The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
>
> Well, the above reasons but there are other factors e.g. The amount
> of immigrants that don't actually work, the fact that more immigrants
> are inactive than us, that maybee because more migrants are claiming
> unemployment benefit, income support and child benefit.
1. How do you know how many immigrants don't work? Where do you get those figures from, or what is your personal experience of that?
2. How do you know how many immigrants claim benefits? Where do you get your figures from for that, or what is your personal experience of that?
3. More immigrants are inactive than us? Wow...a fabulously bigoted statement from Kilroy Jnr there. What do you base this on?
Is the answer to ANY of those 3 questions anything other than "My own personal paranoia, and nothing else"? Is there ANY factual basis to what you're saying? I'm guessing that there isn't, and you simply don't want to admit that.
>
> However, I'm going to (once again) pick you up on some facts; in one
> breath you say you don't know immigration figures. With the next,
> you
> hint that you know there are more coming in than we think.
> How
> do you know that? All you're saying is IF there are more coming in.
>
>
> Well if a immigrant came in, they may not only have there family in
> too, but have more of kids once they come.
Right. And, unless I'm mistaken, a kid born in this country to an immigrant...well, they get dual nationality. And so aren't even immigrants, they're UK citizens. What, you want them subject to immigration rules too? For how many generations should that happen?
If their family comes in, are you seriously suggesting that they aren't recorded as immigrants? What, do you think they get waved straight through passport control with a cheery smile and a friendly wave?
And finally, where exactly are you getting your figures and facts from? It seems that you're making them up as you go along.
The longer this debate is going on, the more you appear to be basing your opinions on nothing more than "I don't want any more foreigners in my country" little englander, daily-mail reading brainmulch.
>
> And i've gave an answer back about 5 times now too, and i'll give it
> again. You concede our services are stretched, so why not cap them,
> pick and choose the ones we think are going to contribute, sure get
> the ones to cover the jobs that need filled with experienced people,
> and limit the rest. It makes sense to have a limit on theese people.
Heh. "These people". How thoroughly sneering and condescending of you...
Pardon me but, currently, we DO pick and choose on the basis of who is likely to contribute. That is EXACTLY how the immigration service operates. What, do you think we make a point of letting in people who are just going to go straight on benefits? What you are suggesting is, basically, the exact system currently in place. All you're suggesting in addition is an arbitary limit to the number coming in. And you still, STILL, haven't given a single fact to support that limit. All you've given is your opinion which, thus far, you haven't supported with any facts.
Also, how exactly is putting a cap on immigrants going to help, for example, the NHS? The biggest money pit for them is fixing up the number of young white males who get lashed on a Friday and Saturday night and get into fights or accidents. I don't see you suggesting any sort of drinks limit for them. Why not?
>
>
>
> And finally, like I repeatedly ask; where do you think the money to
> improve our services is going to come from when, without
> immigration,
> we have an aging and reducing workforce?
>
>
> Answered above.
No, it isn't. All you've said is "We need to put a cap on them coming in". And, as I've patiently explained over a number of days now, your suggestion that we "only allow in people who will contribute" is the exact system we already have. And I've FURTHER explained that, without immigration, we will have an aging and reducing workforce. And, y'know, the thing about the limit you suggest...well, it'll only work retrospectively. We'll not know how many people we needed to replace people who've died, retired, or emigrated, until the following year. So what do we do? Go and randomly pick some immigrants and say "sorry, we don't actually need you so sling your hook"?
So, if we can assume "Put a limit on immigrants" is NOT an answer to the question "Where are the extra billions for investment going to come from?", I'll ask you the exact same question for what feels like about the millionth time; where exactly are we going to get the extra billions for investment in public services?
And as a further question, what criteria do you have in mind for this limit on immigration you keep talking about and failing to explain?
>
>
> But yeah, I do agree with your point in having a full on debate on
> this subject, cos one things for sure, we need theese figures, and
> correct ones at that if were going to sort this problem.
>
> I disagree; we need these figures to find out if there even is a
> problem in the first place. You're very adamant there is, but you
> yourself admit that you're basing that on nothing more than personal
> opinion with no basis in fact.
>
>
> The facts are above.
No; your opinions are above. What facts have you given? Oh yeah "They might bring in families or have kids or go on benefits because they're so LAZY!"
Where are you getting these "facts" from? What is your source for them? Do you actually have a source for them, or is this just your unsupported opinion?
Incidentally, I notice that stealth-bigots such as yourself have a habit of claiming that evil foreigners are here to simultaneously steal our jobs and suck the benefit system dry. They're both hard-working and lazy according to you and your ilk. Don't you...well, see any contradiction there?
>
> No, I don't, the fact is our standard of life will still be greater
> then theres and most other Country's, but the advance in medical
> science will no doubt extend there life span.
Bwahahahahahhaahahhaaaaaaa!! Please, do tell me what you're basing this amusing little fantasy on. I mean, you seem to be saying that life will be better in 3rd world nations, but "they" will still want to invade your beloved homeland. What are you basing that opinion on please?
>
> And that your enormous and wholly unjusified fears of
> being swamped by foreigners will be utterly irrelevant? If the whole
> world has such a high standard of living to enable that higher
> lifespan, there won't BE a "situation". And you still
> haven't remotely convinced that there even is one now.
>
> But we will as explained above, which makes your point irrelevent if
> anything.
Kevstar, giving an opinion and then saying "There, I've explained it all" isn't a debate. You have to do irritating things like supporting your opinion with hard evidence. Where exactly is this evidence? You've given nothing but your own opinion. Prove to me the truth of what you're saying. So far, all you've said is "medical science will advance and expand their lifespan but they'll still want to come to England...ahh, beautiful england...". You've entirely failed to give reasons for that assumption. Lets hear those reasons.
>
> Well it's already growing, as research gets more advanced, and as
> medication gets cheaper.
Okay then; perhaps you can explain to me how developing nations that don't even have access to the medical advances of 30 years ago due to cost, governmental corruption, and p!ss poor infrastructure, will have access to all the developments of the next 60. Please; go ahead.
>
>
> Well what about the fact that theres more migrants without
> qualifictations than what there is UK born, is that really
> controlled. The controls above are reason for debate as theres no
> proove to say there working. In fact the signs would indicate it's
> not.
>
First of all; where are you getting that fact from?
Secondly; who on earth do you think does all the sh!tty jobs in the country that have to be done? Our nice white chavs won't do 'em, so unskilled immigrants do. Do you think that unskilled labour is worthless and contributes nothing to the economy? If so, why?
Thirdly what are the "signs" that indicate it's not? I've given you facts, figures, links to reports, and evidence. You've given me nothing except your own opinion, and demonstration that you don't even understand the system you claim isn't working, a lack of knowledge of what the law relating to immigration is, and an increasingly obvious contempt for anyone who isn't British.
Oh, I'm sorry; is it your precious poll of Sun readers that you're using for evidence here? The poll of a bunch of people who read a paper that tell them every day that brown people are going to come over here and bum their grannies whilst a Brussels directive sends them to prison if they complain?
C'mon kevstar; you've already admitted that you have no personal experience of problems with immigrants; do tell me what these signs are. And did you actually read any of the links I provided? Or did you not want to pollute your head with facts that show your opinions to be ill-informed dullardry?
>
>
> No because they are signs indicating to my view e.g. The public
> services bieng stretched but, allowing people in, only to go and
> apply for benefits. This is a sign that some immigrants are taking
> advantage of our benefits system.
I'll go through this slowly, because you seem to be having trouble with basic logic here.
1. There are no 100% reliable stats on this matter
2. If that is the case, one cannot comment definitively immigration isn't a problem.
3. Nor can one claim definitively that it is.
Do you see? You seem to be saying;
1. There are no 100% reliable stats on this matter.
2. If that is the case, one cannot comment definitively immigration isn't a problem.
3. However, I can claim that it is, because I read it in The Sun.
As for systems being stretched, well I've mentioned the lack of public investment in those services so many times, and you've tried to ignore it so many times, that it's getting embarrassing.
A sign that immigrants are taking advantage of our system? Yeah, cos good old white english people would NEVER do that, would they? That may be the single most racist comment I've read in a long time. D'you know something? The only benefit cheats I've ever met are white people born in this country. It's taken me a couple of hours to reply to this cos I got in touch with my former sis-in-law who works at the DSS fraud office. And guess what? The overwhelming majority of benefit fraud is committed by...white people, born in this country.
Why is it that, whenever there is any evidence of a problem with the country, you rush to blame immigrants and ignore any other cause?
>
>
> I agree with your point about having immigration to cover our aging
> population, what I don't agree with is were letting theese people in
> and there not all getting jobs. Some of theese people are abusing our
> benefits system, and i'm not just talking about the odd few either.
> Theese are the people we need to stop to improove our services.
>
And I'll ask, once more; how do you KNOW "they" aren't getting jobs? How do you KNOW "they" are abusing the benefit system? How doo you know it's more than the odd few? I'm sure some immigrants do; being from abroad is no bar to being a deceitful bag of old smeg. But neither is being a white native of England, is it?
And furthermore, how do you propose we stop benefit frauds? Ask them when the come into the country?
"Scuse me sir. Would you mind telling me whether you're here to sponge off our state?"
'Yes, that's exactly what I'm here to do'
You do know that any immigrant who is caught committing benefit fraud is deported automatically, right? You must know that, cos you're clearly SUCH an expert on matters of immigration...
Do you actually have any evidence to prove what you're saying? Or is it another one of your fabled Worst cases?
>
> You seem to mention WW2 as an example of immigration working.
>
> 1. How many working people had died during the war? Now do you see
> why we needed immigration then. And it's been the case every time.
>
> You're just not really listening are you?
>
> We lost a lot of our working population due to the war, yes. Now we
> are in EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION.
>
> During the war and times after it there wasn't the population in the
> UK as we have now, there wearn't as much cars, as many houses to deal
> with, we had a good health service then. So to say were in exactly
> the same situation is nonsense.
I'm sorry, what? What in gods name are you babbling about now in your haste to prove that all foreigners are evil?
Oh I see; because it was 60 years ago, it was all different?
Okay;
1. we had a dearth of housing then because the Labour Government of Atlee ordered the demolition of huge numbers of terraces, to say nothing of the homes bombed during the war.
2. What the (*&^ have cars got to do with anything at all? What, are you saying that the overcrowding of our roads is cos of immigrants? Really? What about the number of 2 and 3 car families in this land of ours. Are they all immigrant families?
3. The health service had literally just been created. Now we're in a position where we haven't invested enough in it for years. And we won't have the money to increase investment with our current aging workforce, which then goes back to my repeatedly asked question; where are we going to get the billions needed?
So to say that we're in exactly the same position is...well, I've given evidence why your "nonsense" response is more accurately applied to your whole argument. Care to try and rebutt those reasons with facts, or are you go to retreat further into your fantasy world?
> I agree, but not people who come over here to go on the dole or claim
> sick.
And I ask again; give me some proof and evidence that this is happening on a huge scale. And then give me ways that false migrants who are here for benefits could be caught. You increasingly unpleasant bigot.
> Well that was to say why immigration was such a sucess after the war,
> because most our own workers had died during the conflict.
Erm...and how is that different to my saying "Immigration is such a success now because lots of our own workers have retired"?
See, what you've done there is fail to answer the question "How does the manner in which we lost our workforce make any difference to how we replace them?". All you're done is said "cos they had died". And? Your point is?
>
>
> I've gave my answer, immigration but controlled. Pick and choose the
> people best qualified to do the skilled jobs that need covered. Try
> and favour people who are already educated which means they can start
> work quicker without us paying there educational fees. Limit the
> amount we have in once we think we have the numbers to cope with our
> shortage in jobs.
Yes, and I've pointed out repeatedly that immigration is controlled, yet you've constantly clamped your hands over your ears and came out with increasingly spurious reasons as to why it isn't which were totally unsupported by fact.
All you've done there is describe the current system. Which is why I'm giving you such a hard time; you're saying the current system isn't working. But you don't even know what the system is, and when challenged to give your solutions, you give a solution that is already in place. Rather than go "Oh...okay then" you just keep manufacturing fantasy reasons to keep the evil foreigner at bay. And you just sound like a small minded little bigot.
So, bearing in mind that your supposed answer to the question "where are the extra billions going to come from" is exactly the same as mine, in other words you're just saying we should do what is already done regarding immigration, what exactly is your problem?
>
> Wow, what an utterly graceless acceptance of that fact that you're
> talking complete asshat. Why aren't you "expected" to know
> stuff like that? You're the one sat there pontificating at length
> about why this country DEFINITELY faces an immigration problem. Yet
> as you're demonstrating in painful detail, you haven't got the
> faintest idea what our immigration system is. I'd say that you, more
> than anyone, should be expected to know this sort of thing, don't
> you
> agree?
>
> Rubbish, half the laws in this country are so perplex and open to
> debate, not forgetting changed so regulary it's almost impossible to
> know that sort of thing, unless as I says you study law to such a
> degree that a new law is like getting a newspaper, easily read.
Unlike your posts, which are degenerating in terms of readibility as you get more and more desperate to maintain your prejudices in the face of facts.
Almost impossible to know that sort of thing? Well here's something; your argument is based entirely on "that sort of thing". And you've proven you know nothing about it. So that pretty much tend to invalidate almost everything you've said, as it shows you're saying it from a position of ignorance, wouldn't you agree? And if you don't agree, please explain to me why your view on immigration (with it's lack of facts and evidence, and clear lack of understanding of the law) should carry any weight at all? I've shied away from pointing out just how epically dim you're being in your "duhhh...immigrant am bad people" approach as I like to give you more credit than that. Seems I've been overly generous.
And once you've done that, pop your application for Veritas in the post. I'm sure they'll be happy to receive you.
>
> Well, the above reasons but there are other factors e.g. The amount
> of immigrants that don't actually work, the fact that more immigrants
> are inactive than us, that maybee because more migrants are claiming
> unemployment benefit, income support and child benefit.
1. How do you know how many immigrants don't work? Where do you get those figures from, or what is your personal experience of that?
2. How do you know how many immigrants claim benefits? Where do you get your figures from for that, or what is your personal experience of that?
3. More immigrants are inactive than us? Wow...a fabulously bigoted statement from Kilroy Jnr there. What do you base this on?
Is the answer to ANY of those 3 questions anything other than "My own personal paranoia, and nothing else"? Is there ANY factual basis to what you're saying? I'm guessing that there isn't, and you simply don't want to admit that.
>
> However, I'm going to (once again) pick you up on some facts; in one
> breath you say you don't know immigration figures. With the next,
> you
> hint that you know there are more coming in than we think.
> How
> do you know that? All you're saying is IF there are more coming in.
>
>
> Well if a immigrant came in, they may not only have there family in
> too, but have more of kids once they come.
Right. And, unless I'm mistaken, a kid born in this country to an immigrant...well, they get dual nationality. And so aren't even immigrants, they're UK citizens. What, you want them subject to immigration rules too? For how many generations should that happen?
If their family comes in, are you seriously suggesting that they aren't recorded as immigrants? What, do you think they get waved straight through passport control with a cheery smile and a friendly wave?
And finally, where exactly are you getting your figures and facts from? It seems that you're making them up as you go along.
The longer this debate is going on, the more you appear to be basing your opinions on nothing more than "I don't want any more foreigners in my country" little englander, daily-mail reading brainmulch.
>
> And i've gave an answer back about 5 times now too, and i'll give it
> again. You concede our services are stretched, so why not cap them,
> pick and choose the ones we think are going to contribute, sure get
> the ones to cover the jobs that need filled with experienced people,
> and limit the rest. It makes sense to have a limit on theese people.
Heh. "These people". How thoroughly sneering and condescending of you...
Pardon me but, currently, we DO pick and choose on the basis of who is likely to contribute. That is EXACTLY how the immigration service operates. What, do you think we make a point of letting in people who are just going to go straight on benefits? What you are suggesting is, basically, the exact system currently in place. All you're suggesting in addition is an arbitary limit to the number coming in. And you still, STILL, haven't given a single fact to support that limit. All you've given is your opinion which, thus far, you haven't supported with any facts.
Also, how exactly is putting a cap on immigrants going to help, for example, the NHS? The biggest money pit for them is fixing up the number of young white males who get lashed on a Friday and Saturday night and get into fights or accidents. I don't see you suggesting any sort of drinks limit for them. Why not?
>
>
>
> And finally, like I repeatedly ask; where do you think the money to
> improve our services is going to come from when, without
> immigration,
> we have an aging and reducing workforce?
>
>
> Answered above.
No, it isn't. All you've said is "We need to put a cap on them coming in". And, as I've patiently explained over a number of days now, your suggestion that we "only allow in people who will contribute" is the exact system we already have. And I've FURTHER explained that, without immigration, we will have an aging and reducing workforce. And, y'know, the thing about the limit you suggest...well, it'll only work retrospectively. We'll not know how many people we needed to replace people who've died, retired, or emigrated, until the following year. So what do we do? Go and randomly pick some immigrants and say "sorry, we don't actually need you so sling your hook"?
So, if we can assume "Put a limit on immigrants" is NOT an answer to the question "Where are the extra billions for investment going to come from?", I'll ask you the exact same question for what feels like about the millionth time; where exactly are we going to get the extra billions for investment in public services?
And as a further question, what criteria do you have in mind for this limit on immigration you keep talking about and failing to explain?
>
>
> But yeah, I do agree with your point in having a full on debate on
> this subject, cos one things for sure, we need theese figures, and
> correct ones at that if were going to sort this problem.
>
> I disagree; we need these figures to find out if there even is a
> problem in the first place. You're very adamant there is, but you
> yourself admit that you're basing that on nothing more than personal
> opinion with no basis in fact.
>
>
> The facts are above.
No; your opinions are above. What facts have you given? Oh yeah "They might bring in families or have kids or go on benefits because they're so LAZY!"
Where are you getting these "facts" from? What is your source for them? Do you actually have a source for them, or is this just your unsupported opinion?
Incidentally, I notice that stealth-bigots such as yourself have a habit of claiming that evil foreigners are here to simultaneously steal our jobs and suck the benefit system dry. They're both hard-working and lazy according to you and your ilk. Don't you...well, see any contradiction there?
>
> No, I don't, the fact is our standard of life will still be greater
> then theres and most other Country's, but the advance in medical
> science will no doubt extend there life span.
Bwahahahahahhaahahhaaaaaaa!! Please, do tell me what you're basing this amusing little fantasy on. I mean, you seem to be saying that life will be better in 3rd world nations, but "they" will still want to invade your beloved homeland. What are you basing that opinion on please?
>
> And that your enormous and wholly unjusified fears of
> being swamped by foreigners will be utterly irrelevant? If the whole
> world has such a high standard of living to enable that higher
> lifespan, there won't BE a "situation". And you still
> haven't remotely convinced that there even is one now.
>
> But we will as explained above, which makes your point irrelevent if
> anything.
Kevstar, giving an opinion and then saying "There, I've explained it all" isn't a debate. You have to do irritating things like supporting your opinion with hard evidence. Where exactly is this evidence? You've given nothing but your own opinion. Prove to me the truth of what you're saying. So far, all you've said is "medical science will advance and expand their lifespan but they'll still want to come to England...ahh, beautiful england...". You've entirely failed to give reasons for that assumption. Lets hear those reasons.
>
> Well it's already growing, as research gets more advanced, and as
> medication gets cheaper.
Okay then; perhaps you can explain to me how developing nations that don't even have access to the medical advances of 30 years ago due to cost, governmental corruption, and p!ss poor infrastructure, will have access to all the developments of the next 60. Please; go ahead.
>
>
> Well what about the fact that theres more migrants without
> qualifictations than what there is UK born, is that really
> controlled. The controls above are reason for debate as theres no
> proove to say there working. In fact the signs would indicate it's
> not.
>
First of all; where are you getting that fact from?
Secondly; who on earth do you think does all the sh!tty jobs in the country that have to be done? Our nice white chavs won't do 'em, so unskilled immigrants do. Do you think that unskilled labour is worthless and contributes nothing to the economy? If so, why?
Thirdly what are the "signs" that indicate it's not? I've given you facts, figures, links to reports, and evidence. You've given me nothing except your own opinion, and demonstration that you don't even understand the system you claim isn't working, a lack of knowledge of what the law relating to immigration is, and an increasingly obvious contempt for anyone who isn't British.
Oh, I'm sorry; is it your precious poll of Sun readers that you're using for evidence here? The poll of a bunch of people who read a paper that tell them every day that brown people are going to come over here and bum their grannies whilst a Brussels directive sends them to prison if they complain?
C'mon kevstar; you've already admitted that you have no personal experience of problems with immigrants; do tell me what these signs are. And did you actually read any of the links I provided? Or did you not want to pollute your head with facts that show your opinions to be ill-informed dullardry?
>
>
> No because they are signs indicating to my view e.g. The public
> services bieng stretched but, allowing people in, only to go and
> apply for benefits. This is a sign that some immigrants are taking
> advantage of our benefits system.
I'll go through this slowly, because you seem to be having trouble with basic logic here.
1. There are no 100% reliable stats on this matter
2. If that is the case, one cannot comment definitively immigration isn't a problem.
3. Nor can one claim definitively that it is.
Do you see? You seem to be saying;
1. There are no 100% reliable stats on this matter.
2. If that is the case, one cannot comment definitively immigration isn't a problem.
3. However, I can claim that it is, because I read it in The Sun.
As for systems being stretched, well I've mentioned the lack of public investment in those services so many times, and you've tried to ignore it so many times, that it's getting embarrassing.
A sign that immigrants are taking advantage of our system? Yeah, cos good old white english people would NEVER do that, would they? That may be the single most racist comment I've read in a long time. D'you know something? The only benefit cheats I've ever met are white people born in this country. It's taken me a couple of hours to reply to this cos I got in touch with my former sis-in-law who works at the DSS fraud office. And guess what? The overwhelming majority of benefit fraud is committed by...white people, born in this country.
Why is it that, whenever there is any evidence of a problem with the country, you rush to blame immigrants and ignore any other cause?
>
>
> I agree with your point about having immigration to cover our aging
> population, what I don't agree with is were letting theese people in
> and there not all getting jobs. Some of theese people are abusing our
> benefits system, and i'm not just talking about the odd few either.
> Theese are the people we need to stop to improove our services.
>
And I'll ask, once more; how do you KNOW "they" aren't getting jobs? How do you KNOW "they" are abusing the benefit system? How doo you know it's more than the odd few? I'm sure some immigrants do; being from abroad is no bar to being a deceitful bag of old smeg. But neither is being a white native of England, is it?
And furthermore, how do you propose we stop benefit frauds? Ask them when the come into the country?
"Scuse me sir. Would you mind telling me whether you're here to sponge off our state?"
'Yes, that's exactly what I'm here to do'
You do know that any immigrant who is caught committing benefit fraud is deported automatically, right? You must know that, cos you're clearly SUCH an expert on matters of immigration...
Do you actually have any evidence to prove what you're saying? Or is it another one of your fabled Worst cases?
>
> You seem to mention WW2 as an example of immigration working.
>
> 1. How many working people had died during the war? Now do you see
> why we needed immigration then. And it's been the case every time.
>
> You're just not really listening are you?
>
> We lost a lot of our working population due to the war, yes. Now we
> are in EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION.
>
> During the war and times after it there wasn't the population in the
> UK as we have now, there wearn't as much cars, as many houses to deal
> with, we had a good health service then. So to say were in exactly
> the same situation is nonsense.
I'm sorry, what? What in gods name are you babbling about now in your haste to prove that all foreigners are evil?
Oh I see; because it was 60 years ago, it was all different?
Okay;
1. we had a dearth of housing then because the Labour Government of Atlee ordered the demolition of huge numbers of terraces, to say nothing of the homes bombed during the war.
2. What the (*&^ have cars got to do with anything at all? What, are you saying that the overcrowding of our roads is cos of immigrants? Really? What about the number of 2 and 3 car families in this land of ours. Are they all immigrant families?
3. The health service had literally just been created. Now we're in a position where we haven't invested enough in it for years. And we won't have the money to increase investment with our current aging workforce, which then goes back to my repeatedly asked question; where are we going to get the billions needed?
So to say that we're in exactly the same position is...well, I've given evidence why your "nonsense" response is more accurately applied to your whole argument. Care to try and rebutt those reasons with facts, or are you go to retreat further into your fantasy world?
> I agree, but not people who come over here to go on the dole or claim
> sick.
And I ask again; give me some proof and evidence that this is happening on a huge scale. And then give me ways that false migrants who are here for benefits could be caught. You increasingly unpleasant bigot.
> Well that was to say why immigration was such a sucess after the war,
> because most our own workers had died during the conflict.
Erm...and how is that different to my saying "Immigration is such a success now because lots of our own workers have retired"?
See, what you've done there is fail to answer the question "How does the manner in which we lost our workforce make any difference to how we replace them?". All you're done is said "cos they had died". And? Your point is?
>
>
> I've gave my answer, immigration but controlled. Pick and choose the
> people best qualified to do the skilled jobs that need covered. Try
> and favour people who are already educated which means they can start
> work quicker without us paying there educational fees. Limit the
> amount we have in once we think we have the numbers to cope with our
> shortage in jobs.
Yes, and I've pointed out repeatedly that immigration is controlled, yet you've constantly clamped your hands over your ears and came out with increasingly spurious reasons as to why it isn't which were totally unsupported by fact.
All you've done there is describe the current system. Which is why I'm giving you such a hard time; you're saying the current system isn't working. But you don't even know what the system is, and when challenged to give your solutions, you give a solution that is already in place. Rather than go "Oh...okay then" you just keep manufacturing fantasy reasons to keep the evil foreigner at bay. And you just sound like a small minded little bigot.
So, bearing in mind that your supposed answer to the question "where are the extra billions going to come from" is exactly the same as mine, in other words you're just saying we should do what is already done regarding immigration, what exactly is your problem?
>
> Wow, what an utterly graceless acceptance of that fact that you're
> talking complete asshat. Why aren't you "expected" to know
> stuff like that? You're the one sat there pontificating at length
> about why this country DEFINITELY faces an immigration problem. Yet
> as you're demonstrating in painful detail, you haven't got the
> faintest idea what our immigration system is. I'd say that you, more
> than anyone, should be expected to know this sort of thing, don't
> you
> agree?
>
> Rubbish, half the laws in this country are so perplex and open to
> debate, not forgetting changed so regulary it's almost impossible to
> know that sort of thing, unless as I says you study law to such a
> degree that a new law is like getting a newspaper, easily read.
Unlike your posts, which are degenerating in terms of readibility as you get more and more desperate to maintain your prejudices in the face of facts.
Almost impossible to know that sort of thing? Well here's something; your argument is based entirely on "that sort of thing". And you've proven you know nothing about it. So that pretty much tend to invalidate almost everything you've said, as it shows you're saying it from a position of ignorance, wouldn't you agree? And if you don't agree, please explain to me why your view on immigration (with it's lack of facts and evidence, and clear lack of understanding of the law) should carry any weight at all? I've shied away from pointing out just how epically dim you're being in your "duhhh...immigrant am bad people" approach as I like to give you more credit than that. Seems I've been overly generous.
And once you've done that, pop your application for Veritas in the post. I'm sure they'll be happy to receive you.
Light wrote:
>
> In theory? That's it? Your whole argument of "this country is
> DEFINITELY overcrowded and something needs to be done!"? Where
> did this figure of 500,000 come from? Did you just pluck a large
> figure from the air to justify your continued
> "Whooooo....foreigners invading our land and stealing our jobs
> and money!" theme, or does it have any basis in fact?
>
>
> No, i'm just basing my views on the worst outcome, I know our
> services are stretched, and also know that if there is more people
> coming in than we think, then even more damage will occur. Does it
> not make sense to have a service to cover the people that come in,
> or
> to have the people coming in first, then deal with the mess we put
> ourselves in.
>
> So because of your own personal paranoia, you think that immigration
> should have much tighter regulations? Well, credit to you for at
> least admitting that it's just your opinion. However, I'm still
> mystified as to what you're basing that opinion on.
Well, the above reasons but there are other factors e.g. The amount of immigrants that don't actually work, the fact that more immigrants are inactive than us, that maybee because more migrants are claiming unemployment benefit, income support and child benefit.
>
> However, I'm going to (once again) pick you up on some facts; in one
> breath you say you don't know immigration figures. With the next, you
> hint that you know there are more coming in than we think. How
> do you know that? All you're saying is IF there are more coming in.
Well if a immigrant came in, they may not only have there family in too, but have more of kids once they come.
>
> Our services have been stretched since the Tories slashed funding for
> public services in the 80's. I made that point about 5 days ago now,
> and you...ignored it. Trying to blame immigrants for our own mistakes
> is dishonest and cowardly.
And i've gave an answer back about 5 times now too, and i'll give it again. You concede our services are stretched, so why not cap them, pick and choose the ones we think are going to contribute, sure get the ones to cover the jobs that need filled with experienced people, and limit the rest. It makes sense to have a limit on theese people.
>
> And finally, like I repeatedly ask; where do you think the money to
> improve our services is going to come from when, without immigration,
> we have an aging and reducing workforce?
Answered above.
>
>
> But yeah, I do agree with your point in having a full on debate on
> this subject, cos one things for sure, we need theese figures, and
> correct ones at that if were going to sort this problem.
>
> I disagree; we need these figures to find out if there even is a
> problem in the first place. You're very adamant there is, but you
> yourself admit that you're basing that on nothing more than personal
> opinion with no basis in fact.
The facts are above.
>
>
> It's still not going to solve things, in 10 years when ther life
> span
> increases, what then, go to the next low life span Country? And what
> in say 50-60 years where I would estimate that most Country's would
> have improoved there life span? They'll be no more Country's with
> low
> life span to deal with the situation.
>
> So what you're essentially saying is that in 50-60 years time the
> world will be a fair and equitable place where every nation has a
> high degree of prosperity and, consequently, a long lifespan?
> Kevstar, if that does happen and if it happens in 50-60 years time,
> don't you think that people won't really need to leave their own
> countries?
No, I don't, the fact is our standard of life will still be greater then theres and most other Country's, but the advance in medical science will no doubt extend there life span.
And that your enormous and wholly unjusified fears of
> being swamped by foreigners will be utterly irrelevant? If the whole
> world has such a high standard of living to enable that higher
> lifespan, there won't BE a "situation". And you still
> haven't remotely convinced that there even is one now.
But we will as explained above, which makes your point irrelevent if anything.
>
> Your "estimation" is based on...what exactly? What makes
> you say that the average lifespan globally will have increased?
> Because to me it sounds like you're estimating it based (once again)
> on what you want it to be, and with no basis at all in fact. Much
> like the rest of your argument.
Well it's already growing, as research gets more advanced, and as medication gets cheaper.
>
>
> And as I've said (over and over and over again...) you haven't
> actually given me any indication that you have the faintest idea
> what
> you're talking about. Our immigration IS controlled.
>
> How can you say this if we don't know how many people are coming in?
>
> Because I did something that you didn't really bother to do; I
> researched it and looked for some facts. And I found things such as
> the Commonwealth Immigration Act, which lists the controls in place
> for immigrants from Commonwealth countries. Did you see that key word
> there? "Controls"?
> Then I looked for the UK Visa service procedure;
> [URL]http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1036777054262[/URL]
>
> And I had a read, and saw that it too has controls.
>
> Finally, I looked at some official government statistics for the
> number of immigrants who were refused entry into the UK;
> [URL]http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1204.pdf[/URL] and I
> noted that thousands were refused entry or deported.
>
> What I did, in other words, was base my argument on the facts
> available, rather than some mythical "worst case" that only
> exists inside my own head.
Well what about the fact that theres more migrants without qualifictations than what there is UK born, is that really controlled. The controls above are reason for debate as theres no proove to say there working. In fact the signs would indicate it's not.
>
>
> Simple, the numbers we have coming into our Country we do not know,
> if this is the case, (which it is) then you'd be a fool to say it's
> under controll, cos it's not.
>
> Jesus christ, you have the logic of a...no, forget it. No insult
> could possibly do more damage to your argument than you yourself are
> doing.
>
> I'd have to be a fool to say it's under control? Well here's the
> thing; if there are no 100% reliable stats, wouldn't you agree that
> you would have to be just as big a fool to say that immigration is
> not under control? And if not, why not?
No because they are signs indicating to my view e.g. The public services bieng stretched but, allowing people in, only to go and apply for benefits. This is a sign that some immigrants are taking advantage of our benefits system.
>
>
> And yes, that is what I'm saying; our population is aging. Without
> immigration, it would also be falling. These are both bad things. So
> we need immigration to keep it steady and/or increase it. Do you
> see?
>
> Yes, I see your point, but I don't accept it.
>
> Why not? Because you don't want to? Because you have definite
> evidence that what I'm saying is invalid? Because you'd rather see
> the country bankrupt than have it filled with less-than-white people?
> What? Give me reasons why you don't accept it.
I agree with your point about having immigration to cover our aging population, what I don't agree with is were letting theese people in and there not all getting jobs. Some of theese people are abusing our benefits system, and i'm not just talking about the odd few either. Theese are the people we need to stop to improove our services.
>
>
> You seem to mention WW2 as an example of immigration working.
>
> 1. How many working people had died during the war? Now do you see
> why we needed immigration then. And it's been the case every time.
>
> You're just not really listening are you?
>
> We lost a lot of our working population due to the war, yes. Now we
> are in EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION.
During the war and times after it there wasn't the population in the UK as we have now, there wearn't as much cars, as many houses to deal with, we had a good health service then. So to say were in exactly the same situation is nonsense.
We have not got as big a workforce
> as we need. Whether it was because of war, or because people got old
> and too selfish to have enough kids to replace 'em, the simple fact
> remains; we need more people here.
I agree, but not people who come over here to go on the dole or claim sick.
>
> Could you perhaps explain to me exactly why the way in which we lost
> our workforce makes even the slightest difference to how we should
> replace them? Again, I'm all ears.
Well that was to say why immigration was such a sucess after the war, because most our own workers had died during the conflict.
>
>
> As I keep saying (but this time it's you ignoring this) immigration
> is good, but controlled, now I know you mentioned we have controlled
> immigration, well, you tell me how that's the case?
>
> Way ahead of you dear boy; I've given you some stats, legislation,
> and immigration guidance that explains the controls. So, that's your
> point answered. Seeing as you only said it to avoid answering my
> question, I'll ask you for...what, must be the 3rd or 4th time
> now...where exactly are the billions needed for investment going to
> come from if we have an aging and reduced workforce with fewer people
> to replace them?
I've gave my answer, immigration but controlled. Pick and choose the people best qualified to do the skilled jobs that need covered. Try and favour people who are already educated which means they can start work quicker without us paying there educational fees. Limit the amount we have in once we think we have the numbers to cope with our shortage in jobs.
>
> Oh, and your fantasy-world "worst case" isn't much help,
> because you're still failing to give any solutions. Just trumpeting
> "something must be done!" without clarifying what the
> something is, or even why we should do it.
>
> Who =Human rights, they =person claiming and they are fighting to
> claim asylum or immigration. Clearer, well as you explained below
> theres no point.
>
> No, just like there's very little point to your argument. Why on
> earth are you defending your view so fiercely when you even admit
> yourself that your view has no basis in fact?
>
>
>
> Yeah, well your expected to know this as your law man, but for
> someone like me who isn't aware of(or expected to )national ground
> interest, it gave me good cause for concern.
>
> Wow, what an utterly graceless acceptance of that fact that you're
> talking complete asshat. Why aren't you "expected" to know
> stuff like that? You're the one sat there pontificating at length
> about why this country DEFINITELY faces an immigration problem. Yet
> as you're demonstrating in painful detail, you haven't got the
> faintest idea what our immigration system is. I'd say that you, more
> than anyone, should be expected to know this sort of thing, don't you
> agree?
Rubbish, half the laws in this country are so perplex and open to debate, not forgetting changed so regulary it's almost impossible to know that sort of thing, unless as I says you study law to such a degree that a new law is like getting a newspaper, easily read.
>
> In theory? That's it? Your whole argument of "this country is
> DEFINITELY overcrowded and something needs to be done!"? Where
> did this figure of 500,000 come from? Did you just pluck a large
> figure from the air to justify your continued
> "Whooooo....foreigners invading our land and stealing our jobs
> and money!" theme, or does it have any basis in fact?
>
>
> No, i'm just basing my views on the worst outcome, I know our
> services are stretched, and also know that if there is more people
> coming in than we think, then even more damage will occur. Does it
> not make sense to have a service to cover the people that come in,
> or
> to have the people coming in first, then deal with the mess we put
> ourselves in.
>
> So because of your own personal paranoia, you think that immigration
> should have much tighter regulations? Well, credit to you for at
> least admitting that it's just your opinion. However, I'm still
> mystified as to what you're basing that opinion on.
Well, the above reasons but there are other factors e.g. The amount of immigrants that don't actually work, the fact that more immigrants are inactive than us, that maybee because more migrants are claiming unemployment benefit, income support and child benefit.
>
> However, I'm going to (once again) pick you up on some facts; in one
> breath you say you don't know immigration figures. With the next, you
> hint that you know there are more coming in than we think. How
> do you know that? All you're saying is IF there are more coming in.
Well if a immigrant came in, they may not only have there family in too, but have more of kids once they come.
>
> Our services have been stretched since the Tories slashed funding for
> public services in the 80's. I made that point about 5 days ago now,
> and you...ignored it. Trying to blame immigrants for our own mistakes
> is dishonest and cowardly.
And i've gave an answer back about 5 times now too, and i'll give it again. You concede our services are stretched, so why not cap them, pick and choose the ones we think are going to contribute, sure get the ones to cover the jobs that need filled with experienced people, and limit the rest. It makes sense to have a limit on theese people.
>
> And finally, like I repeatedly ask; where do you think the money to
> improve our services is going to come from when, without immigration,
> we have an aging and reducing workforce?
Answered above.
>
>
> But yeah, I do agree with your point in having a full on debate on
> this subject, cos one things for sure, we need theese figures, and
> correct ones at that if were going to sort this problem.
>
> I disagree; we need these figures to find out if there even is a
> problem in the first place. You're very adamant there is, but you
> yourself admit that you're basing that on nothing more than personal
> opinion with no basis in fact.
The facts are above.
>
>
> It's still not going to solve things, in 10 years when ther life
> span
> increases, what then, go to the next low life span Country? And what
> in say 50-60 years where I would estimate that most Country's would
> have improoved there life span? They'll be no more Country's with
> low
> life span to deal with the situation.
>
> So what you're essentially saying is that in 50-60 years time the
> world will be a fair and equitable place where every nation has a
> high degree of prosperity and, consequently, a long lifespan?
> Kevstar, if that does happen and if it happens in 50-60 years time,
> don't you think that people won't really need to leave their own
> countries?
No, I don't, the fact is our standard of life will still be greater then theres and most other Country's, but the advance in medical science will no doubt extend there life span.
And that your enormous and wholly unjusified fears of
> being swamped by foreigners will be utterly irrelevant? If the whole
> world has such a high standard of living to enable that higher
> lifespan, there won't BE a "situation". And you still
> haven't remotely convinced that there even is one now.
But we will as explained above, which makes your point irrelevent if anything.
>
> Your "estimation" is based on...what exactly? What makes
> you say that the average lifespan globally will have increased?
> Because to me it sounds like you're estimating it based (once again)
> on what you want it to be, and with no basis at all in fact. Much
> like the rest of your argument.
Well it's already growing, as research gets more advanced, and as medication gets cheaper.
>
>
> And as I've said (over and over and over again...) you haven't
> actually given me any indication that you have the faintest idea
> what
> you're talking about. Our immigration IS controlled.
>
> How can you say this if we don't know how many people are coming in?
>
> Because I did something that you didn't really bother to do; I
> researched it and looked for some facts. And I found things such as
> the Commonwealth Immigration Act, which lists the controls in place
> for immigrants from Commonwealth countries. Did you see that key word
> there? "Controls"?
> Then I looked for the UK Visa service procedure;
> [URL]http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1036777054262[/URL]
>
> And I had a read, and saw that it too has controls.
>
> Finally, I looked at some official government statistics for the
> number of immigrants who were refused entry into the UK;
> [URL]http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1204.pdf[/URL] and I
> noted that thousands were refused entry or deported.
>
> What I did, in other words, was base my argument on the facts
> available, rather than some mythical "worst case" that only
> exists inside my own head.
Well what about the fact that theres more migrants without qualifictations than what there is UK born, is that really controlled. The controls above are reason for debate as theres no proove to say there working. In fact the signs would indicate it's not.
>
>
> Simple, the numbers we have coming into our Country we do not know,
> if this is the case, (which it is) then you'd be a fool to say it's
> under controll, cos it's not.
>
> Jesus christ, you have the logic of a...no, forget it. No insult
> could possibly do more damage to your argument than you yourself are
> doing.
>
> I'd have to be a fool to say it's under control? Well here's the
> thing; if there are no 100% reliable stats, wouldn't you agree that
> you would have to be just as big a fool to say that immigration is
> not under control? And if not, why not?
No because they are signs indicating to my view e.g. The public services bieng stretched but, allowing people in, only to go and apply for benefits. This is a sign that some immigrants are taking advantage of our benefits system.
>
>
> And yes, that is what I'm saying; our population is aging. Without
> immigration, it would also be falling. These are both bad things. So
> we need immigration to keep it steady and/or increase it. Do you
> see?
>
> Yes, I see your point, but I don't accept it.
>
> Why not? Because you don't want to? Because you have definite
> evidence that what I'm saying is invalid? Because you'd rather see
> the country bankrupt than have it filled with less-than-white people?
> What? Give me reasons why you don't accept it.
I agree with your point about having immigration to cover our aging population, what I don't agree with is were letting theese people in and there not all getting jobs. Some of theese people are abusing our benefits system, and i'm not just talking about the odd few either. Theese are the people we need to stop to improove our services.
>
>
> You seem to mention WW2 as an example of immigration working.
>
> 1. How many working people had died during the war? Now do you see
> why we needed immigration then. And it's been the case every time.
>
> You're just not really listening are you?
>
> We lost a lot of our working population due to the war, yes. Now we
> are in EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION.
During the war and times after it there wasn't the population in the UK as we have now, there wearn't as much cars, as many houses to deal with, we had a good health service then. So to say were in exactly the same situation is nonsense.
We have not got as big a workforce
> as we need. Whether it was because of war, or because people got old
> and too selfish to have enough kids to replace 'em, the simple fact
> remains; we need more people here.
I agree, but not people who come over here to go on the dole or claim sick.
>
> Could you perhaps explain to me exactly why the way in which we lost
> our workforce makes even the slightest difference to how we should
> replace them? Again, I'm all ears.
Well that was to say why immigration was such a sucess after the war, because most our own workers had died during the conflict.
>
>
> As I keep saying (but this time it's you ignoring this) immigration
> is good, but controlled, now I know you mentioned we have controlled
> immigration, well, you tell me how that's the case?
>
> Way ahead of you dear boy; I've given you some stats, legislation,
> and immigration guidance that explains the controls. So, that's your
> point answered. Seeing as you only said it to avoid answering my
> question, I'll ask you for...what, must be the 3rd or 4th time
> now...where exactly are the billions needed for investment going to
> come from if we have an aging and reduced workforce with fewer people
> to replace them?
I've gave my answer, immigration but controlled. Pick and choose the people best qualified to do the skilled jobs that need covered. Try and favour people who are already educated which means they can start work quicker without us paying there educational fees. Limit the amount we have in once we think we have the numbers to cope with our shortage in jobs.
>
> Oh, and your fantasy-world "worst case" isn't much help,
> because you're still failing to give any solutions. Just trumpeting
> "something must be done!" without clarifying what the
> something is, or even why we should do it.
>
> Who =Human rights, they =person claiming and they are fighting to
> claim asylum or immigration. Clearer, well as you explained below
> theres no point.
>
> No, just like there's very little point to your argument. Why on
> earth are you defending your view so fiercely when you even admit
> yourself that your view has no basis in fact?
>
>
>
> Yeah, well your expected to know this as your law man, but for
> someone like me who isn't aware of(or expected to )national ground
> interest, it gave me good cause for concern.
>
> Wow, what an utterly graceless acceptance of that fact that you're
> talking complete asshat. Why aren't you "expected" to know
> stuff like that? You're the one sat there pontificating at length
> about why this country DEFINITELY faces an immigration problem. Yet
> as you're demonstrating in painful detail, you haven't got the
> faintest idea what our immigration system is. I'd say that you, more
> than anyone, should be expected to know this sort of thing, don't you
> agree?
Rubbish, half the laws in this country are so perplex and open to debate, not forgetting changed so regulary it's almost impossible to know that sort of thing, unless as I says you study law to such a degree that a new law is like getting a newspaper, easily read.
kevstar wrote:
> Yeah, but theres not a set limit on how many are allowed to enter our
> Country, so in theory, if you had 500,000 genuine people coming onto
> our shores in a year, they would be allowed to stay. This is what my
> point is, and as we don't know the figures, how are we going to know
> how best to deal with them.
In theory? That's it? Your whole argument of "this country is DEFINITELY overcrowded and something needs to be done!"? Where did this figure of 500,000 come from? Did you just pluck a large figure from the air to justify your continued "Whooooo....foreigners invading our land and stealing our jobs and money!" theme, or does it have any basis in fact?
>
>
>
> No, i'm just basing my views on the worst outcome, I know our
> services are stretched, and also know that if there is more people
> coming in than we think, then even more damage will occur. Does it
> not make sense to have a service to cover the people that come in, or
> to have the people coming in first, then deal with the mess we put
> ourselves in.
So because of your own personal paranoia, you think that immigration should have much tighter regulations? Well, credit to you for at least admitting that it's just your opinion. However, I'm still mystified as to what you're basing that opinion on.
However, I'm going to (once again) pick you up on some facts; in one breath you say you don't know immigration figures. With the next, you hint that you know there are more coming in than we think. How do you know that? All you're saying is IF there are more coming in.
Our services have been stretched since the Tories slashed funding for public services in the 80's. I made that point about 5 days ago now, and you...ignored it. Trying to blame immigrants for our own mistakes is dishonest and cowardly.
And finally, like I repeatedly ask; where do you think the money to improve our services is going to come from when, without immigration, we have an aging and reducing workforce?
>
> But yeah, I do agree with your point in having a full on debate on
> this subject, cos one things for sure, we need theese figures, and
> correct ones at that if were going to sort this problem.
I disagree; we need these figures to find out if there even is a problem in the first place. You're very adamant there is, but you yourself admit that you're basing that on nothing more than personal opinion with no basis in fact.
>
> It's still not going to solve things, in 10 years when ther life span
> increases, what then, go to the next low life span Country? And what
> in say 50-60 years where I would estimate that most Country's would
> have improoved there life span? They'll be no more Country's with low
> life span to deal with the situation.
So what you're essentially saying is that in 50-60 years time the world will be a fair and equitable place where every nation has a high degree of prosperity and, consequently, a long lifespan? Kevstar, if that does happen and if it happens in 50-60 years time, don't you think that people won't really need to leave their own countries? And that your enormous and wholly unjusified fears of being swamped by foreigners will be utterly irrelevant? If the whole world has such a high standard of living to enable that higher lifespan, there won't BE a "situation". And you still haven't remotely convinced that there even is one now.
Your "estimation" is based on...what exactly? What makes you say that the average lifespan globally will have increased? Because to me it sounds like you're estimating it based (once again) on what you want it to be, and with no basis at all in fact. Much like the rest of your argument.
> And as I've said (over and over and over again...) you haven't
> actually given me any indication that you have the faintest idea
> what
> you're talking about. Our immigration IS controlled.
>
> How can you say this if we don't know how many people are coming in?
Because I did something that you didn't really bother to do; I researched it and looked for some facts. And I found things such as the Commonwealth Immigration Act, which lists the controls in place for immigrants from Commonwealth countries. Did you see that key word there? "Controls"?
Then I looked for the UK Visa service procedure; [URL]http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1036777054262[/URL]
And I had a read, and saw that it too has controls.
Finally, I looked at some official government statistics for the number of immigrants who were refused entry into the UK; [URL]http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1204.pdf[/URL] and I noted that thousands were refused entry or deported.
What I did, in other words, was base my argument on the facts available, rather than some mythical "worst case" that only exists inside my own head.
> Simple, the numbers we have coming into our Country we do not know,
> if this is the case, (which it is) then you'd be a fool to say it's
> under controll, cos it's not.
Jesus christ, you have the logic of a...no, forget it. No insult could possibly do more damage to your argument than you yourself are doing.
I'd have to be a fool to say it's under control? Well here's the thing; if there are no 100% reliable stats, wouldn't you agree that you would have to be just as big a fool to say that immigration is not under control? And if not, why not?
>
>
> And yes, that is what I'm saying; our population is aging. Without
> immigration, it would also be falling. These are both bad things. So
> we need immigration to keep it steady and/or increase it. Do you
> see?
>
> Yes, I see your point, but I don't accept it.
Why not? Because you don't want to? Because you have definite evidence that what I'm saying is invalid? Because you'd rather see the country bankrupt than have it filled with less-than-white people? What? Give me reasons why you don't accept it.
>
> You seem to mention WW2 as an example of immigration working.
>
> 1. How many working people had died during the war? Now do you see
> why we needed immigration then. And it's been the case every time.
You're just not really listening are you?
We lost a lot of our working population due to the war, yes. Now we are in EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION. We have not got as big a workforce as we need. Whether it was because of war, or because people got old and too selfish to have enough kids to replace 'em, the simple fact remains; we need more people here.
Could you perhaps explain to me exactly why the way in which we lost our workforce makes even the slightest difference to how we should replace them? Again, I'm all ears.
>
> As I keep saying (but this time it's you ignoring this) immigration
> is good, but controlled, now I know you mentioned we have controlled
> immigration, well, you tell me how that's the case?
Way ahead of you dear boy; I've given you some stats, legislation, and immigration guidance that explains the controls. So, that's your point answered. Seeing as you only said it to avoid answering my question, I'll ask you for...what, must be the 3rd or 4th time now...where exactly are the billions needed for investment going to come from if we have an aging and reduced workforce with fewer people to replace them?
Oh, and your fantasy-world "worst case" isn't much help, because you're still failing to give any solutions. Just trumpeting "something must be done!" without clarifying what the something is, or even why we should do it.
> Who =Human rights, they =person claiming and they are fighting to
> claim asylum or immigration. Clearer, well as you explained below
> theres no point.
No, just like there's very little point to your argument. Why on earth are you defending your view so fiercely when you even admit yourself that your view has no basis in fact?
>
> Yeah, well your expected to know this as your law man, but for
> someone like me who isn't aware of(or expected to )national ground
> interest, it gave me good cause for concern.
Wow, what an utterly graceless acceptance of that fact that you're talking complete asshat. Why aren't you "expected" to know stuff like that? You're the one sat there pontificating at length about why this country DEFINITELY faces an immigration problem. Yet as you're demonstrating in painful detail, you haven't got the faintest idea what our immigration system is. I'd say that you, more than anyone, should be expected to know this sort of thing, don't you agree?
> Yeah, but theres not a set limit on how many are allowed to enter our
> Country, so in theory, if you had 500,000 genuine people coming onto
> our shores in a year, they would be allowed to stay. This is what my
> point is, and as we don't know the figures, how are we going to know
> how best to deal with them.
In theory? That's it? Your whole argument of "this country is DEFINITELY overcrowded and something needs to be done!"? Where did this figure of 500,000 come from? Did you just pluck a large figure from the air to justify your continued "Whooooo....foreigners invading our land and stealing our jobs and money!" theme, or does it have any basis in fact?
>
>
>
> No, i'm just basing my views on the worst outcome, I know our
> services are stretched, and also know that if there is more people
> coming in than we think, then even more damage will occur. Does it
> not make sense to have a service to cover the people that come in, or
> to have the people coming in first, then deal with the mess we put
> ourselves in.
So because of your own personal paranoia, you think that immigration should have much tighter regulations? Well, credit to you for at least admitting that it's just your opinion. However, I'm still mystified as to what you're basing that opinion on.
However, I'm going to (once again) pick you up on some facts; in one breath you say you don't know immigration figures. With the next, you hint that you know there are more coming in than we think. How do you know that? All you're saying is IF there are more coming in.
Our services have been stretched since the Tories slashed funding for public services in the 80's. I made that point about 5 days ago now, and you...ignored it. Trying to blame immigrants for our own mistakes is dishonest and cowardly.
And finally, like I repeatedly ask; where do you think the money to improve our services is going to come from when, without immigration, we have an aging and reducing workforce?
>
> But yeah, I do agree with your point in having a full on debate on
> this subject, cos one things for sure, we need theese figures, and
> correct ones at that if were going to sort this problem.
I disagree; we need these figures to find out if there even is a problem in the first place. You're very adamant there is, but you yourself admit that you're basing that on nothing more than personal opinion with no basis in fact.
>
> It's still not going to solve things, in 10 years when ther life span
> increases, what then, go to the next low life span Country? And what
> in say 50-60 years where I would estimate that most Country's would
> have improoved there life span? They'll be no more Country's with low
> life span to deal with the situation.
So what you're essentially saying is that in 50-60 years time the world will be a fair and equitable place where every nation has a high degree of prosperity and, consequently, a long lifespan? Kevstar, if that does happen and if it happens in 50-60 years time, don't you think that people won't really need to leave their own countries? And that your enormous and wholly unjusified fears of being swamped by foreigners will be utterly irrelevant? If the whole world has such a high standard of living to enable that higher lifespan, there won't BE a "situation". And you still haven't remotely convinced that there even is one now.
Your "estimation" is based on...what exactly? What makes you say that the average lifespan globally will have increased? Because to me it sounds like you're estimating it based (once again) on what you want it to be, and with no basis at all in fact. Much like the rest of your argument.
> And as I've said (over and over and over again...) you haven't
> actually given me any indication that you have the faintest idea
> what
> you're talking about. Our immigration IS controlled.
>
> How can you say this if we don't know how many people are coming in?
Because I did something that you didn't really bother to do; I researched it and looked for some facts. And I found things such as the Commonwealth Immigration Act, which lists the controls in place for immigrants from Commonwealth countries. Did you see that key word there? "Controls"?
Then I looked for the UK Visa service procedure; [URL]http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1036777054262[/URL]
And I had a read, and saw that it too has controls.
Finally, I looked at some official government statistics for the number of immigrants who were refused entry into the UK; [URL]http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1204.pdf[/URL] and I noted that thousands were refused entry or deported.
What I did, in other words, was base my argument on the facts available, rather than some mythical "worst case" that only exists inside my own head.
> Simple, the numbers we have coming into our Country we do not know,
> if this is the case, (which it is) then you'd be a fool to say it's
> under controll, cos it's not.
Jesus christ, you have the logic of a...no, forget it. No insult could possibly do more damage to your argument than you yourself are doing.
I'd have to be a fool to say it's under control? Well here's the thing; if there are no 100% reliable stats, wouldn't you agree that you would have to be just as big a fool to say that immigration is not under control? And if not, why not?
>
>
> And yes, that is what I'm saying; our population is aging. Without
> immigration, it would also be falling. These are both bad things. So
> we need immigration to keep it steady and/or increase it. Do you
> see?
>
> Yes, I see your point, but I don't accept it.
Why not? Because you don't want to? Because you have definite evidence that what I'm saying is invalid? Because you'd rather see the country bankrupt than have it filled with less-than-white people? What? Give me reasons why you don't accept it.
>
> You seem to mention WW2 as an example of immigration working.
>
> 1. How many working people had died during the war? Now do you see
> why we needed immigration then. And it's been the case every time.
You're just not really listening are you?
We lost a lot of our working population due to the war, yes. Now we are in EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION. We have not got as big a workforce as we need. Whether it was because of war, or because people got old and too selfish to have enough kids to replace 'em, the simple fact remains; we need more people here.
Could you perhaps explain to me exactly why the way in which we lost our workforce makes even the slightest difference to how we should replace them? Again, I'm all ears.
>
> As I keep saying (but this time it's you ignoring this) immigration
> is good, but controlled, now I know you mentioned we have controlled
> immigration, well, you tell me how that's the case?
Way ahead of you dear boy; I've given you some stats, legislation, and immigration guidance that explains the controls. So, that's your point answered. Seeing as you only said it to avoid answering my question, I'll ask you for...what, must be the 3rd or 4th time now...where exactly are the billions needed for investment going to come from if we have an aging and reduced workforce with fewer people to replace them?
Oh, and your fantasy-world "worst case" isn't much help, because you're still failing to give any solutions. Just trumpeting "something must be done!" without clarifying what the something is, or even why we should do it.
> Who =Human rights, they =person claiming and they are fighting to
> claim asylum or immigration. Clearer, well as you explained below
> theres no point.
No, just like there's very little point to your argument. Why on earth are you defending your view so fiercely when you even admit yourself that your view has no basis in fact?
>
> Yeah, well your expected to know this as your law man, but for
> someone like me who isn't aware of(or expected to )national ground
> interest, it gave me good cause for concern.
Wow, what an utterly graceless acceptance of that fact that you're talking complete asshat. Why aren't you "expected" to know stuff like that? You're the one sat there pontificating at length about why this country DEFINITELY faces an immigration problem. Yet as you're demonstrating in painful detail, you haven't got the faintest idea what our immigration system is. I'd say that you, more than anyone, should be expected to know this sort of thing, don't you agree?
Light wrote:
>
> Which, as FFF mentions, is quite a long way from "unlimited
> people" isn't it? I don't know how many bottles of wine are in
> the country. Does that mean that there is no limit to them?
Yeah, but theres not a set limit on how many are allowed to enter our Country, so in theory, if you had 500,000 genuine people coming onto our shores in a year, they would be allowed to stay. This is what my point is, and as we don't know the figures, how are we going to know how best to deal with them.
>
> The point is (and this is again something I've said from the off but
> that you've chosen to ignore in order to bray your "we let
> unlimited foreigners in and it must stop!!" refrain) that we
> need an honest discussion on immigration, because NO-ONE knows the
> true figures. Because different groups fudge the figures to fit in
> with their own beliefs. In other words, it's impossible to say
> definitively "there is too much immigration". Just as it's
> not possible to say "there isn't enough". Because, you see,
> we just don't have any accurate figures. And THAT is why I take such
> issue with your ill-informed and ignorant headspew about immigration;
> it's based on what you want the situation to be, rather than what it
> actually is.
No, i'm just basing my views on the worst outcome, I know our services are stretched, and also know that if there is more people coming in than we think, then even more damage will occur. Does it not make sense to have a service to cover the people that come in, or to have the people coming in first, then deal with the mess we put ourselves in.
But yeah, I do agree with your point in having a full on debate on this subject, cos one things for sure, we need theese figures, and correct ones at that if were going to sort this problem.
>
> No,no the birth rates have been estimated to decrease over the next
> 20-30 years. Racist, well discrimination or whatever, its not right
> to say that were going to get our immigrants from Africa because
> they
> have a low average life span.
>
> But the people of Africa have a lower life span than those of the UK.
> That's not discrimination; that's a simple fact.
It's still not going to solve things, in 10 years when ther life span increases, what then, go to the next low life span Country? And what in say 50-60 years where I would estimate that most Country's would have improoved there life span? They'll be no more Country's with low life span to deal with the situation.
> You seem to have gone from "yeah, everyone who thinks we should
> cap immigration gets accused of racism" to doing the same thing
> yourself; accusing anyone that doesn't agree with you of racism.
>
>
> Naaa, as I said immigration is good if controled, but it doesn't
> solve the problem of our population. Your saying to solve our
> population problem we need to immigrate more people? That doesn't
> make sense.
>
> And as I've said (over and over and over again...) you haven't
> actually given me any indication that you have the faintest idea what
> you're talking about. Our immigration IS controlled.
How can you say this if we don't know how many people are coming in?
> You just don't
> want to accept that cos it will invalidate your whole ill-thought out
> argument.
>
> As you're so sure it's not controlled, would you care to explain to
> me what our immigration procedure is? You're very positive about the
> lack of control, so tell me in your own words why our system lacks
> control.
Simple, the numbers we have coming into our Country we do not know, if this is the case, (which it is) then you'd be a fool to say it's under controll, cos it's not.
>
> And yes, that is what I'm saying; our population is aging. Without
> immigration, it would also be falling. These are both bad things. So
> we need immigration to keep it steady and/or increase it. Do you
> see?
Yes, I see your point, but I don't accept it.
>
> This is my poin't, this is the problem were facing, sure we can keep
> letting more people in to pay for this, but the same problems will
> remain, all you would be doing is delaying the problem further, but
> with more people. And all thats doing is making the situation worse
> for the next generation of kids. Then yeahh, they do the same thing
> again, then what? Eventually it gets to the point where we simply
> don't have the room, and I for one don't wan't to put the next 2-3
> generation of people in this situation.
>
> Really? You seem very sure that the same problems will remain. Would
> you care to explain what your evidence for that is? After all, the
> last time we had an economic crisis was after WWII. And d'you know
> how we solved it? We let in a LOT of immigrants from the Empire. Hey
> presto; the nation is back on it's feet again.
You seem to mention WW2 as an example of immigration working.
1. How many working people had died during the war? Now do you see why we needed immigration then. And it's been the case every time.
>
> Your argument is utter, self-deluding nonsense. It's based on
> statements that you have no evidence for, and backed up by thinking
> that has no basis whatsoever in reality. You say "we're making
> it worse/delaying the problem", yet you fail to either explain
> why, or provide any alternatives.
>
> I'll ask again; where exactly are the billions for investment going
> to come from if we have an aging and falling workforce with fewer
> people to replace them?
As I keep saying (but this time it's you ignoring this) immigration is good, but controlled, now I know you mentioned we have controlled immigration, well, you tell me how that's the case?
>
>
>
> Well, the things we should have extra controll on is the system
> itself, take the link above e.g. How many of thoose regulations were
> question by the human rights, nearlly all of them. As long as you
> have question marks over a system, I think they would win nearly
> everytime. Now I may be wrong but, if someone went to court, and
> appealed on the grounds that the regulations are against human
> rights(which would apply to nearly every regulation in there), then
> surly they would win on the grounds that it's against human rights.
>
> Who are "they" and what exactly are they fighting to enable
> them to "win" please? I'd like you to be a little clearer
> on this because it sounds like you don't even understand the system
> you're trying so desperately to criticise.
Who =Human rights, they =person claiming and they are fighting to claim asylum or immigration. Clearer, well as you explained below theres no point.
>
> Anyway, to answer your point; no, they would NOT win on human rights
> grounds, because we have the "national interest" ground.
> And national interest overrides human rights when it comes to
> immigration. The only exception to that is when we'd be sending
> someone back to die by refusing them. And have you ANY idea how
> difficult it is to prove that?
Yeah, well your expected to know this as your law man, but for someone like me who isn't aware of(or expected to )national ground interest, it gave me good cause for concern.
>
> Which, as FFF mentions, is quite a long way from "unlimited
> people" isn't it? I don't know how many bottles of wine are in
> the country. Does that mean that there is no limit to them?
Yeah, but theres not a set limit on how many are allowed to enter our Country, so in theory, if you had 500,000 genuine people coming onto our shores in a year, they would be allowed to stay. This is what my point is, and as we don't know the figures, how are we going to know how best to deal with them.
>
> The point is (and this is again something I've said from the off but
> that you've chosen to ignore in order to bray your "we let
> unlimited foreigners in and it must stop!!" refrain) that we
> need an honest discussion on immigration, because NO-ONE knows the
> true figures. Because different groups fudge the figures to fit in
> with their own beliefs. In other words, it's impossible to say
> definitively "there is too much immigration". Just as it's
> not possible to say "there isn't enough". Because, you see,
> we just don't have any accurate figures. And THAT is why I take such
> issue with your ill-informed and ignorant headspew about immigration;
> it's based on what you want the situation to be, rather than what it
> actually is.
No, i'm just basing my views on the worst outcome, I know our services are stretched, and also know that if there is more people coming in than we think, then even more damage will occur. Does it not make sense to have a service to cover the people that come in, or to have the people coming in first, then deal with the mess we put ourselves in.
But yeah, I do agree with your point in having a full on debate on this subject, cos one things for sure, we need theese figures, and correct ones at that if were going to sort this problem.
>
> No,no the birth rates have been estimated to decrease over the next
> 20-30 years. Racist, well discrimination or whatever, its not right
> to say that were going to get our immigrants from Africa because
> they
> have a low average life span.
>
> But the people of Africa have a lower life span than those of the UK.
> That's not discrimination; that's a simple fact.
It's still not going to solve things, in 10 years when ther life span increases, what then, go to the next low life span Country? And what in say 50-60 years where I would estimate that most Country's would have improoved there life span? They'll be no more Country's with low life span to deal with the situation.
> You seem to have gone from "yeah, everyone who thinks we should
> cap immigration gets accused of racism" to doing the same thing
> yourself; accusing anyone that doesn't agree with you of racism.
>
>
> Naaa, as I said immigration is good if controled, but it doesn't
> solve the problem of our population. Your saying to solve our
> population problem we need to immigrate more people? That doesn't
> make sense.
>
> And as I've said (over and over and over again...) you haven't
> actually given me any indication that you have the faintest idea what
> you're talking about. Our immigration IS controlled.
How can you say this if we don't know how many people are coming in?
> You just don't
> want to accept that cos it will invalidate your whole ill-thought out
> argument.
>
> As you're so sure it's not controlled, would you care to explain to
> me what our immigration procedure is? You're very positive about the
> lack of control, so tell me in your own words why our system lacks
> control.
Simple, the numbers we have coming into our Country we do not know, if this is the case, (which it is) then you'd be a fool to say it's under controll, cos it's not.
>
> And yes, that is what I'm saying; our population is aging. Without
> immigration, it would also be falling. These are both bad things. So
> we need immigration to keep it steady and/or increase it. Do you
> see?
Yes, I see your point, but I don't accept it.
>
> This is my poin't, this is the problem were facing, sure we can keep
> letting more people in to pay for this, but the same problems will
> remain, all you would be doing is delaying the problem further, but
> with more people. And all thats doing is making the situation worse
> for the next generation of kids. Then yeahh, they do the same thing
> again, then what? Eventually it gets to the point where we simply
> don't have the room, and I for one don't wan't to put the next 2-3
> generation of people in this situation.
>
> Really? You seem very sure that the same problems will remain. Would
> you care to explain what your evidence for that is? After all, the
> last time we had an economic crisis was after WWII. And d'you know
> how we solved it? We let in a LOT of immigrants from the Empire. Hey
> presto; the nation is back on it's feet again.
You seem to mention WW2 as an example of immigration working.
1. How many working people had died during the war? Now do you see why we needed immigration then. And it's been the case every time.
>
> Your argument is utter, self-deluding nonsense. It's based on
> statements that you have no evidence for, and backed up by thinking
> that has no basis whatsoever in reality. You say "we're making
> it worse/delaying the problem", yet you fail to either explain
> why, or provide any alternatives.
>
> I'll ask again; where exactly are the billions for investment going
> to come from if we have an aging and falling workforce with fewer
> people to replace them?
As I keep saying (but this time it's you ignoring this) immigration is good, but controlled, now I know you mentioned we have controlled immigration, well, you tell me how that's the case?
>
>
>
> Well, the things we should have extra controll on is the system
> itself, take the link above e.g. How many of thoose regulations were
> question by the human rights, nearlly all of them. As long as you
> have question marks over a system, I think they would win nearly
> everytime. Now I may be wrong but, if someone went to court, and
> appealed on the grounds that the regulations are against human
> rights(which would apply to nearly every regulation in there), then
> surly they would win on the grounds that it's against human rights.
>
> Who are "they" and what exactly are they fighting to enable
> them to "win" please? I'd like you to be a little clearer
> on this because it sounds like you don't even understand the system
> you're trying so desperately to criticise.
Who =Human rights, they =person claiming and they are fighting to claim asylum or immigration. Clearer, well as you explained below theres no point.
>
> Anyway, to answer your point; no, they would NOT win on human rights
> grounds, because we have the "national interest" ground.
> And national interest overrides human rights when it comes to
> immigration. The only exception to that is when we'd be sending
> someone back to die by refusing them. And have you ANY idea how
> difficult it is to prove that?
Yeah, well your expected to know this as your law man, but for someone like me who isn't aware of(or expected to )national ground interest, it gave me good cause for concern.
kevstar wrote:
>
> How is it rubbish, when asked, Tony Blair said himself that he didn't
> know how many people were coming in, did he not?
Which, as FFF mentions, is quite a long way from "unlimited people" isn't it? I don't know how many bottles of wine are in the country. Does that mean that there is no limit to them?
The point is (and this is again something I've said from the off but that you've chosen to ignore in order to bray your "we let unlimited foreigners in and it must stop!!" refrain) that we need an honest discussion on immigration, because NO-ONE knows the true figures. Because different groups fudge the figures to fit in with their own beliefs. In other words, it's impossible to say definitively "there is too much immigration". Just as it's not possible to say "there isn't enough". Because, you see, we just don't have any accurate figures. And THAT is why I take such issue with your ill-informed and ignorant headspew about immigration; it's based on what you want the situation to be, rather than what it actually is.
> No,no the birth rates have been estimated to decrease over the next
> 20-30 years. Racist, well discrimination or whatever, its not right
> to say that were going to get our immigrants from Africa because they
> have a low average life span.
But the people of Africa have a lower life span than those of the UK. That's not discrimination; that's a simple fact.
You seem to have gone from "yeah, everyone who thinks we should cap immigration gets accused of racism" to doing the same thing yourself; accusing anyone that doesn't agree with you of racism.
> Naaa, as I said immigration is good if controled, but it doesn't
> solve the problem of our population. Your saying to solve our
> population problem we need to immigrate more people? That doesn't
> make sense.
And as I've said (over and over and over again...) you haven't actually given me any indication that you have the faintest idea what you're talking about. Our immigration IS controlled. You just don't want to accept that cos it will invalidate your whole ill-thought out argument.
As you're so sure it's not controlled, would you care to explain to me what our immigration procedure is? You're very positive about the lack of control, so tell me in your own words why our system lacks control.
And yes, that is what I'm saying; our population is aging. Without immigration, it would also be falling. These are both bad things. So we need immigration to keep it steady and/or increase it. Do you see?
> This is my poin't, this is the problem were facing, sure we can keep
> letting more people in to pay for this, but the same problems will
> remain, all you would be doing is delaying the problem further, but
> with more people. And all thats doing is making the situation worse
> for the next generation of kids. Then yeahh, they do the same thing
> again, then what? Eventually it gets to the point where we simply
> don't have the room, and I for one don't wan't to put the next 2-3
> generation of people in this situation.
Really? You seem very sure that the same problems will remain. Would you care to explain what your evidence for that is? After all, the last time we had an economic crisis was after WWII. And d'you know how we solved it? We let in a LOT of immigrants from the Empire. Hey presto; the nation is back on it's feet again.
Your argument is utter, self-deluding nonsense. It's based on statements that you have no evidence for, and backed up by thinking that has no basis whatsoever in reality. You say "we're making it worse/delaying the problem", yet you fail to either explain why, or provide any alternatives.
I'll ask again; where exactly are the billions for investment going to come from if we have an aging and falling workforce with fewer people to replace them?
>
> Well, the things we should have extra controll on is the system
> itself, take the link above e.g. How many of thoose regulations were
> question by the human rights, nearlly all of them. As long as you
> have question marks over a system, I think they would win nearly
> everytime. Now I may be wrong but, if someone went to court, and
> appealed on the grounds that the regulations are against human
> rights(which would apply to nearly every regulation in there), then
> surly they would win on the grounds that it's against human rights.
Who are "they" and what exactly are they fighting to enable them to "win" please? I'd like you to be a little clearer on this because it sounds like you don't even understand the system you're trying so desperately to criticise.
Anyway, to answer your point; no, they would NOT win on human rights grounds, because we have the "national interest" ground. And national interest overrides human rights when it comes to immigration. The only exception to that is when we'd be sending someone back to die by refusing them. And have you ANY idea how difficult it is to prove that?
>
> How is it rubbish, when asked, Tony Blair said himself that he didn't
> know how many people were coming in, did he not?
Which, as FFF mentions, is quite a long way from "unlimited people" isn't it? I don't know how many bottles of wine are in the country. Does that mean that there is no limit to them?
The point is (and this is again something I've said from the off but that you've chosen to ignore in order to bray your "we let unlimited foreigners in and it must stop!!" refrain) that we need an honest discussion on immigration, because NO-ONE knows the true figures. Because different groups fudge the figures to fit in with their own beliefs. In other words, it's impossible to say definitively "there is too much immigration". Just as it's not possible to say "there isn't enough". Because, you see, we just don't have any accurate figures. And THAT is why I take such issue with your ill-informed and ignorant headspew about immigration; it's based on what you want the situation to be, rather than what it actually is.
> No,no the birth rates have been estimated to decrease over the next
> 20-30 years. Racist, well discrimination or whatever, its not right
> to say that were going to get our immigrants from Africa because they
> have a low average life span.
But the people of Africa have a lower life span than those of the UK. That's not discrimination; that's a simple fact.
You seem to have gone from "yeah, everyone who thinks we should cap immigration gets accused of racism" to doing the same thing yourself; accusing anyone that doesn't agree with you of racism.
> Naaa, as I said immigration is good if controled, but it doesn't
> solve the problem of our population. Your saying to solve our
> population problem we need to immigrate more people? That doesn't
> make sense.
And as I've said (over and over and over again...) you haven't actually given me any indication that you have the faintest idea what you're talking about. Our immigration IS controlled. You just don't want to accept that cos it will invalidate your whole ill-thought out argument.
As you're so sure it's not controlled, would you care to explain to me what our immigration procedure is? You're very positive about the lack of control, so tell me in your own words why our system lacks control.
And yes, that is what I'm saying; our population is aging. Without immigration, it would also be falling. These are both bad things. So we need immigration to keep it steady and/or increase it. Do you see?
> This is my poin't, this is the problem were facing, sure we can keep
> letting more people in to pay for this, but the same problems will
> remain, all you would be doing is delaying the problem further, but
> with more people. And all thats doing is making the situation worse
> for the next generation of kids. Then yeahh, they do the same thing
> again, then what? Eventually it gets to the point where we simply
> don't have the room, and I for one don't wan't to put the next 2-3
> generation of people in this situation.
Really? You seem very sure that the same problems will remain. Would you care to explain what your evidence for that is? After all, the last time we had an economic crisis was after WWII. And d'you know how we solved it? We let in a LOT of immigrants from the Empire. Hey presto; the nation is back on it's feet again.
Your argument is utter, self-deluding nonsense. It's based on statements that you have no evidence for, and backed up by thinking that has no basis whatsoever in reality. You say "we're making it worse/delaying the problem", yet you fail to either explain why, or provide any alternatives.
I'll ask again; where exactly are the billions for investment going to come from if we have an aging and falling workforce with fewer people to replace them?
>
> Well, the things we should have extra controll on is the system
> itself, take the link above e.g. How many of thoose regulations were
> question by the human rights, nearlly all of them. As long as you
> have question marks over a system, I think they would win nearly
> everytime. Now I may be wrong but, if someone went to court, and
> appealed on the grounds that the regulations are against human
> rights(which would apply to nearly every regulation in there), then
> surly they would win on the grounds that it's against human rights.
Who are "they" and what exactly are they fighting to enable them to "win" please? I'd like you to be a little clearer on this because it sounds like you don't even understand the system you're trying so desperately to criticise.
Anyway, to answer your point; no, they would NOT win on human rights grounds, because we have the "national interest" ground. And national interest overrides human rights when it comes to immigration. The only exception to that is when we'd be sending someone back to die by refusing them. And have you ANY idea how difficult it is to prove that?
Not knowing how many people are coming in is not the same thing as letting unlimited people in.
Light wrote:
>
> Which is bull. Letting unlimited people in? What an absolute crock of
> toss. Can you give me examples of this? Have you actually got any
> idea of the current immigration procedures (I've asked you this
> before but you've declined to answer), or are you assuming and basing
> your whole argument on that assumption?
How is it rubbish, when asked, Tony Blair said himself that he didn't know how many people were coming in, did he not?
[URL]http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200304/jtselect/jtrights/23/2304.htm#a1[/URL]
>
> And the Gaurdian's point about getting more immigrants to cope with
> the 1 in 5 people over 70 sounds as racist as anything i've heard
> before. To say that were going to get immigrants from Country with
> low life span is a disgrace. And what when there average life span
> increases? What happens when they age themselves, it would mean that
> we would have to bring even more in to cover for then, thus not
> improving the situation. What it does do however, is makes us have
> to
> build more roads, using more space, it means investing billions into
> our NHS, railways, prisons, houses, schools to cope.
>
> Racist? What in Gods name are you talking about? More cover for
> them? Well, no not really. Because you see, people have children. Do
> you see? And those children can also work for a living. Do you see?
No,no the birth rates have been estimated to decrease over the next 20-30 years. Racist, well discrimination or whatever, its not right to say that were going to get our immigrants from Africa because they have a low average life span.
> So by bringing in immigrants we're not only solving the economic
> problem, we're helping ourselves to avoid the problem of aging and
> falling population that is currently being faced by France and
> Germany. So no; it doesn't mean more cover for all of these reasons.
Naaa, as I said immigration is good if controled, but it doesn't solve the problem of our population. Your saying to solve our population problem we need to immigrate more people? That doesn't make sense.
>
> And just where are these billions to invest (which should have been
> invested in the first place) going to come from when we'd having to
> spend most of our money avoiding the pensions hole we're facing? When
> our working age population is falling, just how do you propose we
> generate the healthy economy needed for the investment? Please; I'm
> all ears.
This is my poin't, this is the problem were facing, sure we can keep letting more people in to pay for this, but the same problems will remain, all you would be doing is delaying the problem further, but with more people. And all thats doing is making the situation worse for the next generation of kids. Then yeahh, they do the same thing again, then what? Eventually it gets to the point where we simply don't have the room, and I for one don't wan't to put the next 2-3 generation of people in this situation.
>
>
> To solve this what we need is immigration, but
> contolled immigration, we(as the Gaurdian points out)need to
> raise our taxes to improve our services and raise the pension age
> slightly. I mean there's nothing wrong with that, if thats what
> needs
> to be done then so be it. What we don't need is people who think
> it's
> alright to let unlimited people in, and think there won't be any
> problems by doing this in the future.
>
> I'll ask again; what exactly do you think our current system is?
> Because to me, it sounds like you've simply created a scenario in
> your head in order to justify your opinions (much like you did with
> me earlier in this thread). Because I can tell you now, we already
> have controlled immigration. You're saying you want further controls,
> and yet you're avoiding answering what basis you think we should add
> extra controls on. Quit your innaccurate and utterly unsupported
> yapping about "unlimited people" and infuse your argument
> with a little intellectual honesty please.
Well, the things we should have extra controll on is the system itself, take the link above e.g. How many of thoose regulations were question by the human rights, nearlly all of them. As long as you have question marks over a system, I think they would win nearly everytime. Now I may be wrong but, if someone went to court, and appealed on the grounds that the regulations are against human rights(which would apply to nearly every regulation in there), then surly they would win on the grounds that it's against human rights.
>
> Which is bull. Letting unlimited people in? What an absolute crock of
> toss. Can you give me examples of this? Have you actually got any
> idea of the current immigration procedures (I've asked you this
> before but you've declined to answer), or are you assuming and basing
> your whole argument on that assumption?
How is it rubbish, when asked, Tony Blair said himself that he didn't know how many people were coming in, did he not?
[URL]http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200304/jtselect/jtrights/23/2304.htm#a1[/URL]
>
> And the Gaurdian's point about getting more immigrants to cope with
> the 1 in 5 people over 70 sounds as racist as anything i've heard
> before. To say that were going to get immigrants from Country with
> low life span is a disgrace. And what when there average life span
> increases? What happens when they age themselves, it would mean that
> we would have to bring even more in to cover for then, thus not
> improving the situation. What it does do however, is makes us have
> to
> build more roads, using more space, it means investing billions into
> our NHS, railways, prisons, houses, schools to cope.
>
> Racist? What in Gods name are you talking about? More cover for
> them? Well, no not really. Because you see, people have children. Do
> you see? And those children can also work for a living. Do you see?
No,no the birth rates have been estimated to decrease over the next 20-30 years. Racist, well discrimination or whatever, its not right to say that were going to get our immigrants from Africa because they have a low average life span.
> So by bringing in immigrants we're not only solving the economic
> problem, we're helping ourselves to avoid the problem of aging and
> falling population that is currently being faced by France and
> Germany. So no; it doesn't mean more cover for all of these reasons.
Naaa, as I said immigration is good if controled, but it doesn't solve the problem of our population. Your saying to solve our population problem we need to immigrate more people? That doesn't make sense.
>
> And just where are these billions to invest (which should have been
> invested in the first place) going to come from when we'd having to
> spend most of our money avoiding the pensions hole we're facing? When
> our working age population is falling, just how do you propose we
> generate the healthy economy needed for the investment? Please; I'm
> all ears.
This is my poin't, this is the problem were facing, sure we can keep letting more people in to pay for this, but the same problems will remain, all you would be doing is delaying the problem further, but with more people. And all thats doing is making the situation worse for the next generation of kids. Then yeahh, they do the same thing again, then what? Eventually it gets to the point where we simply don't have the room, and I for one don't wan't to put the next 2-3 generation of people in this situation.
>
>
> To solve this what we need is immigration, but
> contolled immigration, we(as the Gaurdian points out)need to
> raise our taxes to improve our services and raise the pension age
> slightly. I mean there's nothing wrong with that, if thats what
> needs
> to be done then so be it. What we don't need is people who think
> it's
> alright to let unlimited people in, and think there won't be any
> problems by doing this in the future.
>
> I'll ask again; what exactly do you think our current system is?
> Because to me, it sounds like you've simply created a scenario in
> your head in order to justify your opinions (much like you did with
> me earlier in this thread). Because I can tell you now, we already
> have controlled immigration. You're saying you want further controls,
> and yet you're avoiding answering what basis you think we should add
> extra controls on. Quit your innaccurate and utterly unsupported
> yapping about "unlimited people" and infuse your argument
> with a little intellectual honesty please.
Well, the things we should have extra controll on is the system itself, take the link above e.g. How many of thoose regulations were question by the human rights, nearlly all of them. As long as you have question marks over a system, I think they would win nearly everytime. Now I may be wrong but, if someone went to court, and appealed on the grounds that the regulations are against human rights(which would apply to nearly every regulation in there), then surly they would win on the grounds that it's against human rights.
kevstar wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Strafio wrote:
>
> Our population has been soaring, have you seen the popullation
> growth
> since the second world war? And it's already out of control, thats
> how there isn't a limit on the amount we take in.
>
> I can't really argue with this as I haven't really seen the
> figures...
>
>
> I can, and will;
>
> tell me, did you get those figures from Immigration Watch UK
> perchance?
>
> [URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/population/Story/0,2763,1130742,00.html[/URL]
>
> My argument that "it's out of control" comes from the fact
> that were letting unlimited people in. I mentioned the stats to
> state that our population has always been on the increase.
Which is bull. Letting unlimited people in? What an absolute crock of toss. Can you give me examples of this? Have you actually got any idea of the current immigration procedures (I've asked you this before but you've declined to answer), or are you assuming and basing your whole argument on that assumption?
>
> And the Gaurdian's point about getting more immigrants to cope with
> the 1 in 5 people over 70 sounds as racist as anything i've heard
> before. To say that were going to get immigrants from Country with
> low life span is a disgrace. And what when there average life span
> increases? What happens when they age themselves, it would mean that
> we would have to bring even more in to cover for then, thus not
> improving the situation. What it does do however, is makes us have to
> build more roads, using more space, it means investing billions into
> our NHS, railways, prisons, houses, schools to cope.
Racist? What in Gods name are you talking about? More cover for them? Well, no not really. Because you see, people have children. Do you see? And those children can also work for a living. Do you see? So by bringing in immigrants we're not only solving the economic problem, we're helping ourselves to avoid the problem of aging and falling population that is currently being faced by France and Germany. So no; it doesn't mean more cover for all of these reasons.
And just where are these billions to invest (which should have been invested in the first place) going to come from when we'd having to spend most of our money avoiding the pensions hole we're facing? When our working age population is falling, just how do you propose we generate the healthy economy needed for the investment? Please; I'm all ears.
>
> To solve this what we need is immigration, but
> contolled immigration, we(as the Gaurdian points out)need to
> raise our taxes to improve our services and raise the pension age
> slightly. I mean there's nothing wrong with that, if thats what needs
> to be done then so be it. What we don't need is people who think it's
> alright to let unlimited people in, and think there won't be any
> problems by doing this in the future.
I'll ask again; what exactly do you think our current system is? Because to me, it sounds like you've simply created a scenario in your head in order to justify your opinions (much like you did with me earlier in this thread). Because I can tell you now, we already have controlled immigration. You're saying you want further controls, and yet you're avoiding answering what basis you think we should add extra controls on. Quit your innaccurate and utterly unsupported yapping about "unlimited people" and infuse your argument with a little intellectual honesty please.
> Light wrote:
> Strafio wrote:
>
> Our population has been soaring, have you seen the popullation
> growth
> since the second world war? And it's already out of control, thats
> how there isn't a limit on the amount we take in.
>
> I can't really argue with this as I haven't really seen the
> figures...
>
>
> I can, and will;
>
> tell me, did you get those figures from Immigration Watch UK
> perchance?
>
> [URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/population/Story/0,2763,1130742,00.html[/URL]
>
> My argument that "it's out of control" comes from the fact
> that were letting unlimited people in. I mentioned the stats to
> state that our population has always been on the increase.
Which is bull. Letting unlimited people in? What an absolute crock of toss. Can you give me examples of this? Have you actually got any idea of the current immigration procedures (I've asked you this before but you've declined to answer), or are you assuming and basing your whole argument on that assumption?
>
> And the Gaurdian's point about getting more immigrants to cope with
> the 1 in 5 people over 70 sounds as racist as anything i've heard
> before. To say that were going to get immigrants from Country with
> low life span is a disgrace. And what when there average life span
> increases? What happens when they age themselves, it would mean that
> we would have to bring even more in to cover for then, thus not
> improving the situation. What it does do however, is makes us have to
> build more roads, using more space, it means investing billions into
> our NHS, railways, prisons, houses, schools to cope.
Racist? What in Gods name are you talking about? More cover for them? Well, no not really. Because you see, people have children. Do you see? And those children can also work for a living. Do you see? So by bringing in immigrants we're not only solving the economic problem, we're helping ourselves to avoid the problem of aging and falling population that is currently being faced by France and Germany. So no; it doesn't mean more cover for all of these reasons.
And just where are these billions to invest (which should have been invested in the first place) going to come from when we'd having to spend most of our money avoiding the pensions hole we're facing? When our working age population is falling, just how do you propose we generate the healthy economy needed for the investment? Please; I'm all ears.
>
> To solve this what we need is immigration, but
> contolled immigration, we(as the Gaurdian points out)need to
> raise our taxes to improve our services and raise the pension age
> slightly. I mean there's nothing wrong with that, if thats what needs
> to be done then so be it. What we don't need is people who think it's
> alright to let unlimited people in, and think there won't be any
> problems by doing this in the future.
I'll ask again; what exactly do you think our current system is? Because to me, it sounds like you've simply created a scenario in your head in order to justify your opinions (much like you did with me earlier in this thread). Because I can tell you now, we already have controlled immigration. You're saying you want further controls, and yet you're avoiding answering what basis you think we should add extra controls on. Quit your innaccurate and utterly unsupported yapping about "unlimited people" and infuse your argument with a little intellectual honesty please.
Goatboy wrote:
> Anybody want to see Kevstar?
> [URL]http://www.5318008.co.uk/monkey/[/URL]
Hey thats good, now to return the favour.
[URL]http://www.dancinggoat.co.uk/[/URL]
> Anybody want to see Kevstar?
> [URL]http://www.5318008.co.uk/monkey/[/URL]
Hey thats good, now to return the favour.
[URL]http://www.dancinggoat.co.uk/[/URL]
Light wrote:
> Strafio wrote:
>
> Our population has been soaring, have you seen the popullation
> growth
> since the second world war? And it's already out of control, thats
> how there isn't a limit on the amount we take in.
>
> I can't really argue with this as I haven't really seen the
> figures...
>
>
> I can, and will;
>
> tell me, did you get those figures from Immigration Watch UK
> perchance?
[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/population/Story/0,2763,1130742,00.html[/URL]
My argument that "it's out of control" comes from the fact that were letting unlimited people in. I mentioned the stats to state that our population has always been on the increase.
And the Gaurdian's point about getting more immigrants to cope with the 1 in 5 people over 70 sounds as racist as anything i've heard before. To say that were going to get immigrants from Country with low life span is a disgrace. And what when there average life span increases? What happens when they age themselves, it would mean that we would have to bring even more in to cover for then, thus not improving the situation. What it does do however, is makes us have to build more roads, using more space, it means investing billions into our NHS, railways, prisons, houses, schools to cope.
To solve this what we need is immigration, but contolled immigration, we(as the Gaurdian points out)need to raise our taxes to improve our services and raise the pension age slightly. I mean there's nothing wrong with that, if thats what needs to be done then so be it. What we don't need is people who think it's alright to let unlimited people in, and think there won't be any problems by doing this in the future.
> Strafio wrote:
>
> Our population has been soaring, have you seen the popullation
> growth
> since the second world war? And it's already out of control, thats
> how there isn't a limit on the amount we take in.
>
> I can't really argue with this as I haven't really seen the
> figures...
>
>
> I can, and will;
>
> tell me, did you get those figures from Immigration Watch UK
> perchance?
[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/population/Story/0,2763,1130742,00.html[/URL]
My argument that "it's out of control" comes from the fact that were letting unlimited people in. I mentioned the stats to state that our population has always been on the increase.
And the Gaurdian's point about getting more immigrants to cope with the 1 in 5 people over 70 sounds as racist as anything i've heard before. To say that were going to get immigrants from Country with low life span is a disgrace. And what when there average life span increases? What happens when they age themselves, it would mean that we would have to bring even more in to cover for then, thus not improving the situation. What it does do however, is makes us have to build more roads, using more space, it means investing billions into our NHS, railways, prisons, houses, schools to cope.
To solve this what we need is immigration, but contolled immigration, we(as the Gaurdian points out)need to raise our taxes to improve our services and raise the pension age slightly. I mean there's nothing wrong with that, if thats what needs to be done then so be it. What we don't need is people who think it's alright to let unlimited people in, and think there won't be any problems by doing this in the future.
Page: