Immigrants.

[Mr Burns]

I'll be honest here - I would happily send Wayne, Shayne, Tracey and all the other chav-culture Giro wasters out there and take in some of the foreigners who actually want to work and not claim benefits whilst dropping children faster than the Luftwaffe were dropping bombs...

And so would I.

 

[Mr Burns]

This has made my evening. I've got to the little racist shit, haven't I?

 

[enigma]

Thats brilliant Mr Burns.

Despite LI's views being explained quite clearly, you still cant decipher them.

You still cant accept that you're racist.

And you still haven't provided us with the faintest argument as to how the Jews could have fought back against the Nazis.

Quality.

 

[London Irish]

Far from “scrounging”, asylum seekers have made a huge contribution to the UK:

More than half of nurses recruited to the NHS come from overseas. Many refugees are professionals such as doctors and teachers who are in short supply. The costs of the asylum system are far outweighed by the £2.5 billion that the Home Office says migrants contribute to the UK economy. Much of the cost of the asylum system goes on policing and supporting asylum seekers, who are banned from working and hence supporting themselves.


Britain does not take more refugees than other countries:

Pakistan and Iran alone host almost one-third of the world’s 12 million refugees. Poor countries such as Tanzania, Guinea and Armenia each take more refugees than Britain. Within the EU, Britain comes tenth in terms of asylum applications per head of population.


Asylum seekers do not leave their families and homes on a whim
Most come from countries that abuse human rights:

When the situation improves, people are much less likely to seek asylum. Hardly anyone from Zimbabwe claimed asylum before 1999. But in 2002, almost 10% of asylum claims were from that crisis-ridden country. War-torn Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo produced large numbers of asylum seekers in the 1990s. But in the three years to 2003, there were fewer than 250 from all three countries combined.


Refugees do not bring disease to Britain:

The British Medical Association found asylum seekers do not bring TB into Britain. Just like an increasing number of UK citizens, those asylum seekers who had contracted TB did so as a result of severe overcrowding and poverty. The millions of people who travel abroad every year on holiday like white New Zealand fan Mr Burns are more likely to bring diseases into Britain.


Asylum seekers are not “health tourists”:

Asylum seekers come to the UK to seek safety, not medical treatment. The illnesses they suffer are often the result of the persecution, torture and trauma from which they have fled. GPs and healthworkers are circulating a petition condemning the government for repeating the lies about health tourism. The problems in the NHS are to do with a lack of resources, not a tiny number of asylum seekers who become ill.


Asylum seekers do not receive large cash hand-outs:

Hundreds of asylum seekers have been refused any financial assistance or housing and are homeless. What cash people do receive comes from the government and is just 70% of basic income support – less than £40 per week.


Refugees do not get the best housing:

They are forcibly dispersed to some of the worst estates in the country. A property developer in Liverpool admitted buildings used to house asylum seekers were “not fit for human beings”.


The UK is no soft touch:

United Nations figures show the UK detains more asylum seekers than other European countries, and for longer. The UK is the only European state that detains children. It has stopped people getting out of Zimbabwe to Britain despite accepting it is not safe for those who have escaped to return. Thousands of asylum seekers no longer receive any form of state assistance. The Home Office is forcibly returning Somali asylum seekers back to a country it knows to be dangerous.


Asylum seekers are not “bogus”:

Asylum seekers cannot be illegal. The UN Convention on Refugees guarantees the right to flee using false papers if necessary, and for an asylum seeker to remain while their case is being heard. Most asylum seekers arrive “illegally” because the government demands visas from countries suffering persecution and civil war.

 

[Gwylan]

Blimey, this thread is still going strong. I admire your tenacity LI. I gave up arguing with Mr B when he kept asking questions about 'the national language of Britain (or Britian as he spells it) and said that Jews in Hitler's Germany were under no threat of death.

At that point I realised that he was someone with little knowledge of geography or history, as well as being someone who could scarcely string a sentence together.

What conforts me is this: figures released this week show that the non-white population of the UK increased by 500,000 over the past two years while the white population decreased by 100,000.

At that sort of rate, the UK will have a non-white majority by 2063. However, given that the white birth rate is on a trend downwards and that there's an increase in the number of mixed race relations (who are probably counted as non-white), I'd expect the whites to be in a minority before then - I might even be lucky enough to live to see it.

The likes of Mr Burns are a dying breed, that's why I'm not too concerned about his racist ramblings.

 

[Franks Wild Years]

I gave up after being accused of being insulting, I thought it was a bit rich considering the bile that the BNP spout. Idiots.
Well done LI, Enigma etc for carrying on.

 

[looney]

Far from “scrounging”, asylum seekers have made a huge contribution to the UK:

More than half of nurses recruited to the NHS come from overseas. Many refugees are professionals such as doctors and teachers who are in short supply. The costs of the asylum system are far outweighed by the £2.5 billion that the Home Office says migrants contribute to the UK economy. Much of the cost of the asylum system goes on policing and supporting asylum seekers, who are banned from working and hence supporting themselves.


Britain does not take more refugees than other countries:

Pakistan and Iran alone host almost one-third of the world’s 12 million refugees. Poor countries such as Tanzania, Guinea and Armenia each take more refugees than Britain. Within the EU, Britain comes tenth in terms of asylum applications per head of population.


Asylum seekers do not leave their families and homes on a whim
Most come from countries that abuse human rights:

When the situation improves, people are much less likely to seek asylum. Hardly anyone from Zimbabwe claimed asylum before 1999. But in 2002, almost 10% of asylum claims were from that crisis-ridden country. War-torn Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo produced large numbers of asylum seekers in the 1990s. But in the three years to 2003, there were fewer than 250 from all three countries combined.


Refugees do not bring disease to Britain:

The British Medical Association found asylum seekers do not bring TB into Britain. Just like an increasing number of UK citizens, those asylum seekers who had contracted TB did so as a result of severe overcrowding and poverty. The millions of people who travel abroad every year on holiday like white New Zealand fan Mr Burns are more likely to bring diseases into Britain.


Asylum seekers are not “health tourists”:

Asylum seekers come to the UK to seek safety, not medical treatment. The illnesses they suffer are often the result of the persecution, torture and trauma from which they have fled. GPs and healthworkers are circulating a petition condemning the government for repeating the lies about health tourism. The problems in the NHS are to do with a lack of resources, not a tiny number of asylum seekers who become ill.


Asylum seekers do not receive large cash hand-outs:

Hundreds of asylum seekers have been refused any financial assistance or housing and are homeless. What cash people do receive comes from the government and is just 70% of basic income support – less than £40 per week.


Refugees do not get the best housing:

They are forcibly dispersed to some of the worst estates in the country. A property developer in Liverpool admitted buildings used to house asylum seekers were “not fit for human beings”.


The UK is no soft touch:

United Nations figures show the UK detains more asylum seekers than other European countries, and for longer. The UK is the only European state that detains children. It has stopped people getting out of Zimbabwe to Britain despite accepting it is not safe for those who have escaped to return. Thousands of asylum seekers no longer receive any form of state assistance. The Home Office is forcibly returning Somali asylum seekers back to a country it knows to be dangerous.


Asylum seekers are not “bogus”:

Asylum seekers cannot be illegal. The UN Convention on Refugees guarantees the right to flee using false papers if necessary, and for an asylum seeker to remain while their case is being heard. Most asylum seekers arrive “illegally” because the government demands visas from countries suffering persecution and civil war.

I would like a link to some of those fugures you claim.

Some other Questions.

Why is it easier for someone who's genuinley fleeing persecution to climb on a plane at a government controlled airport instead of slipping over the boarder. Especially when the cost in fares would give then a decent start in the next country?

Why doesn't the Government inforce EU law which says asylum seekers should register at the first EU country they arrive in which would preclede a large percentage of the so called asylum seekers who arrive here.

Most people are more concerned with the total net volume of immigration rather than paticual categories as it impacts marginally on the standard of living given our high population density.

Total net Immigration from outside the European Union has more than trebled in the past five years and is still rising. Each year nearly a quarter of a million people come to live in Britain. This is the equivalent of the City of Cambridge every six months. Arrivals on this scale make successful assimilation very difficult. Furthermore, between 1996 and 2001 three quarters of international migrants went to London and the South East. This pattern exacerbates the already heavy pressure on transport, housing, education and health services.


KEY FACTS ON IMMIGRATION

• Net migration into the UK has averaged 166,000 a year over the last 7 years. [1]


• The UK’s population is projected to rise by 7.2 million from 2004 to 2031 – 6.0 million (83%) of this rise is due to immigration.[2] That’s equivalent to a two cities the size of Cambridge every year, or 6 cities the size of Birmingham over the 27 year period, needing to be built because of immigration.[3]


• 59,000 new homes will be required in England each year for the next 17 years for immigrants.[4]


• In 2004 12.0 million non-EU nationals arrived in the UK[5]. How many left? No one knows – we have no embarkation controls.


• In Inner London 57% of all births are to foreign-born mothers. [6]


• 70% of net international migration is to London. In recent years a net 100,000 migrants a year have been arriving in London and there has been a net movement of 100,000 existing residents from London to the rest of the UK.[7]


• The cost of running the Immigration and Nationality Department of the Home Office rose from £300 million in 1998-1999 to 1.9 billion in 2003-4.[8] Legal aid costs of £170m a year are additional.


• England is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. It has nearly twice the population density of Germany, 4 times that of France and 12 times that of the USA.


• Since 1997 about 376,000 asylum seekers have been refused permission to stay here but only 85,000 have been recorded as having been removed from the UK. [9]


• And those with families whose claims have failed continue to receive benefits worth an average of £15,000 a year tax free.[10]

 

[Lokki 7]

Most people are more concerned with the total net volume of immigration rather than paticual categories as it impacts marginally on the standard of living given our high population density.
[/B]

I think this is a dangerous statement to make. Racists will often sieze on peoples fears and use them to help achieve their racist aims, whilst veiling their true motivation behind twisted economic and "common sense" reasoning.
You state above that immigration impacts on the general standard of living of the host nation, I assume you mean in a negative way? So you are saying that there is an inverse relationship between population density and standard of living?
Well maybe in the very short term as the immigrants, particularly if asylum seekers, may be poor. But over time there is no evidence of this relationship holding. Germany has a higher standard of living than Finland and a much higher population density. The UK's population density is higher than that of Germany, and the Netherlands has the highest density in the EU but what does this tell us about standards of living in these countries? Nothing.
It is undoubtadly true that immigrants to the UK over the past 50 years have increased population density and increased national income and standards of living (however you choose to measure this). Not to mention the fantastic cultural benefits this has brought us. To scaremonger and imply that immigration is going to make us worse off economically speaking is just playing into the BNP's hands.

 

[Lokki 7]

What a sad pathetic comment. I wont trouble you again to answer that question as you probably know the come back to it, so avoiding it is probably your best bet at trying to win this argument.

I'm sorry I left you on Friday with an Ali G quote but the pub was calling and I wasn't about to write you a 10,000 word reply as you clearly are not capable of understanding the points I make. I do admire LI, enigma and the rest for continuing with you but I really can't be bothered. You are a joke, and like all the best comedy characters you think you are being clever whilst everyone around you laughs at your pathetic endevours to be taken seriously. You should be flattered that so many posters have given your racist, inhumane, inconsistant and downright stupid remarks so much consideration. I'm sure this rarely happens to you in your everyday life.

 

[looney]

I think this is a dangerous statement to make. Racists will often sieze on peoples fears and use them to help achieve their racist aims, whilst veiling their true motivation behind twisted economic and "common sense" reasoning.
You state above that immigration impacts on the general standard of living of the host nation, I assume you mean in a negative way? So you are saying that there is an inverse relationship between population density and standard of living?
Well maybe in the very short term as the immigrants, particularly if asylum seekers, may be poor. But over time there is no evidence of this relationship holding. Germany has a higher standard of living than Finland and a much higher population density. The UK's population density is higher than that of Germany, and the Netherlands has the highest density in the EU but what does this tell us about standards of living in these countries? Nothing.
It is undoubtadly true that immigrants to the UK over the past 50 years have increased population density and increased national income and standards of living (however you choose to measure this). Not to mention the fantastic cultural benefits this has brought us. To scaremonger and imply that immigration is going to make us worse off economically speaking is just playing into the BNP's hands.

Its not twisted economics you retard. Why do you think teams up north like Sunderland can build a new stadium wereas we cant get planning permission for an outdoor shithouse.

Racist will seize on peoples fears? WTF? So you are happy that idiots like enigma and LI go around calling people racists for any slight critisism? Doesn't really give people a lot of choice does it?


You state above that immigration impacts on the general standard of living of the host nation, I assume you mean in a negative way?

I do not live in the la la land of LI and you, most policies have costs and benefits. The potential costs I have posted above.

I also beleive that any issue is open to debate, including immigration. I am not playing into the hands of the BNP, quite the opposite. Its when debate is stiffled and the likes of the BNP are given a free hand that there support grows.

Thatcher didn't play into the hands of the NF, she destroyed the NF and that WAS by using rhetoric instead of a detailed aguement.

 

[London Irish]

In Inner London 57% of all births are to foreign-born mothers.

Hello mum

 

[London Irish]

Total net Immigration from outside the European Union has more than trebled in the past five years and is still rising. Each year nearly a quarter of a million people come to live in Britain. This is the equivalent of the City of Cambridge every six months. Arrivals on this scale make successful assimilation very difficult. Furthermore, between 1996 and 2001 three quarters of international migrants went to London and the South East. This pattern exacerbates the already heavy pressure on transport, housing, education and health services

Yeah, you know what that's called, a free economy

That's something that someone who CLAIMS to be an economic liberal like you should support. But you are not a genuine ecomomic liberal, are you? Just a boring wind-up artiste who has realised that economic free-market liberalism doesn't get a rise out of anyone, so you instead start to tread in the murky, racist waters of the social conservative anti-immigration right, not because you believe in any of their sub-racist arguments, but because you think it will get more of a rise out of people on here.

Of course, you f***ing idiot, Britain's economy in sucking in immigrant labour from overseas, it's vital to our economic growth. You do want economic growth, don't you? Or do you want our economy to remain as "local" as the shop in Royston Vazey?

If you look back to page 4 on this godforsaken racist thread, you will see I give the real story about immigration in the south-east, an example of a growing young business that has needed to hire Polish labour to expand because it couldn't find the skilled labour in London. That company is now the biggest supplier of chips across the metropolitan area of London. It's just one of many examples of how our economy operates successfully thanks to the hard work of immigrant labour, that you, the bogus fuckwit so-called economic liberal, thinks we don't need

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

Thatcher didn't play into the hands of the NF, she destroyed the NF and that WAS by using rhetoric instead of a detailed aguement.

Er, how exactly? The NF imploded because of a number of factors, primarily the power struggle at the top (leading into the split to the NNF and BNP), and the problems that were encountered when the leadership tried to embrace other racists in other countries - specifically non-white racists. The common foot soldier of the NF could not understand why the NF would cosy up to the people they proclaimed to despise, and went looking for something more radical - enter BNP, C18, etc. Your stereotypical NF supporter, as a skinhead, simply wanted something that they could march, sieg heil, and fight to - the simpler the argument and the narrower the list of targets, the easier it was for them to understand, the happier they were.

Thatcher had no real impact on the NF other than to nick support at the elections. Tyndall over-stretched the resources by standing at too many seats, Thatcher simply announced that the Tories were keen to limit immigration, and all the wavering voters simply reverted to the Tories again.

If you want the debate to be taken seriously, then why revert to name calling? If you want to put an argument which people will take seriously, then simply put the argument without the playground stuff. Facts, not insults. And that applies to more than just Looney in this thread!

 

[somerset]

We have done this subject to death before, all I can say is that I am in favour of immigration but accept that there must be some control on the numbers we allow in and possibly the duration of their stay, however as a product of a marriage between a native and an immigrant it would be somewhat hypocritical of me to take any other viewpoint.

Agreed, but what really cheeses people off both on this site and across society as a whole, is that whenever anyone says anything remotely in the negative about asylum seekers/immigration,... there is a massive, ill-considered outpouring of anti-nazi rhetoric. Demonisation becomes the order of the day simply because it appears cool and trendy to bash anyone with a slightly 'right-of-Stalin' point of view.

Facts are what needs to be considered here:

1) Population of UK?..... increasing steadily
2) Unemployment?........ going up according to latest figures.
3) Asylum claimants?..... figures only report the head of a family, ie mum/dad and 6 kids is only recorded as one on the statistics.
4) Overcrowded?........... commute/travel anywhere in this country, at anytime of the week, and what?... queues, no seats on trains.
5) Health service/education?..... not great is it?

It should not be a question of what is possible in terms of accommodating or otherwise,... it is a question of quality of life for those of us here already.

 

[El Presidente]

Facts are what needs to be considered here:

1) Population of UK?..... increasing steadily
2) Unemployment?........ going up according to latest figures.
3) Asylum claimants?..... figures only report the head of a family, ie mum/dad and 6 kids is only recorded as one on the statistics.
4) Overcrowded?........... commute/travel anywhere in this country, at anytime of the week, and what?... queues, no seats on trains.
5) Health service/education?..... not great is it?

It should not be a question of what is possible in terms of accommodating or otherwise,... it is a question of quality of life for those of us here already.

But also

1. True of most of the planet
2. Still lower than five, ten, fifteen and twenty years ago.
3. Agreed
4. Agreed, but the 7.26 that I catch in the morning is not full of fuzzy wuzzies claiming they are being persecuted
5. Education is substantially better than 10 years ago, we have smaller class sizes in primary schools and more students in Universities than ever before. The NHS will never be great, as demand will always exceed supply.

 

[looney]

Yeah, you know what that's called, a free economy

That's something that someone who CLAIMS to be an economic liberal like you should support. But you are not a genuine ecomomic liberal, are you? Just a boring wind-up artiste who has realised that economic free-market liberalism doesn't get a rise out of anyone, so you instead start to tread in the murky, racist waters of the social conservative anti-immigration right, not because you believe in any of their sub-racist arguments, but because you think it will get more of a rise out of people on here.

Of course, you f***ing idiot, Britain's economy in sucking in immigrant labour from overseas, it's vital to our economic growth. You do want economic growth, don't you? Or do you want our economy to remain as "local" as the shop in Royston Vazey?

If you look back to page 4 on this godforsaken racist thread, you will see I give the real story about immigration in the south-east, an example of a growing young business that has needed to hire Polish labour to expand because it couldn't find the skilled labour in London. That company is now the biggest supplier of chips across the metropolitan area of London. It's just one of many examples of how our economy operates successfully thanks to the hard work of immigrant labour, that you, the bogus fuckwit so-called economic liberal, thinks we don't need

This is because you beleive leftwing crap. Free Markets are drugs, prostitution etc. All other markets are REGULATED. How MUCH and what TYPE of regulation is the sort of thing ECONOMISTS do.

 

[looney]

Or maybe I'm wrong, please enlighten me on wht the guardian told you about free markets that I in 12 years research etc have missed?
Idiot.

 

[Lokki 7]

This is because you beleive leftwing crap. Free Markets are drugs, prostitution etc. All other markets are REGULATED. How MUCH and what TYPE of regulation is the sort of thing ECONOMISTS do.

You do talk rubbish. Markets are usually regulated in order to ensure they remain "free". It prevents corruption, manipulation, fraud and issues such as bad credit. Regulation does not always equate to stifling of the free market, in many cases quite the opposite as it promotes honest and transparent exchange.

 

[looney]

You do talk rubbish. Markets are usually regulated in order to ensure they remain "free". It prevents corruption, manipulation, fraud and issues such as bad credit. Regulation does not always equate to stifling of the free market, in many cases quite the opposite as it promotes honest and transparent exchange.

Talking shit is your shtick. Markets are regulated for to many reasons to list here.

you are talking about legal reguation wrt crime only ya jackass.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Agreed, but what really cheeses people off both on this site and across society as a whole, is that whenever anyone says anything remotely in the negative about asylum seekers/immigration,... there is a massive, ill-considered outpouring of anti-nazi rhetoric. Demonisation becomes the order of the day simply because it appears cool and trendy to bash anyone with a slightly 'right-of-Stalin' point of view.

The problem is that in the past these arguments have been used by racist to cover the fact that they just hate those who's skin in slightly tanned. They really couldn't give a toss about strain on the NHS, housing, etc, in just an excuse, also they ignore the benefits that immigration brings. In the same way those on the 'left' ignore the downside and only state the upside, hence you can't have a sensible debate on the subject.