
> about £2bln nearly 3. I just wonder how much it costs to
> pollice the borders, cost of apealls, cost of administration, the
> cost in deporting them back and anything else I may have forgot. No I
> didn't see thoose costs in the link, I wonder why not. Is it because
> they might be hiding them from us?
You are the stupidest person I've ever met. How exactly is tightening immigration going to LOWER immigration control costs? You've already said that tightening immigration will cause MORE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. That means MORE money, less immigrants actually coming in - LESS MONEY.
> You are saying that all chavs are uneducated and baby machines?
Well yes because THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF A CHAV.
> Listen, people like me are not racist, there concerned,
Yes concerned - but what is your first idea as to deal with these concerns? "SHIP OUT ALL THE IMMIGRANTS!". Please would you look at all of my points which you have failed to answer. The fact that you attribute your percieved problems to immigrants, HAVING NO EVIDENCE TO BACK YOU UP, is what makes you seem racist. It's just an exercise in xenophobia.
> 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,
How do you know it's still rising? Where are your figures? Who tells you overcrowding is a concern? Kilroy? Any actual facts here? Oh wait no you're just pulling it out of your ass.
Light wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
>
> I think it's more a matter of restoring some sense that these jobs
> are important; and if they're seen as important, then there are
> local
> people who are not working who would do them. What is needed is much
> more sense that all jobs are important in the economy and maybe they
> need different conditions of work, different levels of payment,
> different this or that, but they're all important and that there is
> a
> sense in which respect is owing to all of the people who play a part
> in the system. I think that this is what’s gone wrong.
>
> Bull; you're backpeddling and you know it. First you tried to claim
> that any immigrant in a fairly rubbishy job wasn't working at all.
> Now you're suddenly trying to claim that we need to run recruiting
> drives for roadsweepers in order to make them nice and white again?
Rubbish, your just knocking back anything anyone has to say when mentioning immigrants. What makes you think that all immigrants are black in anyways, cos thats the way your sounding to me.
>
> Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that we need to encourage
> chavs into squalid little jobs in order to stop them going to nasty
> dirty foreigners. Any ideas on how you'd achieve this minor miracle?
Well the proposed moves regarding incapacity benefit should help, although they should apply to thoose already on sick.
>
> As a final point, yes we do need to show respect to all of the people
> who play a part in the system. So why are you so utterly unwilling to
> show even a crumb of respect to immigrants?
This is where your ignorant mind comes into play, when have I said that immigrants don't do a good job? And when havn't I had respect for the ones that do work? What I dont have respect for, is people coming on to our shores with the impresion there here to do nothing but good for the Country, but actually do quite the opposite and scrounge of our benefits. It's just like anything you see, you get the good ones, and you get the bad ones.
>
>
>
>
>
> No i'm from newcastle, what we need legal channels which match
> labour
> migrants to the job vacancies: the skill vacancies that we have and
> the vacancies for low-skilled jobs, so that the people who are
> coming
> in can move into jobs and make an economic and social contribution.
> If the controls are too tight, then there will be huge incentives
> for
> people to come and stay illegally. If the controls are not there at
> all, if we had open borders, then more people would come than there
> were jobs to go around and that would create tensions on the ground,
> so the trick in managing migration is to try and get that balance
> right.
>
>
> From Newcastle eh? Way to make me ashamed of sharing your city of
> birth. (Please note; I'd like to make it clear to all others
> reading that not all Geordies are as ferociously ignorant as Kevstar
> here)
Gateshead actually, so your alright. I'd like to make a note to others that anyone who has an opinion about immigration not working, your not racist.
>
> I'm afraid to say that, once again, you've shown a lack of
> understanding of the immigration system. We ALREADY HAVE specialist
> agencies that match migrants to jobs. Once again, your suggestions
> for reform have actually been in place for some time.
They why is it not working, if it was then we wouldn't be in this mess would we.
>
> The second part of that paragraph, from "controls are too
> tight" onward, is reasonably nonsensical. I assume you're trying
> to say that if we make it too difficult to get jobs, people will stay
> illegally. But you're missing the simple fact that an economic
> migrant has to have evidence that they're here to work in the first
> place.
Yeahh, and that evidence is based on putting "other" in there application form when asked about what job skills they have, hey thats going to work every time. I mean, what sort of rubbish is all that about.
And as for your little point that essentially seems to be
> saying that soon foreigners will have all our jobs, and nice white
> citizens will be unemployed; where is your evidence for that? It
> sounds suspiciously like another entry from the kevstar fantasy
> 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.
>
>
>
> At the end of the day tony Blair is trying to create a managed
> immigration policy which I think isn't feasable, and they are a few
> reasons for this- the main one being that I think that a managed
> migration policy is a kind of verbal improvement over a migration
> situation which is not properly under... under control. I think that
> the general issue of relatively rapid growth of populations of
> foreign origin is one which is troubling all of Europe to varying
> degrees and not just Britain. I think it's a problem for a variety
> of
> reasons. It's a problem because some of those populations bring with
> them very distinct cultural habits which create difficulties for
> themselves and for any welfare state in which they are situated -
> I'm
> thinking of large family size, of low workforce participation, of
> low
> levels of education and all of that. That is more a question of
> immigrants rather than of people born in Britain, although obviously
> the numbers are so large it gets transmitted to the second and third
> generation in Britain and also throughout Europe where these
> problems
> are quite widespread.
