Anti immigration parties on the rise
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721  Reading 02 Sep 15 12.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 02 Sep 2015 12.08pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 11.56am
Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Sep 2015 9.58am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 9.19am
Quote bright&wright at 02 Sep 2015 8.13am
A mass exodus of a country's population is not an answer. You can't just run away from a situation. If we had in the 40's the whole world would look very different right about now. If I were so desperate to leave a war-torn country I'd settle in the first peaceful place I could find. So how the f*ck do they end up in Sweden? Oh yeah, because they want the p*ss-easy life that the Socialist Swedish Government will offer them. Free-loaders the lot of them, nothing more. I doubt it. The countries bordering Syria generally have a history of being either 'hostile to Arabs' or allies of the Syrian government (Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq and Turkey) The responsibility for refugees created by war should be born by all nations, not just the few that happen to be on their borders. The problem is massively increased by the fact that countries don't act until they turn up in their country. These problems are never going to be solved by just abandoning the idea of immigration and asylum, but to effectively regulate the flow. Anti-Immigration parties are as absurd a concept as those who promote the idea of unchecked migration. Absurd? Protecting the interests of your existing population seems to me to be eminently sensible. So you support economic migration as a means of revenue generation? Working migrants contribute far more than they cost in terms of revenue, compared to nationals, over a life time (with most working migrants not raising children or growing old in the UK). Or are you saying that you are against all migration into the UK? I can never quite work out what you mean sometimes? Edited by jamiemartin721 (02 Sep 2015 11.57am)
Any trip down Derby Road, or West Croydon where you play dodgems with the prams by west croydon train station, (normally with you taking your life in your own hands by walking in the road, because for some reason any women with a buggy doesnt have to move out of anyones way), you will see that immigrant workers do have children here and they do so at rate of knots.
Which migrants are you talking about here though, working migrants or naturalized citizens, or asylum cases? I'm curious how you could tell that they were only from the first category. In any case, I've already said that in terms of working migrants, we shouldn't be using them to staff non-vital vacancies. The UK doesn't need to employ people to work in another fast food franchise. Working migration should only be used to fill unfillable slots, not to undermine the UK working classes capacity for wage demands.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 02 Sep 15 12.16pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
It's a sad state of affairs no doubt. But the facts are we cant cope with the populations demands on the infrastructure with the numbers we currently have. How is adding to that problem going to help. Simple answer it is not.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 02 Sep 15 12.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 02 Sep 2015 12.16pm
It's a sad state of affairs no doubt. But the facts are we cant cope with the populations demands on the infrastructure with the numbers we currently have. How is adding to that problem going to help. Simple answer it is not. Well we could spend more on the countries infrastructure and raise taxation to pay for it. I think we'd all agree that 'austerity cuts' made are probably more of an impact on the infrastructure than migration. There isn't a simple answer, because there are very different perspectives of what the role of migration is, and how it contributes and who benefits.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 02 Sep 15 12.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 12.13pm
Quote dannyh at 02 Sep 2015 12.08pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 11.56am
Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Sep 2015 9.58am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 9.19am
Quote bright&wright at 02 Sep 2015 8.13am
A mass exodus of a country's population is not an answer. You can't just run away from a situation. If we had in the 40's the whole world would look very different right about now. If I were so desperate to leave a war-torn country I'd settle in the first peaceful place I could find. So how the f*ck do they end up in Sweden? Oh yeah, because they want the p*ss-easy life that the Socialist Swedish Government will offer them. Free-loaders the lot of them, nothing more. I doubt it. The countries bordering Syria generally have a history of being either 'hostile to Arabs' or allies of the Syrian government (Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq and Turkey) The responsibility for refugees created by war should be born by all nations, not just the few that happen to be on their borders. The problem is massively increased by the fact that countries don't act until they turn up in their country. These problems are never going to be solved by just abandoning the idea of immigration and asylum, but to effectively regulate the flow. Anti-Immigration parties are as absurd a concept as those who promote the idea of unchecked migration. Absurd? Protecting the interests of your existing population seems to me to be eminently sensible. So you support economic migration as a means of revenue generation? Working migrants contribute far more than they cost in terms of revenue, compared to nationals, over a life time (with most working migrants not raising children or growing old in the UK). Or are you saying that you are against all migration into the UK? I can never quite work out what you mean sometimes? Edited by jamiemartin721 (02 Sep 2015 11.57am)
Any trip down Derby Road, or West Croydon where you play dodgems with the prams by west croydon train station, (normally with you taking your life in your own hands by walking in the road, because for some reason any women with a buggy doesnt have to move out of anyones way), you will see that immigrant workers do have children here and they do so at rate of knots.
Which migrants are you talking about here though, working migrants or naturalized citizens, or asylum cases? I'm curious how you could tell that they were only from the first category. Basically mate not one of the women had any male company with them. So one would assume that during a working day a women ladden down with young kids, has a husband at home, or at work. On the one hand he is at home more than likley on benefits, or on the other he's at work, either way mate migrants most definatly start families once in the UK working ones or otherwise. Take any population in any city in the UK and cast your eye back over their particualr social demographic, and then tell me working migrants dont have kids. In any case, I've already said that in terms of working migrants, we shouldn't be using them to staff non-vital vacancies. The UK doesn't need to employ people to work in another fast food franchise. Working migration should only be used to fill unfillable slots, not to undermine the UK working classes capacity for wage demands. I agree to an extent, but then you have to start looking at wages in proprtion to skills, and as we previously touched upon your average migrant worker is more than prepared to under cutt your local builder, meaning cheap labour for big bussines, and unmeployment for the locals as they can't afford to work for that little. really is a chicken and egg thing.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 02 Sep 15 12.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 11.56am
Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Sep 2015 9.58am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 9.19am
Quote bright&wright at 02 Sep 2015 8.13am
A mass exodus of a country's population is not an answer. You can't just run away from a situation. If we had in the 40's the whole world would look very different right about now. If I were so desperate to leave a war-torn country I'd settle in the first peaceful place I could find. So how the f*ck do they end up in Sweden? Oh yeah, because they want the p*ss-easy life that the Socialist Swedish Government will offer them. Free-loaders the lot of them, nothing more. I doubt it. The countries bordering Syria generally have a history of being either 'hostile to Arabs' or allies of the Syrian government (Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq and Turkey) The responsibility for refugees created by war should be born by all nations, not just the few that happen to be on their borders. The problem is massively increased by the fact that countries don't act until they turn up in their country. These problems are never going to be solved by just abandoning the idea of immigration and asylum, but to effectively regulate the flow. Anti-Immigration parties are as absurd a concept as those who promote the idea of unchecked migration. Absurd? Protecting the interests of your existing population seems to me to be eminently sensible. So you support economic migration as a means of revenue generation? Working migrants contribute far more than they cost in terms of revenue, compared to nationals, over a life time (with most working migrants not raising children or growing old in the UK). Edited by jamiemartin721 (02 Sep 2015 11.57am)
It depends on the people, and the people you keep repeating it to are not the domestic freeloaders. We'd love to get rid of them before anyone working, migrant or not, but you can't. This is why adding to the population, that are then entitled to stay here forever, is not as positively one sided as we keep being told it is. What do the non-working migrants contribute exactly? Bear in mind that those advocating letting everyone in, are talking about letting in migrants who will not be allowed to work. (ps please don't say "let them work then" as they'd need to change that law beforehand, not afterwards.)
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 02 Sep 15 12.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 11.56am
Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Sep 2015 9.58am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 9.19am
Quote bright&wright at 02 Sep 2015 8.13am
A mass exodus of a country's population is not an answer. You can't just run away from a situation. If we had in the 40's the whole world would look very different right about now. If I were so desperate to leave a war-torn country I'd settle in the first peaceful place I could find. So how the f*ck do they end up in Sweden? Oh yeah, because they want the p*ss-easy life that the Socialist Swedish Government will offer them. Free-loaders the lot of them, nothing more. I doubt it. The countries bordering Syria generally have a history of being either 'hostile to Arabs' or allies of the Syrian government (Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq and Turkey) The responsibility for refugees created by war should be born by all nations, not just the few that happen to be on their borders. The problem is massively increased by the fact that countries don't act until they turn up in their country. These problems are never going to be solved by just abandoning the idea of immigration and asylum, but to effectively regulate the flow. Anti-Immigration parties are as absurd a concept as those who promote the idea of unchecked migration. Absurd? Protecting the interests of your existing population seems to me to be eminently sensible. So you support economic migration as a means of revenue generation? Working migrants contribute far more than they cost in terms of revenue, compared to nationals, over a life time (with most working migrants not raising children or growing old in the UK). Or are you saying that you are against all migration into the UK? I can never quite work out what you mean sometimes? Edited by jamiemartin721 (02 Sep 2015 11.57am) I don't accept that migration is a means of revenue generation, we are told it is as propaganda. Even if it were true, the problems of non-integration, anti-British 'communities', terrorism, high crime rates amongst immigrant communities, strain on housing, health services and education, lower wages and competition for jobs makes any supposed advantages worthless. Certainly I am against practically nearly all immigration, no doubt we can come up with some exceptions, but the numbers involved would be extremely small - not sure how I could make myself clearer. ("I can never quite work out what you mean sometimes", coming from you, Jamie, made me smile.) Edited by leggedstruggle (02 Sep 2015 12.46pm)
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| rob1969 Banstead Surrey 02 Sep 15 12.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
There are international rules relating to asylum seekers. The EU have reconfirmed these in the past and now Hungary are trying to implement these rules. Euro mother Merkel seems critical of this and now seem to want to unilaterally rewrite the rules. Put simply. Asylum must be applied for at the first point of entry to a country or- in the case of the EU open internal border policy - at the point of entry to the EU. Those deemed to be genuinely fleeing persecutions and in physical danger if returned should be given asylum. Those not meeting this strict criteria (economic migrants) should be refused entry.All EU countries should give support to those with non EU borders that are handling the migrant processing. Those accepted for asylum should be spread around the EU and not allowed to pick and choose where they want to go. Each EU country should then agree a number, and rate at which those offered asylum could enter their country. To me at any rate this would seem a sensible approach.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 02 Sep 15 12.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 12.31pm
What do the non-working migrants contribute exactly? Bear in mind that those advocating letting everyone in, are talking about letting in migrants who will not be allowed to work. (ps please don't say "let them work then" as they'd need to change that law beforehand, not afterwards.) They probably won't, but then they aren't migrants, they're asylum seekers / refugees. I'm not willing to send people back to war torn s**tholes where rape and murder are domestic policy. And I believe that this should be set not by which country they make it to, but regulated and controlled centrally, with the dispora sent to different countries on a more or less equal basis. I don't advocate letting everyone in, either, never have been, never will be.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 02 Sep 15 1.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote rob1969 at 02 Sep 2015 12.37pm
There are international rules relating to asylum seekers. The EU have reconfirmed these in the past and now Hungary are trying to implement these rules. Euro mother Merkel seems critical of this and now seem to want to unilaterally rewrite the rules. Put simply. Asylum must be applied for at the first point of entry to a country or- in the case of the EU open internal border policy - at the point of entry to the EU. Those deemed to be genuinely fleeing persecutions and in physical danger if returned should be given asylum. Those not meeting this strict criteria (economic migrants) should be refused entry.All EU countries should give support to those with non EU borders that are handling the migrant processing. Those accepted for asylum should be spread around the EU and not allowed to pick and choose where they want to go. Each EU country should then agree a number, and rate at which those offered asylum could enter their country. To me at any rate this would seem a sensible approach.
Seems sensible to me. The question of course is how is Hungary going to cope with say 250,000 new applications, in a month? Not wanting to criticize Hungary, but I doubt its legal infrastructure is capable of processing those applications. However, if you divide that 250,000 evenly by all member states of the EU, its much more achievable. If they remain in Hungary, it will take the country years, possibly decades to process each case fairly. The reality is that this needs to be centralized, under the UN, rather than the EU, with the UN operating out of agencies within each country across the world.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 02 Sep 15 1.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 12.55pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 12.31pm
What do the non-working migrants contribute exactly? Bear in mind that those advocating letting everyone in, are talking about letting in migrants who will not be allowed to work. (ps please don't say "let them work then" as they'd need to change that law beforehand, not afterwards.) They probably won't, but then they aren't migrants, they're asylum seekers / refugees. I'm not willing to send people back to war torn s**tholes where rape and murder are domestic policy. And I believe that this should be set not by which country they make it to, but regulated and controlled centrally, with the dispora sent to different countries on a more or less equal basis. I don't advocate letting everyone in, either, never have been, never will be. Everyone already in an EU country and still seeking to move on to another is now a migrant. Not a refugee/asylum seeker.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 02 Sep 15 1.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 12.55pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 12.31pm
What do the non-working migrants contribute exactly? Bear in mind that those advocating letting everyone in, are talking about letting in migrants who will not be allowed to work. (ps please don't say "let them work then" as they'd need to change that law beforehand, not afterwards.) They probably won't, but then they aren't migrants, they're asylum seekers / refugees. I'm not willing to send people back to war torn s**tholes where rape and murder are domestic policy. And I believe that this should be set not by which country they make it to, but regulated and controlled centrally, with the dispora sent to different countries on a more or less equal basis. I don't advocate letting everyone in, either, never have been, never will be.
Or are you just saying that this should only apply to European countries and we should be dictated to by the EU, despite having the forethought to not join in their ridiculous Schengen zone.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
twist  Miami, Florida 02 Sep 15 1.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
What is the law/policy for immigrants who commit crime ? Are they deported ? Does it have to be a certain level of crime to be deported ? or are they banged up in prison with general population ? I am not suggesting that immigrants are more likely to commit crime than citizens, i am just asking if there is a policy to send them back if they do.
|
|
| 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.