Viewing Thread:
"Stop illegal immigrants"

Disgusting, it really is.


Original Message posted by ßulle†† Yesterday at 12.14PM Original Message
There are 27 replies
Drunk Illegal Immigrant, driving with no license or insurance, knocks down and kills a child and only gets..

8 weeks

And he's still in the Country, despite being here illegally.

Hurrah for justice.

After reading this post it made me want to know what you all think about illegal immigrants. I think it is wrong and because Britain used to be a strong dominating country should stand strong now and make sure no forign immigrants get into the UK. Look what what happens when they get in...

gerrid wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
> out of all the failed Asylum
> seekers that come in, theres a large ammount of them appealing
> against the decision which takes so long that they vanish into thin
> air which makes them illegal immigrants. Is that good for the
> economy?
>
> Well , as I've said before, but you've failed to understand every
> single time, I'm as against illegal immigration as the next person,
> and we should do everything we can to stop people entering the
> country illegally.
>
> My problem is with people who say we should stop ALL immigrants from
> entering the country, or put a quota on the amount we let in, because
> they get confused between legal migrant workers and illegal
> immigrants, scared that their children will get run over by turks and
> subsequently decide that they don't want any more immigration
> whatsoever.

Exactly. 'We're too crowded waaaaaa'. So 'natives' take up NO space whatsoever. 'They claim bengfititititss!' Yeah, because they're not allowed to work + who doesn't claim some sort of benefit? My mum and dad do - OMG, SCABS! How about letting in Australians, New Zealanders, Americans? Oh, is that okay?

Goatboy wrote:
> Here we go again....

But it's funnnn

kevstar wrote:

>
>
> Well I can, the figures produced has everything to do with the Hughes
> case, why, let me explain. The figures produced were linked with the
> figures of the amount of people claiming immigration, Mrs Hughes knew
> there were people coming in who shouldn't have been allowed and
> instead of refusing them she give them Visas to work and stay here, a
> deliberate permission to allow in fraudulent and forged claims which
> were added on to the statistics which the home office released which
> is why there wrong. She even got a letter telling her that theese
> claims were dodgy but she ignored them.

I see. And those few hundred immigrants who shouldn't have been given visa's; they generated 2 billion quid by themselves? My word; if they're that hard working, maybe we should let them stay...

>

> True, but thats got nothing to do with the way the she blatently
> allowed people in knowing she shouldn't have, I wonder why. I mean it
> has nothing to do with trying to make the figures look better than
> they actually are is it.

What on earth are you babbling about? She did something wrong. Very wrong. That wrongdoing has been addressed. Yet you still wail about it? Dear God; you probably still complain about the immigration of the Normans in 1066...



> No it's got nothing to do with the topic bieng the same subject as
> the last topic has it?

Mm, and yet these are the only topics in which you show your nice white face, aren't they? You never write, you never call, then you sprint to the webboard as fast as your pasty, tubby little legs will carry you when you get the chance to vent spleen about foreigners...


>
> No you didn't, you wailed on about asking me the system(which I
> noticed down there you mention it again).

~sigh~ I answered the questions and explained about what the system is during most of 'em. Really, it's not my fault that your fevered brain is incapable of understanding what the current legislation is. Or even what the word legislation means.



> Well as I said last time, we can legislate on immigation, it just
> means we could get fined for not going by the laws in Brussels,
> doesn't mean we can't do it though.

Mwaaaaahahahahahahaaaa! Okay, so according to you, you're happy that Labour are going to introduce the measures Clarke proposed, but they won't actually be allowed to introduce them? Just as long as someone is actually SAYING "keep 'em out!", eh kevstar?




> I didn't, I just left that part in when I showed reasons why I think
> immigration is not controlled, and that part just happened to be in
> there.

Balls. Would you like me to link to the post where you specifically talked about the Member states that would join this May?



> I'm not going to explain nothing to you if you keep asking stupid
> questions like this. Why don't you explain and i'll tell you the
> problems in it, it saves me time.

Heheheheheh. As I said all along; you won't explain it because you don't understand it. I'm having lots of fun watching you desperately trying to squirm out of admitting that.

> It simply tightens the current system which is open to abuse. So it
> will simply make it harder for people to enter this Country without
> taking the pisss, a good effort if I dare say so myself.

...and the current system is? And how exactly will it tighten the current system? What are the current procedures that are going to be replaced by this legislation?

Ahh, kevstar I do so enjoy watching you trying to debate intelligently. It's like watching a 3 legged puppy kicking itself to death.

> Why, I can't believe your asking me this. Well it may have something
> to do with the pro immigration figures that the home office go by are
> dodgy. On the other hand you have people like Tony Blair admitting
> theres a problem with the way the imigration system is run.

If I'd asked "what is wrong with the pro-immigration figures" that would have been a good response. Alas, I asked

"Why you think that any figures which are pro immigration are innaccurate, whilst claiming that any why are anti-immigration are accurate?"

And you haven't actually explained why you think all of your anti-immigration figures are so accurate. Have you dear boy?


> Do they? Notice you still didn't answer the question I asked in the
> last post. I'm sure some do, but I will say in generall they do
> indeed keep to themselves, to say otherwise is rubbish.

And I'm asking you again; do you actually mix with any ethnic groups other than your own?

Oh, and once you explain what question it was you actually asked (it's difficult to tell in amongst all the BNP-lite bilge you write), I'll be happy to point to the post in the original thread where I answered it and you said "that's rubbish".


> I do it to show reasons other than my own how and why the immigration
> system is open to abuse.

Mwahahahahaaaa! Not because you're too stupid to explain things in your own words then? Dunno why I expect anything more from a Gateshead-based prole of course, but I rather like seeing you using borrowed racism to explain away your own.

> No I didn't, I just don't see any point in telling you what the
> current system is as you know it already.

Well, it's because you don't understand the system kevstar. Do you see? I'm accusing you of not actually understanding what the current system is. And you, by refusing to give an explanation, are proving me correct. Do you see? And then I'm laughing at you as you make yourself look more and more of an idiot by attempting to slither up to the moral high ground on an issue you don't even understand. Do you see?

> The fact is, if theres a
> problem in the system i'll say it, if theres not, then i'm not going
> to mention all the things that are good as theres no point at all,
> unless you can tell me why you actually want me to tell you.

Blah blah blah. More of the same from our resident racist. Anyway, as I've said all along, we need an open and honest debate to find out what problems there are. It's not possible to have that debate when breathtakingly stupid bigots like you have already prejudged the problems and the solutions.

And as I keep saying; I want you to tell me what the current system is in your own words so that we can all see whether or not you actually understand it.



> Just like i've never mentioned the scot who got stabbed many times
> then set alight and died as he was trying to crawl to the river to
> put himself out by immigrants? The fact is(something you can't seem
> to grasp)if the illegal immigrant in question wasn't here and had
> been sent back, there wouldn't have been a death occuring would
> there?

Wow; you really are a stultifying racist aren't you? Presumably white people would never drive drunk, or stab someone in Scotland (Scotland, Glasgow and Edinburgh in particular, being noted for it's lack of violent crime...)? So the lives of people who are stabbed by white englishmen; they don't matter do they? Why don't you post more about this scot who died? Please; do give us some details. After all, it just looks like you're lying. Again.





Incidentally, did anyone see the Simpsons last night? It was the "Much Apu About Nothing" episode, where the Mayor ducks an issue by blaming high taxes on immigrants. I saw the Springfield people's stupidity, and I thought of you Kevstar.

Light wrote:
> Well, I've said pretty much all I needed to say about this in the
> original thread Snoop refers to, but....
>
>
> kevstar wrote:
> Yeah 2 billion net profit which may be made up of fiddled figures,
> the
> Beverly Hughes case highlights this.
>
> Funnily, the net profit you're so desperate to pretend doesn't
> exist has nothing at all to do with the Hughes case. Unless you can
> explain otherwise?


Well I can, the figures produced has everything to do with the Hughes case, why, let me explain. The figures produced were linked with the figures of the amount of people claiming immigration, Mrs Hughes knew there were people coming in who shouldn't have been allowed and instead of refusing them she give them Visas to work and stay here, a deliberate permission to allow in fraudulent and forged claims which were added on to the statistics which the home office released which is why there wrong. She even got a letter telling her that theese claims were dodgy but she ignored them.
>
> Oh, and a cross party committee last week commended the whistelblower
> in the Hughes case, and came up with a few recommendations to avoid
> it happening again. None of these recommendations involved putting a
> quota on immigration. Funny that...

True, but thats got nothing to do with the way the she blatently allowed people in knowing she shouldn't have, I wonder why. I mean it has nothing to do with trying to make the figures look better than they actually are is it.
>
>
> It's when you agree with changes in the law to deal with situations
> like this people start to calling you racist,
>
>
> Nah. It's only people like you who get called racist. Cos...well, cos
> you're racist. It's difficult to think otherwise when the only time
> you bolt from the cover of your stinking plebnest is to deliver
> another ringing bolt of hatred against anyone who looks different to
> you.

No it's got nothing to do with the topic bieng the same subject as the last topic has it?
>
>
>
> I'll ask you this Gerrid(as light won't answer the question), if you
> think the system is so good, then why, out of all the failed Asylum
> seekers that come in, theres a large ammount of them appealing
> against the decision which takes so long that they vanish into thin
> air which makes them illegal immigrants. Is that good for the
> economy?
>
> Actually, I did answer every question you put to me. It's not my
> fault if you don't like the answers.

No you didn't, you wailed on about asking me the system(which I noticed down there you mention it again).
>
> Tell you what old bean, seeing as we're talking about unanswered
> questions, maybe you can tell me;
>
> - Why, if we "cannot legislate on immigration", you believe
> that the Labour government will implement the legislation you're
> banging on about.

Well as I said last time, we can legislate on immigation, it just means we could get fined for not going by the laws in Brussels, doesn't mean we can't do it though.
>
> - Why you thought the member states that joined last year were going
> to join this year

I didn't, I just left that part in when I showed reasons why I think immigration is not controlled, and that part just happened to be in there.
>
> - What you think the current immigration system is in your own
> words.

I'm not going to explain nothing to you if you keep asking stupid questions like this. Why don't you explain and i'll tell you the problems in it, it saves me time.
>
> - What impact the legislative proposals will have in real terms in
> your own words

It simply tightens the current system which is open to abuse. So it will simply make it harder for people to enter this Country without taking the pisss, a good effort if I dare say so myself.


>
> - Why you think that any figures which are pro immigration are
> innaccurate, whilst claiming that any why are anti-immigration are
> accurate

Why, I can't believe your asking me this. Well it may have something to do with the pro immigration figures that the home office go by are dodgy. On the other hand you have people like Tony Blair admitting theres a problem with the way the imigration system is run.
>
> - Whether or not you, having gone on a KKK-style rant about how
> "they keep to themselves and never mix and they look
> funny", actually mix with any ethnic groups other than your own

Do they? Notice you still didn't answer the question I asked in the last post. I'm sure some do, but I will say in generall they do indeed keep to themselves, to say otherwise is rubbish.
>
> - Why you insist on cut n pasting from anti-immigration websites when
> you run clean out of ideas.

I do it to show reasons other than my own how and why the immigration system is open to abuse.
>
> Cos, y'know, you ran squealing from answering them before.

No I didn't, I just don't see any point in telling you what the current system is as you know it already. The fact is, if theres a problem in the system i'll say it, if theres not, then i'm not going to mention all the things that are good as theres no point at all, unless you can tell me why you actually want me to tell you.
>
>
>
> Incidentally, how come no-one was this outraged at the deaths of
> Sarah Tavery, Chip Smith, or Stuart Ross when they were killed by
> drunk drivers? Don't their lives matter if they weren't ended by an
> immigrant?

Just like i've never mentioned the scot who got stabbed many times then set alight and died as he was trying to crawl to the river to put himself out by immigrants? The fact is(something you can't seem to grasp)if the illegal immigrant in question wasn't here and had been sent back, there wouldn't have been a death occuring would there?

Well, I've said pretty much all I needed to say about this in the original thread Snoop refers to, but....


kevstar wrote:
> Yeah 2 billion net profit which may be made up of fiddled figures, the
> Beverly Hughes case highlights this.

Funnily, the net profit you're so desperate to pretend doesn't exist has nothing at all to do with the Hughes case. Unless you can explain otherwise?

Oh, and a cross party committee last week commended the whistelblower in the Hughes case, and came up with a few recommendations to avoid it happening again. None of these recommendations involved putting a quota on immigration. Funny that...


> It's when you agree with changes in the law to deal with situations
> like this people start to calling you racist,


Nah. It's only people like you who get called racist. Cos...well, cos you're racist. It's difficult to think otherwise when the only time you bolt from the cover of your stinking plebnest is to deliver another ringing bolt of hatred against anyone who looks different to you.

>
>
> I'll ask you this Gerrid(as light won't answer the question), if you
> think the system is so good, then why, out of all the failed Asylum
> seekers that come in, theres a large ammount of them appealing
> against the decision which takes so long that they vanish into thin
> air which makes them illegal immigrants. Is that good for the
> economy?

Actually, I did answer every question you put to me. It's not my fault if you don't like the answers.

Tell you what old bean, seeing as we're talking about unanswered questions, maybe you can tell me;

- Why, if we "cannot legislate on immigration", you believe that the Labour government will implement the legislation you're banging on about.

- Why you thought the member states that joined last year were going to join this year

- What you think the current immigration system is in your own words.

- What impact the legislative proposals will have in real terms in your own words

- Why you think that any figures which are pro immigration are innaccurate, whilst claiming that any why are anti-immigration are accurate

- Whether or not you, having gone on a KKK-style rant about how "they keep to themselves and never mix and they look funny", actually mix with any ethnic groups other than your own

- Why you insist on cut n pasting from anti-immigration websites when you run clean out of ideas.

Cos, y'know, you ran squealing from answering them before.



Incidentally, how come no-one was this outraged at the deaths of Sarah Tavery, Chip Smith, or Stuart Ross when they were killed by drunk drivers? Don't their lives matter if they weren't ended by an immigrant?

What's probably more disgusting is that everyone focuses on the fact that it was an immigrant...

No one seems to be blaming the fact that he was drunk or didn't have a driving license, oh no, what makes this more terrible than any other incident is the fact that he was an Illegal Immigrant!!! He was probably down the pub plotting to overthrow our government with his job-stealing friends, then decided to steal a car to crash into Parliament, but was too tanked up to get that far!!!

Yeah, great, now becuase some fools read this the BNP or UKIP or some other thinly veiled racists will get some power at the next election and we'll have even more fun with race relations deteriorating...

Much as people whine about illegal immigrants 'stealing jobs' and the like, they take the jobs no-one else wants to do. People at McDonalds or Burger King or some other crappy fast food joint can't understand you or you can't understand them? That's because fast food places like that pay such horribly low wages and are so mundane in their nature that only immigrants or the occasional teenager take their jobs. They do the jobs no-one else will becuase Brits know that it's easier sitting on their buttocks all day to collect benefits than working at MaccyDs all day, with only minimum wage and greasy hair to show for it.

If you can't understand the people working somewhere, how about you buoycott the store. Hell, people buoycotting McDonalds can't be a bad thing...

kevstar wrote:
> out of all the failed Asylum
> seekers that come in, theres a large ammount of them appealing
> against the decision which takes so long that they vanish into thin
> air which makes them illegal immigrants. Is that good for the
> economy?

Well , as I've said before, but you've failed to understand every single time, I'm as against illegal immigration as the next person, and we should do everything we can to stop people entering the country illegally.

My problem is with people who say we should stop ALL immigrants from entering the country, or put a quota on the amount we let in, because they get confused between legal migrant workers and illegal immigrants, scared that their children will get run over by turks and subsequently decide that they don't want any more immigration whatsoever.

Here we go again....

I've got nothing against foreigners, but there comes a point when there must be limitations on the numbers that come in. If things carry on like they are now then there won't be any Brits left.

"Look what what happens when they get in..."

Oh Lord...

I suppose there was no crime back before we started letting foreign people in. Oh, wait, I believe we were living in caves back then...