No more immigrants.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Stirlingsays  16 Sep 15 12.46pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 16 Sep 2015 11.28am
Quote Stirlingsays at 16 Sep 2015 11.00am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Sep 2015 2.22pm
Quote since1953 at 15 Sep 2015 1.03pm
I see your point but: The refugees that are taken on will eventually apply for full citizenship. No way will they want to return to Syria/Afghanistan etc after the fighting. As I have said before tracking them down and deporting them will be expensive and difficult. That isn't represented in the data sets though, it seems that the UK migration rate is about 300,000 or so more than the UK emigration rates each year. I'd see this as unsustainable, as any kind of long term strategy, especially given the impact it has had on wages in the UK (here the demand makes sense, given the strength of the pound against the Euro). Whilst I'm left wing, I see the use of the Free Movement as a means by which cheap labour has been shifted around the EU and has driven down wages for the working class and upper working classes (and to a lesser extent middle classes of the UK). Refugees on the other hand traditionally do generally end up becoming long term citizens, I don't see a case where by they will be able to return to Syria, so the prospect of them becoming a cheap labour force that drives down wages doesn't exist. Admitedly, they'll have longer term costs in terms of health care, but also greater based UK spending and long term engagement, as well as providing a potential boon for the intelligence services - an influx of people who speak both English and Arabic, many of who have been driven out by groups such as IS. As a rule Refugees have a great history of integration and loyalty in their first two generations The spike in Syrian refugees as boat migrants, has been driven particularly from the Syrian middle classes, which means that many potentially have useful skills and educational backgrounds.
After an initial annoyance I think that Cameron has pretty much played the right card in this situation. We should respect our long standing position on refugees. However, this country is in dire straits in terms of housing even its own inhabitants and national policies need to take account of realities on the ground. No country will operate policies that are significantly against there own self interest. So do the Conservatives have a policy that is going to redress the housing crisis and ridiculously inflated prices of rents and property prices? Neither them or Labour really did anything about this during the last 17 years (when prices were rising into the 'absurdly' high). I don't for a minute think the Conservatives are going to shoot themselves in the foot by introducing Rent Caps or build sufficient low cost council maintained properties to tackle the market demand.
Also, one of the pluses of Corbyn is that he isn't marked by association with previous Labour policy on housing......So while Corbyn himself is unrealistic on housing he at least has the correct and ethical intent.....It won't be easy for Cameron to ignore him on housing.....Unlike say nuclear disarmament. I'm hopeful something will at be done to at least arrest the situation. The working class are being royally screwed. Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Sep 2015 12.47pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| richard shaw (og)65 my minds eye 16 Sep 15 12.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
if the west and im mainly saying the americans , stopped covertly arming ISIS with the intention to over throw assad this may not have happened , just saying like Edited by richard shaw (og)65 (16 Sep 2015 12.58pm)
interviewer " iggy , do you think you influenced anybody?" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 16 Sep 15 2.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 16 Sep 2015 12.37pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 11.36am
Personally I don't believe a word of what any politician says about migrants in general. Does anyone really believe that Europe couldn't close it's borders to migrants if it really wanted to ? To migrants, it'd be almost impossible, given the nature of tourism and transportation requirements, especially given that border towns often are dependent on cross border interaction. Its important to remember that some migration is necessary - you can't have an no migration situation. I'm not sure I can buy that. It all comes down to how many resources you want to throw at it and what infrastructure you have in place to apply them. If we were at war with with these countries I wonder how many would get in then ?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 16 Sep 15 2.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote richard shaw (og)65 at 16 Sep 2015 12.57pm
if the west and im mainly saying the americans , stopped covertly arming ISIS with the intention to over throw assad this may not have happened , just saying like Edited by richard shaw (og)65 (16 Sep 2015 12.58pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 7@burnley79 Battersea 16 Sep 15 3.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 2.50pm
Quote richard shaw (og)65 at 16 Sep 2015 12.57pm
if the west and im mainly saying the americans , stopped covertly arming ISIS with the intention to over throw assad this may not have happened , just saying like Edited by richard shaw (og)65 (16 Sep 2015 12.58pm)
I would hazard a guess based on the last 70 years of history. Somewhere the yanks supplied this organization. History tends to blame them
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 16 Sep 15 3.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 2.50pm
Quote richard shaw (og)65 at 16 Sep 2015 12.57pm
if the west and im mainly saying the americans , stopped covertly arming ISIS with the intention to over throw assad this may not have happened , just saying like Edited by richard shaw (og)65 (16 Sep 2015 12.58pm)
Indeed, indirectly maybe, given IS overran a number of Iraqi military bases and looted them. IS have largely received weapons and munitions via money obtain from middle eastern nationals via the Iraqi Sunni insurgency in Western Iraq. I haven't seen anything suggesting the US has been arming IS directly (obviously some kit may have ended up with IS insurgents, as a result to factional shifts and alliances in the Civil War). The US has been backing the Kurds, and discussed arming some of the Syrian Rebels, but at no point was that the Islamists (The US I suspect would rather see Assad retain Syria, than an IS nation - so much so that its been tacitly allied with Iran).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 16 Sep 15 3.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.29pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 2.50pm
Quote richard shaw (og)65 at 16 Sep 2015 12.57pm
if the west and im mainly saying the americans , stopped covertly arming ISIS with the intention to over throw assad this may not have happened , just saying like Edited by richard shaw (og)65 (16 Sep 2015 12.58pm)
I would hazard a guess based on the last 70 years of history. Somewhere the yanks supplied this organization. History tends to blame them People always seem to think the US armed the Taliban - They didn't, the Taliban didn't really exist during the Afghan Civil war. Simiarly, given that the US spent most of its time fighting against IS predecessor, Al-Qaeda in Iraq and its allies among the Sunni Insurgency, its quite unlikely they were arming them. Its a bit like claiming the British armed the IRA because the IRA raided UDR and Ulster Constabulary armories.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 16 Sep 15 3.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 2.23pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 16 Sep 2015 12.37pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 11.36am
Personally I don't believe a word of what any politician says about migrants in general. Does anyone really believe that Europe couldn't close it's borders to migrants if it really wanted to ? To migrants, it'd be almost impossible, given the nature of tourism and transportation requirements, especially given that border towns often are dependent on cross border interaction. Its important to remember that some migration is necessary - you can't have an no migration situation. I'm not sure I can buy that. It all comes down to how many resources you want to throw at it and what infrastructure you have in place to apply them. If we were at war with with these countries I wonder how many would get in then ? If you put enough resource and infrastructure into place you could probably 'effectively' restrict migration to a halt. The irony of course is that doing so would likely increase illegal immigration. The problem with 'stopping smugglers' is that you only really know 'how they're doing it' when you catch a break. By the time you hit that kind of success rate where you'd get it down to a trickle, you'd have spent so much on staff and technology, that you'd need the immigrants to do the jobs you took the border staff from. Usually the incentive to succeed overcomes the willingness to resist.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| 7@burnley79 Battersea 16 Sep 15 3.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 16 Sep 2015 3.33pm
Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.29pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 2.50pm
Quote richard shaw (og)65 at 16 Sep 2015 12.57pm
if the west and im mainly saying the americans , stopped covertly arming ISIS with the intention to over throw assad this may not have happened , just saying like Edited by richard shaw (og)65 (16 Sep 2015 12.58pm)
I would hazard a guess based on the last 70 years of history. Somewhere the yanks supplied this organization. History tends to blame them People always seem to think the US armed the Taliban - They didn't, the Taliban didn't really exist during the Afghan Civil war. Simiarly, given that the US spent most of its time fighting against IS predecessor, Al-Qaeda in Iraq and its allies among the Sunni Insurgency, its quite unlikely they were arming them. Its a bit like claiming the British armed the IRA because the IRA raided UDR and Ulster Constabulary armories. They armed the afgan rebels that fought against the Russians. These rebels later went on to become the Taliban. They also armed the iraqis in their fight against Iran. They also armed the Argies in their fight against us. Based on the reason we went to war for the Malvinas was over mining rights to Antartica. It was split into 5 sectors and we had the sector wirh the only port. So everything came through the British sector. History tells us and will continue to tell us the Americans arm whom they like and it tends to back fire. Edited by 7@burnley79 (16 Sep 2015 3.45pm) Edited by 7@burnley79 (16 Sep 2015 3.48pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 16 Sep 15 4.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.44pm
They armed the afgan rebels that fought against the Russians. These rebels later went on to become the Taliban. They also armed the iraqis in their fight against Iran. They also armed the Argies in their fight against us. Based on the reason we went to war for the Malvinas was over mining rights to Antartica. It was split into 5 sectors and we had the sector wirh the only port. So everything came through the British sector. History tells us and will continue to tell us the Americans arm whom they like and it tends to back fire. Pray tell, who do you think was responsible for 9/11? Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Sep 2015 4.20pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 16 Sep 15 4.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.44pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 16 Sep 2015 3.33pm
Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.29pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 16 Sep 2015 2.50pm
Quote richard shaw (og)65 at 16 Sep 2015 12.57pm
if the west and im mainly saying the americans , stopped covertly arming ISIS with the intention to over throw assad this may not have happened , just saying like Edited by richard shaw (og)65 (16 Sep 2015 12.58pm)
I would hazard a guess based on the last 70 years of history. Somewhere the yanks supplied this organization. History tends to blame them People always seem to think the US armed the Taliban - They didn't, the Taliban didn't really exist during the Afghan Civil war. Simiarly, given that the US spent most of its time fighting against IS predecessor, Al-Qaeda in Iraq and its allies among the Sunni Insurgency, its quite unlikely they were arming them. Its a bit like claiming the British armed the IRA because the IRA raided UDR and Ulster Constabulary armories. They armed the afgan rebels that fought against the Russians. These rebels later went on to become the Taliban. They also armed the iraqis in their fight against Iran. They also armed the Argies in their fight against us. Based on the reason we went to war for the Malvinas was over mining rights to Antartica. It was split into 5 sectors and we had the sector wirh the only port. So everything came through the British sector. History tells us and will continue to tell us the Americans arm whom they like and it tends to back fire. Edited by 7@burnley79 (16 Sep 2015 3.45pm) Edited by 7@burnley79 (16 Sep 2015 3.48pm) Some of them did, others were also fighting against the Taliban (and previously other Afghan factions). I think its an inevitable consequence of any arms trade that the weapons you sell will sometimes eventually end up pointed at you (if you sell enough). Problem is, I guess, that the arms trade is one of the US (and UKs) core export industries, and I think the second biggest global market after oil.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 16 Sep 15 4.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 16 Sep 2015 4.18pm
Quote 7@burnley79 at 16 Sep 2015 3.44pm
They armed the afgan rebels that fought against the Russians. These rebels later went on to become the Taliban. They also armed the iraqis in their fight against Iran. They also armed the Argies in their fight against us. Based on the reason we went to war for the Malvinas was over mining rights to Antartica. It was split into 5 sectors and we had the sector wirh the only port. So everything came through the British sector. History tells us and will continue to tell us the Americans arm whom they like and it tends to back fire. Pray tell, who do you think was responsible for 9/11? Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Sep 2015 4.20pm) Cucking Funt
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.