>
> Wow; I've never read something that is quite so obviously cribbed
> from another source. Tell me, if I fed this statement into a Google
> search, are you quite sure I wouldn't find it elsewhere?
> And yet, in that entire statement, you don't actually say anything
> concrete. Lets go through this pile of b******t one step at a time
> shall we?
>
> 1. "managed migration is a verbal improvement". Humour me;
> explain exactly what you mean by this. Because the sentence says that
> migration "isn't under control" but provides absolutely no
> evidence for that statement.
Well, I think it isn't under controll. Lets just take the figure quoted in the link I provided earlier. It says how they contributed about £2bln nearly 3. I just wonder how much it costs to pollice the borders, cost of apealls, cost of administration, the cost in deporting them back and anything else I may have forgot. No I didn't see thoose costs in the link, I wonder why not. Is it because they might be hiding them from us?
>
> 2. "Distinct cultural habits" What, like being offensively
> brown to the naked eye? Which cultures have low workforce
> participation? The only one I can think of that has that as part of
> it's cultural identity is chav culture. Low levels of education?
> Again, only chav culture makes a virtue out of ignorance. Large
> family size? Guess what; the biggest families I know of are...yup,
> chavs. Amazing how you're so unwilling to apply these criteria to
> white people...
Haaa, you racist piece of junked up crap if ever I heard one. You see, when people call us white folks names, it's not bieng racist is it. You are saying that all chavs are uneducated and baby machines? And you have the cheek to call me racist, you hypocrite.
If you look in the link I provided, it state that it's the immigrants who are having big familys.
>
> 3. "obviously...these problems are quite widespread". What
> problems? The only problem I can see here is a very obvious fear of
> brown people and of different cultures. The problem isn't one created
> by immigrants. It's a problem created by fearful racists such as
> yourself.
Rubbish, you don't even know what colour I am, for all you know I could be black, brown or yellow, thats called prejudging.
>
> Incidentally, I notice that the paragraph also makes reference to how
> the "problems" last for 2 or 3 generations. You do realise
> what that sounds like, don't you? I'm assuming you're aware of the
> BNP dream of deporting anyone with foreign blood over the last 3
> generations, right?
Listen, people like me are not racist, there concerned, is there a problem with that. Have I said that all immigrants are bad, no. Have I said that we shouldn't have immigration, no. So why dont you take a hike somewhere, listen to what i'm saying, and tell me exactlly what it is i'm bieng racist about. And it's funny you know because it's not just white people who are raising questions about immigration. You have it so far up you nose, you just assume there all white.
>
> The only reason that you (or whomever actually wrote this) doesn't
> think it's feasible is obvious; you don't want it to be feasible.
> Jesus, have the balls to think about just why you're so determined to
> prove immigration is a bad idea when EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE
> WE'VE DISCUSSED (including the link that you yourself provided)
> points to immigration being good for the country.
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.
> kevstar wrote:
>
> I think it's more a matter of restoring some sense that these jobs
> are important; and if they're seen as important, then there are
> local
> people who are not working who would do them. What is needed is much
> more sense that all jobs are important in the economy and maybe they
> need different conditions of work, different levels of payment,
> different this or that, but they're all important and that there is
> a
> sense in which respect is owing to all of the people who play a part
> in the system. I think that this is what’s gone wrong.
>
> Bull; you're backpeddling and you know it. First you tried to claim
> that any immigrant in a fairly rubbishy job wasn't working at all.
> Now you're suddenly trying to claim that we need to run recruiting
> drives for roadsweepers in order to make them nice and white again?
Rubbish, your just knocking back anything anyone has to say when mentioning immigrants. What makes you think that all immigrants are black in anyways, cos thats the way your sounding to me.
>
> Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that we need to encourage
> chavs into squalid little jobs in order to stop them going to nasty
> dirty foreigners. Any ideas on how you'd achieve this minor miracle?
Well the proposed moves regarding incapacity benefit should help, although they should apply to thoose already on sick.
>
> As a final point, yes we do need to show respect to all of the people
> who play a part in the system. So why are you so utterly unwilling to
> show even a crumb of respect to immigrants?
This is where your ignorant mind comes into play, when have I said that immigrants don't do a good job? And when havn't I had respect for the ones that do work? What I dont have respect for, is people coming on to our shores with the impresion there here to do nothing but good for the Country, but actually do quite the opposite and scrounge of our benefits. It's just like anything you see, you get the good ones, and you get the bad ones.
>
>
>
>
>
> No i'm from newcastle, what we need legal channels which match
> labour
> migrants to the job vacancies: the skill vacancies that we have and
> the vacancies for low-skilled jobs, so that the people who are
> coming
> in can move into jobs and make an economic and social contribution.
> If the controls are too tight, then there will be huge incentives
> for
> people to come and stay illegally. If the controls are not there at
> all, if we had open borders, then more people would come than there
> were jobs to go around and that would create tensions on the ground,
> so the trick in managing migration is to try and get that balance
> right.
>
>
> From Newcastle eh? Way to make me ashamed of sharing your city of
> birth. (Please note; I'd like to make it clear to all others
> reading that not all Geordies are as ferociously ignorant as Kevstar
> here)
Gateshead actually, so your alright. I'd like to make a note to others that anyone who has an opinion about immigration not working, your not racist.
>
> I'm afraid to say that, once again, you've shown a lack of
> understanding of the immigration system. We ALREADY HAVE specialist
> agencies that match migrants to jobs. Once again, your suggestions
> for reform have actually been in place for some time.
They why is it not working, if it was then we wouldn't be in this mess would we.
>
> The second part of that paragraph, from "controls are too
> tight" onward, is reasonably nonsensical. I assume you're trying
> to say that if we make it too difficult to get jobs, people will stay
> illegally. But you're missing the simple fact that an economic
> migrant has to have evidence that they're here to work in the first
> place.
Yeahh, and that evidence is based on putting "other" in there application form when asked about what job skills they have, hey thats going to work every time. I mean, what sort of rubbish is all that about.
And as for your little point that essentially seems to be
> saying that soon foreigners will have all our jobs, and nice white
> citizens will be unemployed; where is your evidence for that? It
> sounds suspiciously like another entry from the kevstar fantasy
> 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.
>
>
>
> At the end of the day tony Blair is trying to create a managed
> immigration policy which I think isn't feasable, and they are a few
> reasons for this- the main one being that I think that a managed
> migration policy is a kind of verbal improvement over a migration
> situation which is not properly under... under control. I think that
> the general issue of relatively rapid growth of populations of
> foreign origin is one which is troubling all of Europe to varying
> degrees and not just Britain. I think it's a problem for a variety
> of
> reasons. It's a problem because some of those populations bring with
> them very distinct cultural habits which create difficulties for
> themselves and for any welfare state in which they are situated -
> I'm
> thinking of large family size, of low workforce participation, of
> low
> levels of education and all of that. That is more a question of
> immigrants rather than of people born in Britain, although obviously
> the numbers are so large it gets transmitted to the second and third
> generation in Britain and also throughout Europe where these
> problems
> are quite widespread.
>
> Wow; I've never read something that is quite so obviously cribbed
> from another source. Tell me, if I fed this statement into a Google
> search, are you quite sure I wouldn't find it elsewhere?
> And yet, in that entire statement, you don't actually say anything
> concrete. Lets go through this pile of b******t one step at a time
> shall we?
>
> 1. "managed migration is a verbal improvement". Humour me;
> explain exactly what you mean by this. Because the sentence says that
> migration "isn't under control" but provides absolutely no
> evidence for that statement.
Well, I think it isn't under controll. Lets just take the figure quoted in the link I provided earlier. It says how they contributed about £2bln nearly 3. I just wonder how much it costs to pollice the borders, cost of apealls, cost of administration, the cost in deporting them back and anything else I may have forgot. No I didn't see thoose costs in the link, I wonder why not. Is it because they might be hiding them from us?
>
> 2. "Distinct cultural habits" What, like being offensively
> brown to the naked eye? Which cultures have low workforce
> participation? The only one I can think of that has that as part of
> it's cultural identity is chav culture. Low levels of education?
> Again, only chav culture makes a virtue out of ignorance. Large
> family size? Guess what; the biggest families I know of are...yup,
> chavs. Amazing how you're so unwilling to apply these criteria to
> white people...
Haaa, you racist piece of junked up crap if ever I heard one. You see, when people call us white folks names, it's not bieng racist is it. You are saying that all chavs are uneducated and baby machines? And you have the cheek to call me racist, you hypocrite.
If you look in the link I provided, it state that it's the immigrants who are having big familys.
>
> 3. "obviously...these problems are quite widespread". What
> problems? The only problem I can see here is a very obvious fear of
> brown people and of different cultures. The problem isn't one created
> by immigrants. It's a problem created by fearful racists such as
> yourself.
Rubbish, you don't even know what colour I am, for all you know I could be black, brown or yellow, thats called prejudging.
>
> Incidentally, I notice that the paragraph also makes reference to how
> the "problems" last for 2 or 3 generations. You do realise
> what that sounds like, don't you? I'm assuming you're aware of the
> BNP dream of deporting anyone with foreign blood over the last 3
> generations, right?
Listen, people like me are not racist, there concerned, is there a problem with that. Have I said that all immigrants are bad, no. Have I said that we shouldn't have immigration, no. So why dont you take a hike somewhere, listen to what i'm saying, and tell me exactlly what it is i'm bieng racist about. And it's funny you know because it's not just white people who are raising questions about immigration. You have it so far up you nose, you just assume there all white.
>
> The only reason that you (or whomever actually wrote this) doesn't
> think it's feasible is obvious; you don't want it to be feasible.
> Jesus, have the balls to think about just why you're so determined to
> prove immigration is a bad idea when EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE
> WE'VE DISCUSSED (including the link that you yourself provided)
> points to immigration being good for the country.
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.
Ok kevstar it's time to reply to some simple arguments made against you:
1) Home office studies show that migrants make an overall net contribution to the economy.
2) There are no concrete figures regarding immingration so you cannot logically say that there are "too many immigrants", because you do not know how many immigrants there are
3) Stretched services (Health and welfare is your favourite) are not necessarily anything to do with immigrants. I have already suggested that it is infact the elderly population that provides the greatest strain on our services, not immigrants. So, in order to solve this "overcrowding", should we deport out all old people? Or just kill them when they decide to retire?
4) You suggest that too tight controls = more illegal immigrants and that no controls = too many immigrants. So I'm guessing you want something in the middle. Pardon me, but isn't that exactly what we have now? It has been consistently pointed out that legal immigrants must work in order to stay in the country, or get in in the first place, so the system you suggest is already in place. If you are talking about Asylum Seekers, then that is another matter. If you are talking about illegal immigrants, then why argue? They're illegal - they're not allowed in. If they get found out they get deported unless they're found to be making a contribution to the economy and to the society.
5) If you're worried about darkies taking your jobs, do you suggest that we prevent any sort of immigration at all? If this is your view, then the most dangerous type of immigrants are the skilled workers from Europe America and Asia, who take highly paid jobs. I doubt you have any aspirations to be a bin man, so why exactly are you scared of immigrants taking those jobs? So do you suggest that we don't allow in any more skilled workers into multinational organisations?
6) Where exactly do your fears of overcrowding come from? Any figures or facts that show that the UK is nearing bursting point? You've already said that you have no experience of this phenomena, yet you claim that it is in full effect.
7)What about the cultural impact of immigration - to give you an idea - the most powerful country on earth (USA) is also the country with the most recorded immigration in recent times. For a simple example, the music industry in American was most influenced by Jewish migrants during and after the 2nd world war, not to mention the numerous black slaves that contributed to blues and jazz music. This is just one example of culture being diversified by immigration. Taking a look at the UK at a similar time period, our music was still stuck in Victorian ballads. Without immigration culture has no progression. Without it we'd still be speaking Middle English and working under the feudal system. My guess is that you'd be a peasant
1) Home office studies show that migrants make an overall net contribution to the economy.
2) There are no concrete figures regarding immingration so you cannot logically say that there are "too many immigrants", because you do not know how many immigrants there are
3) Stretched services (Health and welfare is your favourite) are not necessarily anything to do with immigrants. I have already suggested that it is infact the elderly population that provides the greatest strain on our services, not immigrants. So, in order to solve this "overcrowding", should we deport out all old people? Or just kill them when they decide to retire?
4) You suggest that too tight controls = more illegal immigrants and that no controls = too many immigrants. So I'm guessing you want something in the middle. Pardon me, but isn't that exactly what we have now? It has been consistently pointed out that legal immigrants must work in order to stay in the country, or get in in the first place, so the system you suggest is already in place. If you are talking about Asylum Seekers, then that is another matter. If you are talking about illegal immigrants, then why argue? They're illegal - they're not allowed in. If they get found out they get deported unless they're found to be making a contribution to the economy and to the society.
5) If you're worried about darkies taking your jobs, do you suggest that we prevent any sort of immigration at all? If this is your view, then the most dangerous type of immigrants are the skilled workers from Europe America and Asia, who take highly paid jobs. I doubt you have any aspirations to be a bin man, so why exactly are you scared of immigrants taking those jobs? So do you suggest that we don't allow in any more skilled workers into multinational organisations?
6) Where exactly do your fears of overcrowding come from? Any figures or facts that show that the UK is nearing bursting point? You've already said that you have no experience of this phenomena, yet you claim that it is in full effect.
7)What about the cultural impact of immigration - to give you an idea - the most powerful country on earth (USA) is also the country with the most recorded immigration in recent times. For a simple example, the music industry in American was most influenced by Jewish migrants during and after the 2nd world war, not to mention the numerous black slaves that contributed to blues and jazz music. This is just one example of culture being diversified by immigration. Taking a look at the UK at a similar time period, our music was still stuck in Victorian ballads. Without immigration culture has no progression. Without it we'd still be speaking Middle English and working under the feudal system. My guess is that you'd be a peasant
kevstar wrote:
> I think it's more a matter of restoring some sense that these jobs
> are important; and if they're seen as important, then there are local
> people who are not working who would do them. What is needed is much
> more sense that all jobs are important in the economy and maybe they
> need different conditions of work, different levels of payment,
> different this or that, but they're all important and that there is a
> sense in which respect is owing to all of the people who play a part
> in the system. I think that this is what’s gone wrong.
Bull; you're backpeddling and you know it. First you tried to claim that any immigrant in a fairly rubbishy job wasn't working at all. Now you're suddenly trying to claim that we need to run recruiting drives for roadsweepers in order to make them nice and white again?
Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that we need to encourage chavs into squalid little jobs in order to stop them going to nasty dirty foreigners. Any ideas on how you'd achieve this minor miracle?
As a final point, yes we do need to show respect to all of the people who play a part in the system. So why are you so utterly unwilling to show even a crumb of respect to immigrants?
>
>
>
> No i'm from newcastle, what we need legal channels which match labour
> migrants to the job vacancies: the skill vacancies that we have and
> the vacancies for low-skilled jobs, so that the people who are coming
> in can move into jobs and make an economic and social contribution.
> If the controls are too tight, then there will be huge incentives for
> people to come and stay illegally. If the controls are not there at
> all, if we had open borders, then more people would come than there
> were jobs to go around and that would create tensions on the ground,
> so the trick in managing migration is to try and get that balance
> right.
>
From Newcastle eh? Way to make me ashamed of sharing your city of birth. (Please note; I'd like to make it clear to all others reading that not all Geordies are as ferociously ignorant as Kevstar here)
I'm afraid to say that, once again, you've shown a lack of understanding of the immigration system. We ALREADY HAVE specialist agencies that match migrants to jobs. Once again, your suggestions for reform have actually been in place for some time.
The second part of that paragraph, from "controls are too tight" onward, is reasonably nonsensical. I assume you're trying to say that if we make it too difficult to get jobs, people will stay illegally. But you're missing the simple fact that an economic migrant has to have evidence that they're here to work in the first place. And as for your little point that essentially seems to be saying that soon foreigners will have all our jobs, and nice white citizens will be unemployed; where is your evidence for that? It sounds suspiciously like another entry from the kevstar fantasy world.
>
> At the end of the day tony Blair is trying to create a managed
> immigration policy which I think isn't feasable, and they are a few
> reasons for this- the main one being that I think that a managed
> migration policy is a kind of verbal improvement over a migration
> situation which is not properly under... under control. I think that
> the general issue of relatively rapid growth of populations of
> foreign origin is one which is troubling all of Europe to varying
> degrees and not just Britain. I think it's a problem for a variety of
> reasons. It's a problem because some of those populations bring with
> them very distinct cultural habits which create difficulties for
> themselves and for any welfare state in which they are situated - I'm
> thinking of large family size, of low workforce participation, of low
> levels of education and all of that. That is more a question of
> immigrants rather than of people born in Britain, although obviously
> the numbers are so large it gets transmitted to the second and third
> generation in Britain and also throughout Europe where these problems
> are quite widespread.
Wow; I've never read something that is quite so obviously cribbed from another source. Tell me, if I fed this statement into a Google search, are you quite sure I wouldn't find it elsewhere?
And yet, in that entire statement, you don't actually say anything concrete. Lets go through this pile of b******t one step at a time shall we?
1. "managed migration is a verbal improvement". Humour me; explain exactly what you mean by this. Because the sentence says that migration "isn't under control" but provides absolutely no evidence for that statement.
2. "Distinct cultural habits" What, like being offensively brown to the naked eye? Which cultures have low workforce participation? The only one I can think of that has that as part of it's cultural identity is chav culture. Low levels of education? Again, only chav culture makes a virtue out of ignorance. Large family size? Guess what; the biggest families I know of are...yup, chavs. Amazing how you're so unwilling to apply these criteria to white people...
3. "obviously...these problems are quite widespread". What problems? The only problem I can see here is a very obvious fear of brown people and of different cultures. The problem isn't one created by immigrants. It's a problem created by fearful racists such as yourself.
Incidentally, I notice that the paragraph also makes reference to how the "problems" last for 2 or 3 generations. You do realise what that sounds like, don't you? I'm assuming you're aware of the BNP dream of deporting anyone with foreign blood over the last 3 generations, right?
The only reason that you (or whomever actually wrote this) doesn't think it's feasible is obvious; you don't want it to be feasible. Jesus, have the balls to think about just why you're so determined to prove immigration is a bad idea when EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE WE'VE DISCUSSED (including the link that you yourself provided) points to immigration being good for the country.
> I think it's more a matter of restoring some sense that these jobs
> are important; and if they're seen as important, then there are local
> people who are not working who would do them. What is needed is much
> more sense that all jobs are important in the economy and maybe they
> need different conditions of work, different levels of payment,
> different this or that, but they're all important and that there is a
> sense in which respect is owing to all of the people who play a part
> in the system. I think that this is what’s gone wrong.
Bull; you're backpeddling and you know it. First you tried to claim that any immigrant in a fairly rubbishy job wasn't working at all. Now you're suddenly trying to claim that we need to run recruiting drives for roadsweepers in order to make them nice and white again?
Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that we need to encourage chavs into squalid little jobs in order to stop them going to nasty dirty foreigners. Any ideas on how you'd achieve this minor miracle?
As a final point, yes we do need to show respect to all of the people who play a part in the system. So why are you so utterly unwilling to show even a crumb of respect to immigrants?
>
>
>
> No i'm from newcastle, what we need legal channels which match labour
> migrants to the job vacancies: the skill vacancies that we have and
> the vacancies for low-skilled jobs, so that the people who are coming
> in can move into jobs and make an economic and social contribution.
> If the controls are too tight, then there will be huge incentives for
> people to come and stay illegally. If the controls are not there at
> all, if we had open borders, then more people would come than there
> were jobs to go around and that would create tensions on the ground,
> so the trick in managing migration is to try and get that balance
> right.
>
From Newcastle eh? Way to make me ashamed of sharing your city of birth. (Please note; I'd like to make it clear to all others reading that not all Geordies are as ferociously ignorant as Kevstar here)
I'm afraid to say that, once again, you've shown a lack of understanding of the immigration system. We ALREADY HAVE specialist agencies that match migrants to jobs. Once again, your suggestions for reform have actually been in place for some time.
The second part of that paragraph, from "controls are too tight" onward, is reasonably nonsensical. I assume you're trying to say that if we make it too difficult to get jobs, people will stay illegally. But you're missing the simple fact that an economic migrant has to have evidence that they're here to work in the first place. And as for your little point that essentially seems to be saying that soon foreigners will have all our jobs, and nice white citizens will be unemployed; where is your evidence for that? It sounds suspiciously like another entry from the kevstar fantasy world.
>
> At the end of the day tony Blair is trying to create a managed
> immigration policy which I think isn't feasable, and they are a few
> reasons for this- the main one being that I think that a managed
> migration policy is a kind of verbal improvement over a migration
> situation which is not properly under... under control. I think that
> the general issue of relatively rapid growth of populations of
> foreign origin is one which is troubling all of Europe to varying
> degrees and not just Britain. I think it's a problem for a variety of
> reasons. It's a problem because some of those populations bring with
> them very distinct cultural habits which create difficulties for
> themselves and for any welfare state in which they are situated - I'm
> thinking of large family size, of low workforce participation, of low
> levels of education and all of that. That is more a question of
> immigrants rather than of people born in Britain, although obviously
> the numbers are so large it gets transmitted to the second and third
> generation in Britain and also throughout Europe where these problems
> are quite widespread.
Wow; I've never read something that is quite so obviously cribbed from another source. Tell me, if I fed this statement into a Google search, are you quite sure I wouldn't find it elsewhere?
And yet, in that entire statement, you don't actually say anything concrete. Lets go through this pile of b******t one step at a time shall we?
1. "managed migration is a verbal improvement". Humour me; explain exactly what you mean by this. Because the sentence says that migration "isn't under control" but provides absolutely no evidence for that statement.
2. "Distinct cultural habits" What, like being offensively brown to the naked eye? Which cultures have low workforce participation? The only one I can think of that has that as part of it's cultural identity is chav culture. Low levels of education? Again, only chav culture makes a virtue out of ignorance. Large family size? Guess what; the biggest families I know of are...yup, chavs. Amazing how you're so unwilling to apply these criteria to white people...
3. "obviously...these problems are quite widespread". What problems? The only problem I can see here is a very obvious fear of brown people and of different cultures. The problem isn't one created by immigrants. It's a problem created by fearful racists such as yourself.
Incidentally, I notice that the paragraph also makes reference to how the "problems" last for 2 or 3 generations. You do realise what that sounds like, don't you? I'm assuming you're aware of the BNP dream of deporting anyone with foreign blood over the last 3 generations, right?
The only reason that you (or whomever actually wrote this) doesn't think it's feasible is obvious; you don't want it to be feasible. Jesus, have the balls to think about just why you're so determined to prove immigration is a bad idea when EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE WE'VE DISCUSSED (including the link that you yourself provided) points to immigration being good for the country.
Light wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
> If you use immigration to solve the problem of filling jobs that
> people don't want to do, you create throughout the economic system
> an
> incentive not to take certain jobs seriously, just to regard them as
> things that can be done by people coming in from outside. And this
> doesn't solve the problem because those people then come in. They're
> rightly, treated as full citizens with choice of what they want to
> do
> themselves. And their children won't want to do those jobs, so that
> you're setting yourself into a position where you constantly need
> new
> immigrants in order to balance your economy and I think that the
> overall indirect effects of this are very harmful to the economy.
>
> Ah, so you've now abandoned the report and are moving back into
> straightforward "This is my opinion, and it's right"
> territory? Okay then...
>
> YOU think the effects of this are harmful to the economy? Based on
> what exactly? Because, y'know, the report you so kindly provided me
> with to destroy every single ill-informed statement you've
> made...that report says no such thing. In fact, it says that with a
> little help, the immigrants performing godawful jobs can have their
> social situation improved and thus they'll pull far more money into
> the economy.
>
> In other words, you've created another fantasy scenario in your head
> to try and back up why nasty darkies should be kept out. I grant you
> that you've at least had the good sense to couch it in terms of
> "people will want to better themselves and will no longer want
> to do those jobs". But if they DO better themselves, they're
> bringing in more money for our economy. So it's a win-win situation
> when it comes to letting in immigrants, isn't it?
>
I think it's more a matter of restoring some sense that these jobs are important; and if they're seen as important, then there are local people who are not working who would do them. What is needed is much more sense that all jobs are important in the economy and maybe they need different conditions of work, different levels of payment, different this or that, but they're all important and that there is a sense in which respect is owing to all of the people who play a part in the system. I think that this is what’s gone wrong.
>
> Take 150,000 people entering our shores a year, it seems to me, this
> is a very large number indeed it means that you have to build
> effectively a city the size of Oxford every year to accommodate the
> additional population. And this is very big news indeed. It would
> not
> take very long at that rate to cover the greater part of the South
> East of the country where of course the majority of immigrants go to
> live there not going to the highlands of Scotland they are not going
> to Northern Ireland. It'll make the Southern part of the country
> very, very powerfully overcrowded and, quite independently of issues
> of culture, simply in terms of numbers it is something which no one
> planned for, no one intended, from which no good consequences will
> come and which will produce some really very serious problems indeed
> for the whole of the appearance and structure of the Southern part
> of
> the country.
>
> Well, at least you've made a tiny effort to hide the fact that you
> got that figure from ImmigrationWatch UK, that well known
> organisation with links to the BNP. They always use the city of
> Cambridge as an example. You've gone for Oxford. Nice.
>
> Amazingly, you haven't bothered to take account of the number of
> people who leave the UK each year, whether by emigration or just good
> old fashioned death. So all you've done is given one side of the
> story and said "So this PROVES immigrants are evil!".
>
> Y'know, it's funny; not 3 post ago you were agreeing that there are
> no reliable stats on immigration figures. Yet here you are, trying to
> claim that you know the correct figures. It's almost as if you've
> forgotten what you've previously said in your haste to try and prove
> why brown people shouldn't be allowed in the country.
>
> I'm guessing you live in the South. And if I'm right, your opposition
> to immigration becomes increasingly clear; you assume that the
> majority will live near you, and you don't want to see an increased
> number of brown faces in your neighbourhood.
No i'm from newcastle, what we need legal channels which match labour migrants to the job vacancies: the skill vacancies that we have and the vacancies for low-skilled jobs, so that the people who are coming in can move into jobs and make an economic and social contribution. If the controls are too tight, then there will be huge incentives for people to come and stay illegally. If the controls are not there at all, if we had open borders, then more people would come than there were jobs to go around and that would create tensions on the ground, so the trick in managing migration is to try and get that balance right.
>
>
> Light, what do you say to those people like me who say that if you
> had increased immigration, continued population growth, what you'll
> have is more overcrowding in inner cities, more congestion, etc. It
> will reduce the quality of life, the quality of life is bad enough
> as
> it is. If we increase the population, it will deteriorate even
> further.
>
> You mean apart from all the facts and evidence I've given you showing
> that your assertion about overcrowding and population growth is an
> utter lie? What do I say to you? I say that you're a vile little
> bigot who has absolutely no interest in finding out what the facts
> are, or in having a reasoned debate on the matter. Your ignorance is
> astounding, and the fact that you've simply tried to ignore the many
> reasons why your arguments are factually incorrect demonstrates your
> bigotry and racism in crystal clear terms. You keep talking about
> overcrowding, then produce discredited evidence at best, or no
> evidence at all at worst. You also admit that you personally have no
> experience of the overcrowding you warn about, and further admit that
> it's solely based on a Worst Case scenario that you've conjured up in
> your tiny little brain. And also, I'd say that you're a
> scaremongering little cocktard who, upon having every single argument
> conclusively dissected and disproved, falls back on what the Sun told
> him to think. Reduce quality of life? And just how will that happen
> when immigrants bring in 3 billion more than they cost? More
> overcrowding and congestion? Where's your evidence for that?
>
> Finally I would say to you that, given the choice, I'd like to deal
> with your horrendously unpleasant and entirely unsupported arguments
> by deporting one bigoted little chav like you for every single
> immigrant that comes in.
At the end of the day tony Blair is trying to create a managed immigration policy which I think isn't feasable, and they are a few reasons for this- the main one being that I think that a managed migration policy is a kind of verbal improvement over a migration situation which is not properly under... under control. I think that the general issue of relatively rapid growth of populations of foreign origin is one which is troubling all of Europe to varying degrees and not just Britain. I think it's a problem for a variety of
reasons. It's a problem because some of those populations bring with them very distinct cultural habits which create difficulties for themselves and for any welfare state in which they are situated - I'm thinking of large family size, of low workforce participation, of low levels of education and all of that. That is more a question of immigrants rather than of people born in Britain, although obviously the numbers are so large it gets transmitted to the second and third generation in Britain and also throughout Europe where these problems are quite widespread.
> kevstar wrote:
> If you use immigration to solve the problem of filling jobs that
> people don't want to do, you create throughout the economic system
> an
> incentive not to take certain jobs seriously, just to regard them as
> things that can be done by people coming in from outside. And this
> doesn't solve the problem because those people then come in. They're
> rightly, treated as full citizens with choice of what they want to
> do
> themselves. And their children won't want to do those jobs, so that
> you're setting yourself into a position where you constantly need
> new
> immigrants in order to balance your economy and I think that the
> overall indirect effects of this are very harmful to the economy.
>
> Ah, so you've now abandoned the report and are moving back into
> straightforward "This is my opinion, and it's right"
> territory? Okay then...
>
> YOU think the effects of this are harmful to the economy? Based on
> what exactly? Because, y'know, the report you so kindly provided me
> with to destroy every single ill-informed statement you've
> made...that report says no such thing. In fact, it says that with a
> little help, the immigrants performing godawful jobs can have their
> social situation improved and thus they'll pull far more money into
> the economy.
>
> In other words, you've created another fantasy scenario in your head
> to try and back up why nasty darkies should be kept out. I grant you
> that you've at least had the good sense to couch it in terms of
> "people will want to better themselves and will no longer want
> to do those jobs". But if they DO better themselves, they're
> bringing in more money for our economy. So it's a win-win situation
> when it comes to letting in immigrants, isn't it?
>
I think it's more a matter of restoring some sense that these jobs are important; and if they're seen as important, then there are local people who are not working who would do them. What is needed is much more sense that all jobs are important in the economy and maybe they need different conditions of work, different levels of payment, different this or that, but they're all important and that there is a sense in which respect is owing to all of the people who play a part in the system. I think that this is what’s gone wrong.
>
> Take 150,000 people entering our shores a year, it seems to me, this
> is a very large number indeed it means that you have to build
> effectively a city the size of Oxford every year to accommodate the
> additional population. And this is very big news indeed. It would
> not
> take very long at that rate to cover the greater part of the South
> East of the country where of course the majority of immigrants go to
> live there not going to the highlands of Scotland they are not going
> to Northern Ireland. It'll make the Southern part of the country
> very, very powerfully overcrowded and, quite independently of issues
> of culture, simply in terms of numbers it is something which no one
> planned for, no one intended, from which no good consequences will
> come and which will produce some really very serious problems indeed
> for the whole of the appearance and structure of the Southern part
> of
> the country.
>
> Well, at least you've made a tiny effort to hide the fact that you
> got that figure from ImmigrationWatch UK, that well known
> organisation with links to the BNP. They always use the city of
> Cambridge as an example. You've gone for Oxford. Nice.
>
> Amazingly, you haven't bothered to take account of the number of
> people who leave the UK each year, whether by emigration or just good
> old fashioned death. So all you've done is given one side of the
> story and said "So this PROVES immigrants are evil!".
>
> Y'know, it's funny; not 3 post ago you were agreeing that there are
> no reliable stats on immigration figures. Yet here you are, trying to
> claim that you know the correct figures. It's almost as if you've
> forgotten what you've previously said in your haste to try and prove
> why brown people shouldn't be allowed in the country.
>
> I'm guessing you live in the South. And if I'm right, your opposition
> to immigration becomes increasingly clear; you assume that the
> majority will live near you, and you don't want to see an increased
> number of brown faces in your neighbourhood.
No i'm from newcastle, what we need legal channels which match labour migrants to the job vacancies: the skill vacancies that we have and the vacancies for low-skilled jobs, so that the people who are coming in can move into jobs and make an economic and social contribution. If the controls are too tight, then there will be huge incentives for people to come and stay illegally. If the controls are not there at all, if we had open borders, then more people would come than there were jobs to go around and that would create tensions on the ground, so the trick in managing migration is to try and get that balance right.
>
>
> Light, what do you say to those people like me who say that if you
> had increased immigration, continued population growth, what you'll
> have is more overcrowding in inner cities, more congestion, etc. It
> will reduce the quality of life, the quality of life is bad enough
> as
> it is. If we increase the population, it will deteriorate even
> further.
>
> You mean apart from all the facts and evidence I've given you showing
> that your assertion about overcrowding and population growth is an
> utter lie? What do I say to you? I say that you're a vile little
> bigot who has absolutely no interest in finding out what the facts
> are, or in having a reasoned debate on the matter. Your ignorance is
> astounding, and the fact that you've simply tried to ignore the many
> reasons why your arguments are factually incorrect demonstrates your
> bigotry and racism in crystal clear terms. You keep talking about
> overcrowding, then produce discredited evidence at best, or no
> evidence at all at worst. You also admit that you personally have no
> experience of the overcrowding you warn about, and further admit that
> it's solely based on a Worst Case scenario that you've conjured up in
> your tiny little brain. And also, I'd say that you're a
> scaremongering little cocktard who, upon having every single argument
> conclusively dissected and disproved, falls back on what the Sun told
> him to think. Reduce quality of life? And just how will that happen
> when immigrants bring in 3 billion more than they cost? More
> overcrowding and congestion? Where's your evidence for that?
>
> Finally I would say to you that, given the choice, I'd like to deal
> with your horrendously unpleasant and entirely unsupported arguments
> by deporting one bigoted little chav like you for every single
> immigrant that comes in.
At the end of the day tony Blair is trying to create a managed immigration policy which I think isn't feasable, and they are a few reasons for this- the main one being that I think that a managed migration policy is a kind of verbal improvement over a migration situation which is not properly under... under control. I think that the general issue of relatively rapid growth of populations of foreign origin is one which is troubling all of Europe to varying degrees and not just Britain. I think it's a problem for a variety of
reasons. It's a problem because some of those populations bring with them very distinct cultural habits which create difficulties for themselves and for any welfare state in which they are situated - I'm thinking of large family size, of low workforce participation, of low levels of education and all of that. That is more a question of immigrants rather than of people born in Britain, although obviously the numbers are so large it gets transmitted to the second and third generation in Britain and also throughout Europe where these problems are quite widespread.
Oh my goodness.
kevstar, try and listen to what you are saying.
kevstar, try and listen to what you are saying.
Page: