The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
> It's my job to whine about it because I can see too many ways for
> immigrants and Asylum seekers to use and abuse the system,
But you've already admitted that you don't know anything about the system. How exactly can you see holes in a system you don't understand?
I know - it's because they MUST be abusing it, isn't it?
And kevstar you're still being incredibly stupid. This argument wasn't about illegal immigrants. You can't put a quota on illegal immigrants. That's not what you were arguing about.
You said that we should let in less immigrants because they are stretching our services and everyone else said actually no they aren't. That's it. That's the end. Give it up.
> It's my job to whine about it because I can see too many ways for
> immigrants and Asylum seekers to use and abuse the system,
But you've already admitted that you don't know anything about the system. How exactly can you see holes in a system you don't understand?
I know - it's because they MUST be abusing it, isn't it?
And kevstar you're still being incredibly stupid. This argument wasn't about illegal immigrants. You can't put a quota on illegal immigrants. That's not what you were arguing about.
You said that we should let in less immigrants because they are stretching our services and everyone else said actually no they aren't. That's it. That's the end. Give it up.
Light says
So you're happy to accept unquestioningly what Blair says when he agrees with you about immigration, but you won't accept anything about the Iraq war that you disagree with? O-kay...
Thank you, you've just answered my point. The fact is your right in a way, my point with Tony Blair is that I don't believe the figures he's quoting (in fact i'm certain there not) are accurate, which is why, when he goes on TV and admits that i'm correct to be worried. To me, it's like he's admitting to something that he knows there's a problem.
Your point about a quota which has been rejected, I do agree, why, well to be honest I think the proposed changes are now good enough without the need of quotas, something which at first seemed impossible. I do find it is a shamless attempt to get votes, however it's still a issue that needs to be adressed. And I will always say that any system (immigration or not) has problems if they don't know the correct numbers coming in. It's like a shop, if you had goods coming in, but didn't know the total ammount coming in, sooner or later your going to have to many which will always cause problems.
I do see a point in having a debate on immigration, mainly to show how inaccurate the figures are for the amount coming in. I do accept (something which you seem to think I don't agree with) that there is a need for migrants, and the better qualified the better for the economy, and yes before you start, I also see some need for un-skilled workers. What I don't see a need for, is the potentual to damage our economy and services with a system that lacks control.
It's my job to whine about it because I can see too many ways for immigrants and Asylum seekers to use and abuse the system, it's not my job to come up with ways to solve the problem (thats Mr Clarks job init), but more to raise my concerns. Look i'm not saying I have all the solutions, but I do have a mind of my own, a mind what thinks when you hear the problems such as "no known figures on people coming in", then I have a right to say what I think without bieng racist as I find it a problem that needs resolved.
The paragragh you provided, how can they come out and say this if they don't know the true figures? There going off figures that are incomplete, not including and illegals, i'm not even sure if it takes account of the mass increase of immigration numbers under labour, do you?
People need to uderstand the increase of life span nowdays compared to when the pension system first come into play, sure it's not going to be popular, but it's a fact that needs to be taken into account. It's called changing with the times, and to be honest nobody is that keen on change.
If no-one has at any point try to deny that illegal immigration is a bad thing for both the country and the immigrants, then why won't you accept that changes need to be made, just like the ones propossed?
One thing it does say in the report that you missed when taking about the conclusion of immigrants, it states that the high earning immigrants are more or less covering the low end of immigrants, so in other words if you had 3 immigrants on benefits, the one immigrant on high earnings will cover thoose other 3 on benefits. So all in all, it still means there making a net contribution, does that mean its working? I would dissagree. Look, I do (believe it or not) think immigration is good for our economy, no doubt, but it shows the system has potentual flaws which need to be adressed.
So you're happy to accept unquestioningly what Blair says when he agrees with you about immigration, but you won't accept anything about the Iraq war that you disagree with? O-kay...
Thank you, you've just answered my point. The fact is your right in a way, my point with Tony Blair is that I don't believe the figures he's quoting (in fact i'm certain there not) are accurate, which is why, when he goes on TV and admits that i'm correct to be worried. To me, it's like he's admitting to something that he knows there's a problem.
Your point about a quota which has been rejected, I do agree, why, well to be honest I think the proposed changes are now good enough without the need of quotas, something which at first seemed impossible. I do find it is a shamless attempt to get votes, however it's still a issue that needs to be adressed. And I will always say that any system (immigration or not) has problems if they don't know the correct numbers coming in. It's like a shop, if you had goods coming in, but didn't know the total ammount coming in, sooner or later your going to have to many which will always cause problems.
I do see a point in having a debate on immigration, mainly to show how inaccurate the figures are for the amount coming in. I do accept (something which you seem to think I don't agree with) that there is a need for migrants, and the better qualified the better for the economy, and yes before you start, I also see some need for un-skilled workers. What I don't see a need for, is the potentual to damage our economy and services with a system that lacks control.
It's my job to whine about it because I can see too many ways for immigrants and Asylum seekers to use and abuse the system, it's not my job to come up with ways to solve the problem (thats Mr Clarks job init), but more to raise my concerns. Look i'm not saying I have all the solutions, but I do have a mind of my own, a mind what thinks when you hear the problems such as "no known figures on people coming in", then I have a right to say what I think without bieng racist as I find it a problem that needs resolved.
The paragragh you provided, how can they come out and say this if they don't know the true figures? There going off figures that are incomplete, not including and illegals, i'm not even sure if it takes account of the mass increase of immigration numbers under labour, do you?
People need to uderstand the increase of life span nowdays compared to when the pension system first come into play, sure it's not going to be popular, but it's a fact that needs to be taken into account. It's called changing with the times, and to be honest nobody is that keen on change.
If no-one has at any point try to deny that illegal immigration is a bad thing for both the country and the immigrants, then why won't you accept that changes need to be made, just like the ones propossed?
One thing it does say in the report that you missed when taking about the conclusion of immigrants, it states that the high earning immigrants are more or less covering the low end of immigrants, so in other words if you had 3 immigrants on benefits, the one immigrant on high earnings will cover thoose other 3 on benefits. So all in all, it still means there making a net contribution, does that mean its working? I would dissagree. Look, I do (believe it or not) think immigration is good for our economy, no doubt, but it shows the system has potentual flaws which need to be adressed.
Light wrote:
> Shelljed wrote:
>
> The Sun? who reads the Sun? its all last weeks news its a load of
> tripe
>
> kevstar reads it. Jesus, he's based his argument on a Sun readers
> poll and an article in the News of the World...
Rubbish, the poll in the Sun was asking do you think Britain should have tighter controls over immigration, not should we throw them out. As for the News of the World, well it was a sting, a undercover opperation, you know the person involved got caught and all evidence was handed to the police, Again this is not spin, this is something that actually happened. Now Light seems to think that you shouldn't read to much into things like that from papers such as theese mentioned. I say look at the paper where your getting your information from, the Gaurdian, it's always the same stuff, as soon as someone mentions "immigration has some problems in the system" there the first to back immigrants up, no matter how wrong they are. You could in fact call yourself a hypocrite wouldn't you agree?
> Shelljed wrote:
>
> The Sun? who reads the Sun? its all last weeks news its a load of
> tripe
>
> kevstar reads it. Jesus, he's based his argument on a Sun readers
> poll and an article in the News of the World...
Rubbish, the poll in the Sun was asking do you think Britain should have tighter controls over immigration, not should we throw them out. As for the News of the World, well it was a sting, a undercover opperation, you know the person involved got caught and all evidence was handed to the police, Again this is not spin, this is something that actually happened. Now Light seems to think that you shouldn't read to much into things like that from papers such as theese mentioned. I say look at the paper where your getting your information from, the Gaurdian, it's always the same stuff, as soon as someone mentions "immigration has some problems in the system" there the first to back immigrants up, no matter how wrong they are. You could in fact call yourself a hypocrite wouldn't you agree?
Is this argument still going lololol....
I have to agree with Light though, because anyone who makes judgements from a readers poll is a friggin idiot. Note i didnt even mention it came from the Sun, only good for tripe, garbage, porky pies, page 3 and what can only be described as "gossip".
Newspapers take facts, blow them out of proportion, add in a few of their own creative "facts", jumble it together and print it, which is a waste of trees.
They have so much influence over peoples opinions because when you read it, your reading it through in your head, which is more direct than someone talking to you (as you can blank them, hum a tune etc). They could be very productive and useful for people, instead they just put in whatever is "hot", some chicks to grab attention to it and usually some useless half price sale at Debenhams token...
The only decent section is the sports section! You cant really lie about results.
I have to agree with Light though, because anyone who makes judgements from a readers poll is a friggin idiot. Note i didnt even mention it came from the Sun, only good for tripe, garbage, porky pies, page 3 and what can only be described as "gossip".
Newspapers take facts, blow them out of proportion, add in a few of their own creative "facts", jumble it together and print it, which is a waste of trees.
They have so much influence over peoples opinions because when you read it, your reading it through in your head, which is more direct than someone talking to you (as you can blank them, hum a tune etc). They could be very productive and useful for people, instead they just put in whatever is "hot", some chicks to grab attention to it and usually some useless half price sale at Debenhams token...
The only decent section is the sports section! You cant really lie about results.
[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/Refugees_in_Britain/Story/0,2763,1417300,00.html[/URL]
An interesting article that goes some way to explaining my own opinion; that the current fuss about immigration is nothing more than a tabloid-induced storm in a teacup that is maintained by sadsack, underachieving bigots like kevstar who are desperate to blame someone (anyone) other than themselves for their own dismal lives.
An interesting article that goes some way to explaining my own opinion; that the current fuss about immigration is nothing more than a tabloid-induced storm in a teacup that is maintained by sadsack, underachieving bigots like kevstar who are desperate to blame someone (anyone) other than themselves for their own dismal lives.
Shelljed wrote:
> The Sun? who reads the Sun? its all last weeks news its a load of
> tripe
kevstar reads it. Jesus, he's based his argument on a Sun readers poll and an article in the News of the World...
> The Sun? who reads the Sun? its all last weeks news its a load of
> tripe
kevstar reads it. Jesus, he's based his argument on a Sun readers poll and an article in the News of the World...
Light wrote:
> Shelljed wrote:
>
> some probably do help but its the few who dont
> that give them all a bad name.
>
> Alas, it's those few (or otherwise) that the Sun bases it's entire
> news coverage on.
The Sun? who reads the Sun? its all last weeks news its a load of tripe
> Shelljed wrote:
>
> some probably do help but its the few who dont
> that give them all a bad name.
>
> Alas, it's those few (or otherwise) that the Sun bases it's entire
> news coverage on.
The Sun? who reads the Sun? its all last weeks news its a load of tripe
kevstar wrote:
> [URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4241821.stm[/URL]
>
> You want to hear it from the horses mouth? So Tony Blair admiting (as
> he did yesterday on 5) that people like me are right to be concerned
> about the abuses in the system which are apparently (according to
> your claims) are not there. So when you hear me wailing about
> immigration you will see i'm right to do so.
So you're happy to accept unquestioningly what Blair says when he agrees with you about immigration, but you won't accept anything about the Iraq war that you disagree with? O-kay...
I've never once said that there are no problems. I've asked you to explain what the problems are. And you've singularly failed to do so (apart of course from your wailing and whining about your "concerns" that you read about in the News of the World). You've provided a link to a news report? Tell me; why should this shameless attempt at vote grabbing in an election year be considered proof? And did you notice that a quota (which you seem to be in favour of) is completely rejected?
>
>
> You also say
>
> 1. The Public Interest, Public Health, and Security Issue exceptions
> to the Governments obligations to Immigrants.
> You'll find them...
>
> [URL]http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/occ67-migration.pdf[/URL]
I asked you to explain them kevstar. Not give a link to something you don't understand.
I'll ask you again; explain these three derogations in your own words.
> Allowing criminals to enter the UK from Eastern Europe and telling
> civil servants to short-circuit procedures. The UK Minister
> responsible for Immigration, Beverley Hughes, was forced to resign
> over this issue and the Conservative opposition is claiming that the
> UK left the door open for potential terrorists to enter the country.
Well...you've actually answered a question. Admittedly, you've cut and pasted it directly from a website, but it's better than your usual rubbish. Well done.
So then; wouldn't you agree that, seeing as figures are being selectively reported on both sides, that increases the need for an honest debate on immigration? Or are you still insistent that there is no need for a debate as it wouldn't tell us anything new?
>
> Thats also in the link, are you stupid, you've asked me this before
> and I gave you a link with the current system in. How would I change
> it, well, I notice you mentioned the word economic there, expecting
> to catch me out did you? Well the fact is, it's not my job to change
> anything so your asking the wrong person here.
Mwahahahahahhaaaaa! If it's not your job to change anything, then why the hell are you whinging about it?
Yes, you gave me a link. But you gave no indication whatsoever that you actually understood. You're like the Kevin Kline character in A Fish Called Wanda; you assume that looking at a page with words on makes you clever. Alas, no it doesn't.
So please; explain to me in your own words how the system works and what you, if you were in a position to do so, would do to change it.
> Can you see that link there light, if you look and tell me what it
> says in the figures section page 10 of 80 and if you don't mind, in
> fact i'll paste it now.. The concentration of migrants in particular
> areas brings with it a number of positive and
> negative externalities. Migrants bring diverse skills, experience and
> know-how to the UK, and
> help to regenerate run-down areas; but may also increase pressure on
> housing markets,
> transport and other infrastructure.
>
> Is this the housing market which you said migrants didn't affect, the
> transport, and I wonder what other infrastructure there talking
> about. And you do know they were not talking about illeagal
> immigrants at that point, or the Bogus Asylum seekers who a lot don't
> actually get deported, instead they just vanish into thin air. It
> also says in there somewhere that post war immigration is not the
> same as today, something else you totally wrong about as you said it
> was the same didn't you?
Heh. Notice that word "may" increase pressue? Not "it will" or "it does". Just a "maybe". Well guess what? That's not actually saying that these problems will definitely happen, is it? In fact, one could very easily say that all that sentence is doing is bringing something to the attention of the government, so that the housing markets can be expanded (as is happening right now), and there can be greater investment in other infrastructure. Investment which can't happen without immigration. Or didn't you notice that bit about "help(ing) to regenerate run down areas" in your haste to say "See, this proves all immigrants are evil".
Anyway, back to your selective quoting. I notice that you haven't posted the next paragraph, which states that;
"It is not clear that migration has, in practice, increased congestion and over crowding in London. The
population of London has increased at the same rate as the UK population overall over the last 20 years, at
a time when other major cities in the UK have been shrinking, causing problems of under-use, neglect and
decay. That migration has helped to prevent this counter-urbanisation in London, and helped to regenerate
otherwise run-down areas, suggests that the impact of migration can be both subtle and ambiguous."
Did you see that kevstar? Something from the same report that gives us the positives of immigration? You did, didn't you? But you didn't want to quote from it, because you don't like reading things that don't back up your point of view, do you?
All your precious little quotes have done is prove to me that you're a bigot who will only quote that which supports him, whilst pretending that everything opposing your view simply doesn't exist. I mean, the paragraph after the one I've quoted goes on to describe possible problems with immigration into concentrated areas and the effect it will have on services. You take that as proof immigration is bad. I personally think it could be that, or it could simply show that we need to ensure that there are no such concentrations of immigration, and that immigrants get to go to all areas of the country where there is work. Do you see?
>
> 1 point which i've heard which I think is good. Now you seem to think
> that we are in a few years going to be a aging population, now you
> tell me what is wrong with increasing the pension age? After all
> people now live longer than they did all them years ago, so that
> means todays pension age should at least be reviewed, allowing people
> to live and work longer and in turn helping the economy.
Okay; would you like to be the person to tell all those people that they're not going to be able to retire when they thought?
[URL]http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1288553.html?menu=[/URL]
As you can see, it's not a popular idea, is it? As your whole argument comes down to "well...lots of people have the same opinion as me!" I find it rather fun that you're resorting to this in order to maintain your prejudice...
>
> And ohhh, nearly forgot this quote from the home office link...
>
> In 1998, 16,500 illegal entrants were detected. A further 4,600
> people who had breached their
> conditions of stay (mainly overstayers, or working without leave)
> were detected. The number of illegal
> entrants detected has been on an upward trend, sharply so since 1993.
> We do not know to what extent
> this reflects an increase in the number of illegal entrants actually
> resident or entering, or just better
> detection. However, all other categories of migration were rising in
> this period, especially those directly
> related to economic incentives, and the upward trend in detections
> has been consistent (rather than
> simply reflecting the step change in enforcement that took place in
> about 1995), so it seems likely that
> illegal migration was also increasing. Of those detected, the
> greatest growth has been in those from
> Europe, reflecting increases in irregular migration from Eastern
> Europe.
Mm, nice selective quoting. However, no-one has at any point try to deny that illegal immigration is a bad thing for both the country and the immigrants. You really haven't cottened on to that, have you dear boy?
>
> Light you do talk rubbish don't you, I wan't to know when you are
> going to conceed in this debate because it seems to me your loosing,
> and badly. At what point are you going to admit that there is
> a problem because thats what you keep denying isn't it. This just
> shows how much of a ignorant @rse intruder you are. And this goes out
> to all his other little bum chums who havn't a clue such as
> pandamoanalot, goatface and gerrid the noob.
Wow; you're genuinely getting upset at this, aren't you sweetheart? Was it the joke about you trying to rape your own sister that did it? I'm afraid that, in your eyes, I'll always seem to be "loosing" for no reason other than I don't accept your blinkered racism that you churn out in the absence of evidence at best, selectively quoted figures at worst. I've asked you repeatedly to give proof of the problem. All you do is repeatedly say "there is a problem", then churn out a few quotes from a report that, all in all, actually supports immigration.
Oh, and is everyone who disagrees with you just a little bum chum? Does that make it easier for you to preserve your prejudice, my empty headed proletarian friend?
Oh yes, that reminds me; lets go back to the conclusions of this report that you're picking and choosing bits of. Did you notice the part that said;
The impacts of migration are broad and varied across the economic and social spheres - with
significant overlap and interaction between the two. Analyses often seek to measure ‘benefits' and
'costs'. But it would be a mistake to define either too narrowly, or to attribute either impact to the
migrants alone.
Did you see that kevstar? The bit that said it was a mistake to attribute impact on services to immigrants alone?
Or perhaps the part that said
There is a
real need for further work to better identify the different groups of migrants and their characteristics and
to understand the reasons for their different outcomes.
Which is, y'know, what I've been saying from the very start.
Jesus kevstar; are you ever going to learn to read a full report? Because when you crow about a few quotes from a report, it makes you look that much stupider once I've read it and find that the report isn't actually saying what you imply (that immigration is a bad thing), but is actually saying what I've made clear from the start; there needs to be an open and honest debate about immigration in order to get the full story.
So, in summary; I'll concede when you give me a reason to do so. And I'm afraid highly selective Kilroytastic quoting just isn't going to do that. Now, in your own time, do please answer the questions I've asked.
> [URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4241821.stm[/URL]
>
> You want to hear it from the horses mouth? So Tony Blair admiting (as
> he did yesterday on 5) that people like me are right to be concerned
> about the abuses in the system which are apparently (according to
> your claims) are not there. So when you hear me wailing about
> immigration you will see i'm right to do so.
So you're happy to accept unquestioningly what Blair says when he agrees with you about immigration, but you won't accept anything about the Iraq war that you disagree with? O-kay...
I've never once said that there are no problems. I've asked you to explain what the problems are. And you've singularly failed to do so (apart of course from your wailing and whining about your "concerns" that you read about in the News of the World). You've provided a link to a news report? Tell me; why should this shameless attempt at vote grabbing in an election year be considered proof? And did you notice that a quota (which you seem to be in favour of) is completely rejected?
>
>
> You also say
>
> 1. The Public Interest, Public Health, and Security Issue exceptions
> to the Governments obligations to Immigrants.
> You'll find them...
>
> [URL]http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/occ67-migration.pdf[/URL]
I asked you to explain them kevstar. Not give a link to something you don't understand.
I'll ask you again; explain these three derogations in your own words.
> Allowing criminals to enter the UK from Eastern Europe and telling
> civil servants to short-circuit procedures. The UK Minister
> responsible for Immigration, Beverley Hughes, was forced to resign
> over this issue and the Conservative opposition is claiming that the
> UK left the door open for potential terrorists to enter the country.
Well...you've actually answered a question. Admittedly, you've cut and pasted it directly from a website, but it's better than your usual rubbish. Well done.
So then; wouldn't you agree that, seeing as figures are being selectively reported on both sides, that increases the need for an honest debate on immigration? Or are you still insistent that there is no need for a debate as it wouldn't tell us anything new?
>
> Thats also in the link, are you stupid, you've asked me this before
> and I gave you a link with the current system in. How would I change
> it, well, I notice you mentioned the word economic there, expecting
> to catch me out did you? Well the fact is, it's not my job to change
> anything so your asking the wrong person here.
Mwahahahahahhaaaaa! If it's not your job to change anything, then why the hell are you whinging about it?
Yes, you gave me a link. But you gave no indication whatsoever that you actually understood. You're like the Kevin Kline character in A Fish Called Wanda; you assume that looking at a page with words on makes you clever. Alas, no it doesn't.
So please; explain to me in your own words how the system works and what you, if you were in a position to do so, would do to change it.
> Can you see that link there light, if you look and tell me what it
> says in the figures section page 10 of 80 and if you don't mind, in
> fact i'll paste it now.. The concentration of migrants in particular
> areas brings with it a number of positive and
> negative externalities. Migrants bring diverse skills, experience and
> know-how to the UK, and
> help to regenerate run-down areas; but may also increase pressure on
> housing markets,
> transport and other infrastructure.
>
> Is this the housing market which you said migrants didn't affect, the
> transport, and I wonder what other infrastructure there talking
> about. And you do know they were not talking about illeagal
> immigrants at that point, or the Bogus Asylum seekers who a lot don't
> actually get deported, instead they just vanish into thin air. It
> also says in there somewhere that post war immigration is not the
> same as today, something else you totally wrong about as you said it
> was the same didn't you?
Heh. Notice that word "may" increase pressue? Not "it will" or "it does". Just a "maybe". Well guess what? That's not actually saying that these problems will definitely happen, is it? In fact, one could very easily say that all that sentence is doing is bringing something to the attention of the government, so that the housing markets can be expanded (as is happening right now), and there can be greater investment in other infrastructure. Investment which can't happen without immigration. Or didn't you notice that bit about "help(ing) to regenerate run down areas" in your haste to say "See, this proves all immigrants are evil".
Anyway, back to your selective quoting. I notice that you haven't posted the next paragraph, which states that;
"It is not clear that migration has, in practice, increased congestion and over crowding in London. The
population of London has increased at the same rate as the UK population overall over the last 20 years, at
a time when other major cities in the UK have been shrinking, causing problems of under-use, neglect and
decay. That migration has helped to prevent this counter-urbanisation in London, and helped to regenerate
otherwise run-down areas, suggests that the impact of migration can be both subtle and ambiguous."
Did you see that kevstar? Something from the same report that gives us the positives of immigration? You did, didn't you? But you didn't want to quote from it, because you don't like reading things that don't back up your point of view, do you?
All your precious little quotes have done is prove to me that you're a bigot who will only quote that which supports him, whilst pretending that everything opposing your view simply doesn't exist. I mean, the paragraph after the one I've quoted goes on to describe possible problems with immigration into concentrated areas and the effect it will have on services. You take that as proof immigration is bad. I personally think it could be that, or it could simply show that we need to ensure that there are no such concentrations of immigration, and that immigrants get to go to all areas of the country where there is work. Do you see?
>
> 1 point which i've heard which I think is good. Now you seem to think
> that we are in a few years going to be a aging population, now you
> tell me what is wrong with increasing the pension age? After all
> people now live longer than they did all them years ago, so that
> means todays pension age should at least be reviewed, allowing people
> to live and work longer and in turn helping the economy.
Okay; would you like to be the person to tell all those people that they're not going to be able to retire when they thought?
[URL]http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1288553.html?menu=[/URL]
As you can see, it's not a popular idea, is it? As your whole argument comes down to "well...lots of people have the same opinion as me!" I find it rather fun that you're resorting to this in order to maintain your prejudice...
>
> And ohhh, nearly forgot this quote from the home office link...
>
> In 1998, 16,500 illegal entrants were detected. A further 4,600
> people who had breached their
> conditions of stay (mainly overstayers, or working without leave)
> were detected. The number of illegal
> entrants detected has been on an upward trend, sharply so since 1993.
> We do not know to what extent
> this reflects an increase in the number of illegal entrants actually
> resident or entering, or just better
> detection. However, all other categories of migration were rising in
> this period, especially those directly
> related to economic incentives, and the upward trend in detections
> has been consistent (rather than
> simply reflecting the step change in enforcement that took place in
> about 1995), so it seems likely that
> illegal migration was also increasing. Of those detected, the
> greatest growth has been in those from
> Europe, reflecting increases in irregular migration from Eastern
> Europe.
Mm, nice selective quoting. However, no-one has at any point try to deny that illegal immigration is a bad thing for both the country and the immigrants. You really haven't cottened on to that, have you dear boy?
>
> Light you do talk rubbish don't you, I wan't to know when you are
> going to conceed in this debate because it seems to me your loosing,
> and badly. At what point are you going to admit that there is
> a problem because thats what you keep denying isn't it. This just
> shows how much of a ignorant @rse intruder you are. And this goes out
> to all his other little bum chums who havn't a clue such as
> pandamoanalot, goatface and gerrid the noob.
Wow; you're genuinely getting upset at this, aren't you sweetheart? Was it the joke about you trying to rape your own sister that did it? I'm afraid that, in your eyes, I'll always seem to be "loosing" for no reason other than I don't accept your blinkered racism that you churn out in the absence of evidence at best, selectively quoted figures at worst. I've asked you repeatedly to give proof of the problem. All you do is repeatedly say "there is a problem", then churn out a few quotes from a report that, all in all, actually supports immigration.
Oh, and is everyone who disagrees with you just a little bum chum? Does that make it easier for you to preserve your prejudice, my empty headed proletarian friend?
Oh yes, that reminds me; lets go back to the conclusions of this report that you're picking and choosing bits of. Did you notice the part that said;
The impacts of migration are broad and varied across the economic and social spheres - with
significant overlap and interaction between the two. Analyses often seek to measure ‘benefits' and
'costs'. But it would be a mistake to define either too narrowly, or to attribute either impact to the
migrants alone.
Did you see that kevstar? The bit that said it was a mistake to attribute impact on services to immigrants alone?
Or perhaps the part that said
There is a
real need for further work to better identify the different groups of migrants and their characteristics and
to understand the reasons for their different outcomes.
Which is, y'know, what I've been saying from the very start.
Jesus kevstar; are you ever going to learn to read a full report? Because when you crow about a few quotes from a report, it makes you look that much stupider once I've read it and find that the report isn't actually saying what you imply (that immigration is a bad thing), but is actually saying what I've made clear from the start; there needs to be an open and honest debate about immigration in order to get the full story.
So, in summary; I'll concede when you give me a reason to do so. And I'm afraid highly selective Kilroytastic quoting just isn't going to do that. Now, in your own time, do please answer the questions I've asked.
Light said
Well...no, you're not. You keep saying "I'd like an honest debate as it will prove I'm right". In other words, you've already decided that, no matter what the outcome, you'll still keep wailing about immigration. Do you see?
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4241821.stm[/URL]
You want to hear it from the horses mouth? So Tony Blair admiting (as he did yesterday on 5) that people like me are right to be concerned about the abuses in the system which are apparently (according to your claims) are not there. So when you hear me wailing about immigration you will see i'm right to do so.
You also say
1. The Public Interest, Public Health, and Security Issue exceptions to the Governments obligations to Immigrants.
You'll find them...
[URL]http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/occ67-migration.pdf[/URL]
2. Exactly which figures are doctored, by whom, and why
Allowing criminals to enter the UK from Eastern Europe and telling civil servants to short-circuit procedures. The UK Minister responsible for Immigration, Beverley Hughes, was forced to resign over this issue and the Conservative opposition is claiming that the UK left the door open for potential terrorists to enter the country.
3. How the current system deals with economic migrants, and what changes you'd like to see.
Thats also in the link, are you stupid, you've asked me this before and I gave you a link with the current system in. How would I change it, well, I notice you mentioned the word economic there, expecting to catch me out did you? Well the fact is, it's not my job to change anything so your asking the wrong person here.
Can you see that link there light, if you look and tell me what it says in the figures section page 10 of 80 and if you don't mind, in fact i'll paste it now.. The concentration of migrants in particular areas brings with it a number of positive and
negative externalities. Migrants bring diverse skills, experience and know-how to the UK, and
help to regenerate run-down areas; but may also increase pressure on housing markets,
transport and other infrastructure.
Is this the housing market which you said migrants didn't affect, the transport, and I wonder what other infrastructure there talking about. And you do know they were not talking about illeagal immigrants at that point, or the Bogus Asylum seekers who a lot don't actually get deported, instead they just vanish into thin air. It also says in there somewhere that post war immigration is not the same as today, something else you totally wrong about as you said it was the same didn't you?
1 point which i've heard which I think is good. Now you seem to think that we are in a few years going to be a aging population, now you tell me what is wrong with increasing the pension age? After all people now live longer than they did all them years ago, so that means todays pension age should at least be reviewed, allowing people to live and work longer and in turn helping the economy.
And ohhh, nearly forgot this quote from the home office link...
In 1998, 16,500 illegal entrants were detected. A further 4,600 people who had breached their
conditions of stay (mainly overstayers, or working without leave) were detected. The number of illegal
entrants detected has been on an upward trend, sharply so since 1993. We do not know to what extent
this reflects an increase in the number of illegal entrants actually resident or entering, or just better
detection. However, all other categories of migration were rising in this period, especially those directly
related to economic incentives, and the upward trend in detections has been consistent (rather than
simply reflecting the step change in enforcement that took place in about 1995), so it seems likely that
illegal migration was also increasing. Of those detected, the greatest growth has been in those from
Europe, reflecting increases in irregular migration from Eastern Europe.
Light you do talk rubbish don't you, I wan't to know when you are going to conceed in this debate because it seems to me your loosing, and badly. At what point are you going to admit that there is a problem because thats what you keep denying isn't it. This just shows how much of a ignorant @rse intruder you are. And this goes out to all his other little bum chums who havn't a clue such as pandamoanalot, goatface and gerrid the noob.
Well...no, you're not. You keep saying "I'd like an honest debate as it will prove I'm right". In other words, you've already decided that, no matter what the outcome, you'll still keep wailing about immigration. Do you see?
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4241821.stm[/URL]
You want to hear it from the horses mouth? So Tony Blair admiting (as he did yesterday on 5) that people like me are right to be concerned about the abuses in the system which are apparently (according to your claims) are not there. So when you hear me wailing about immigration you will see i'm right to do so.
You also say
1. The Public Interest, Public Health, and Security Issue exceptions to the Governments obligations to Immigrants.
You'll find them...
[URL]http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/occ67-migration.pdf[/URL]
2. Exactly which figures are doctored, by whom, and why
Allowing criminals to enter the UK from Eastern Europe and telling civil servants to short-circuit procedures. The UK Minister responsible for Immigration, Beverley Hughes, was forced to resign over this issue and the Conservative opposition is claiming that the UK left the door open for potential terrorists to enter the country.
3. How the current system deals with economic migrants, and what changes you'd like to see.
Thats also in the link, are you stupid, you've asked me this before and I gave you a link with the current system in. How would I change it, well, I notice you mentioned the word economic there, expecting to catch me out did you? Well the fact is, it's not my job to change anything so your asking the wrong person here.
Can you see that link there light, if you look and tell me what it says in the figures section page 10 of 80 and if you don't mind, in fact i'll paste it now.. The concentration of migrants in particular areas brings with it a number of positive and
negative externalities. Migrants bring diverse skills, experience and know-how to the UK, and
help to regenerate run-down areas; but may also increase pressure on housing markets,
transport and other infrastructure.
Is this the housing market which you said migrants didn't affect, the transport, and I wonder what other infrastructure there talking about. And you do know they were not talking about illeagal immigrants at that point, or the Bogus Asylum seekers who a lot don't actually get deported, instead they just vanish into thin air. It also says in there somewhere that post war immigration is not the same as today, something else you totally wrong about as you said it was the same didn't you?
1 point which i've heard which I think is good. Now you seem to think that we are in a few years going to be a aging population, now you tell me what is wrong with increasing the pension age? After all people now live longer than they did all them years ago, so that means todays pension age should at least be reviewed, allowing people to live and work longer and in turn helping the economy.
And ohhh, nearly forgot this quote from the home office link...
In 1998, 16,500 illegal entrants were detected. A further 4,600 people who had breached their
conditions of stay (mainly overstayers, or working without leave) were detected. The number of illegal
entrants detected has been on an upward trend, sharply so since 1993. We do not know to what extent
this reflects an increase in the number of illegal entrants actually resident or entering, or just better
detection. However, all other categories of migration were rising in this period, especially those directly
related to economic incentives, and the upward trend in detections has been consistent (rather than
simply reflecting the step change in enforcement that took place in about 1995), so it seems likely that
illegal migration was also increasing. Of those detected, the greatest growth has been in those from
Europe, reflecting increases in irregular migration from Eastern Europe.
Light you do talk rubbish don't you, I wan't to know when you are going to conceed in this debate because it seems to me your loosing, and badly. At what point are you going to admit that there is a problem because thats what you keep denying isn't it. This just shows how much of a ignorant @rse intruder you are. And this goes out to all his other little bum chums who havn't a clue such as pandamoanalot, goatface and gerrid the noob.
I got to the 3rd page, and got bored of this.
kevstar, you're still trying?
ahahah
Light, I've neve read such a good description of you either :-P
kevstar, you're still trying?
ahahah
Light, I've neve read such a good description of you either :-P
Page: