Where should immigrants go? population densitys

[JEM]

I couldn't care less if the immigrants that flood into this country are black, yellow, pink or green. What I do care about however is that these people pay their way either by being ludicrously rich or by getting jobs. Contributing to sucking the state system dry and leapfrogging own own nationals into select housing are IMHO the number 1 reasons why a lot of Brits get their backs up concerning this subject.

A huge island should be constructed completely out of our rubbish in the middle of the English Channel. There all the potential immigrants could live amongst used condoms, hypodermic syringes and bloody tampons while they're waiting to get in. If their own country's treatment of them is so savage it will be paradise. It just might even serve as a deterrent to the freeloaders in the bunch.

That, or house them in Whitehawk. The end result would be the same.

 

[portslade seagull]

we should be more like america where they swear allegiance
to the flag and do not impose there own beliefs

 

[Gangsta]

1) South East overcrowded, Eastern European influx due up - could be the straw that causes major social unrest down here. Speaking to the women who live in Hastings - so many rapes and muggings - afraid to go out at night ( all directly linked to large numbers of dss/hostels housing immigrents) . The large numbers arre already here in some areas and its likely to get worse. What standard of living do you want your kids to have - massive social problems on the streets, lack of social facilities, nhs, schools etc due to more people often requiring expensive extra-requirements and where do all these people live? Oh of course lets build on the last few acres of green belt weve got left. Why do we need to continue bringing in more people to expand a proped-up credit fuled economy - these are destroying our planet! Sustainable growth to sustainable zero growth please.

2) The people coming into the country are mainly economic migrants ( fromwhat ive read its about 1 in 20 that genuinly isnt).
We have no proper way of sorting through applications. I say shut the gates for 5 years until weve bulit a robust system to deal with them all. There are other states they can enter after all. This is all appalling earth management anyhow - these are the very people their states need to stay to improve or nothing will ever really change.

3) f*** 0ff Mario!

 

[Gwylan]

1) Why do we need to continue bringing in more people to expand a proped-up credit fuled economy - these are destroying our planet! Sustainable growth to sustainable zero growth please.

There was a net outflow of people from this country last year.
As someone posted earlier, we need more workers to maintain our economy. You have a point about the south-east, but that's more to do with London-centric economy that we have, nothing to do with immigration.

2) The people coming into the country are mainly economic migrants ( fromwhat ive read its about 1 in 20 that genuinly isnt).

More bollocks. I posted a link earlier to show some real stats but, hey, why read anything sensible let's make up a figure to justify my argument (and I use the term loosely).

The correct figure for the number of asylum-seekers who are recognised as genuine is about 70% (just over two out of three if you want to put it that way). That's on the government's own figures.

Of course, that's just who the gov says is genuine, the real figure is probably higher but this government is too concerned about that.

 

[looney]

It would be interesting to run a special NSC poll on this - only racists can answer:-

I am a racist because

1. I resent the government
2. I detest PC policies
3. Ethnic minorities resent me
4. Lefties foster historical guilt
5. My view of the world is skewed by bullshit
6. Don't know

My guess is that 6 would win. Ignorance produces racism.

Quite right, Ignorant left wingers. They bang on about how Britain exploited other countries with out any idea of the level of investment in those countries infrastructure etc.

Its when we started paying for their education that they started getting "uppity".

I'm not calling for a pro-empire stance just a balanced one, thankfully thats beginning to happen.

Oh and lefties dont try to foster historical guilt they suffer from it.

 

[looney]

There was a net outflow of people from this country last year.

NO THERE f***ing WASN'T YOU LYING ****!!!!!

Shit I'll go and get the figures

 

[looney]

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/intm0402.pdf

above shows net inflows of 150,000+ roughly for the last few years, its pdf so cant C and P.

 

[looney]

Immigration from outside the European Union has more than doubled 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.
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/default.asp?menu=isthereaprob&page=isthereaproblem.asp

On present trends we can expect a net inflow of at least two million migrants every decade. A Home Office report (Jan 2001) expects increasing immigration for the foreseeable future. Continued immigration on this scale will have a substantial effect on our society. The UN predicts that it will add over 7 million to our population
by 2050.

Until the early 1990's the outflow of migrants exceeded or balanced the inflow so there was no resultant increase in the population of
the U.K.

However, since 1997, net international inward migration has more than trebled from 47,000 to 172,000 in 2001. Illegal immigrants are additional to this total. 47,000 were detected in the year 2000 so a similar number undetected would be a low estimate. Adding this brings the total to 219,000 a year or more than 2 million every decade

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/default.asp?menu=isthereaprob&page=isthereaproblem.asp

You aint going to bury this issue people can see the south visibly filling up. Got work to do so get back to you later...........

 

[fatbadger]

They bang on about how Britain exploited other countries with out any idea of the level of investment in those countries infrastructure etc.

Just to be absolutely clear on this - the close quantitative research of economic historians has shown that, at the time we first started arriving in significant numbers as traders in what became the Raj, average living standards for those living in the subcontinent were roughly equivalent to those in Britain (in fact, probably slightly higher). By the time we left, having 'invested in their infrastructure' in order to improve transport links to help remove yet more natural resources, living standards in Britain far outstripped those in the ex-Raj.

The researchers have now turned their attentions to other parts of the former Empire. Initial findings are that the Raj pattern applies nearly everywhere we went in and 'helped' the locals by establishing a vicious military administration and civil administration promoting 'free trade' between the mother country and the imperial dominions.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Give it a rest Looney, you lost the argument and no ones interested anymore.

 

[London Calling]

Dear Loony,

the Links you provided are either from the one of the Conservative Party independent think tanks and/or linked to a party such as the BNP, I hav'ent quite worked it out. Interestingly, the BNP have started to target towns in the south-east with low incomes, relatively high unemployment and mainly white populations.

Officially, there has been net migration out of the country, we actually get a particularly large number of European "white" migrants and from the Southern Hemisphere "white", which exceed in numbers the "black' migration to our country.

What I can't understand is for a bloke who appears to be pretty intelligent, how come you're views are so abhorent. Then again, you probably can't work out why I am a commie twat.


To pick up on earlier posts I did noyt vote for Labour in the last election and I am not a feminist.

I just cannot stand racist ignorance, which is the rationale behind the targeting of asylum seekers and other immigrants.

Locally, we probably have the countries biggest Kurdish population, politiical refugees etc from chemical bombings in Iraq and attacks and occupation by Turkey. Didn't we just fight a war to help these people. Didn't these people also fight with US Special Forces.

We also have a large Somali population, there are children in local schools who have seen their families butchered, mothers raped, villages destroyed. They have seen horrors British people will never experience.

Lets give these people some respect for their sufferings.

Locally, we do see people as black, white, yellow etc. We have learnt to recognise the cultures, appreciate the cultures and the area is better for it.

By the way our population is around 220,000 with a back and other ethnic minority poulation of around 100,000 or so. That is bigger than Hove and about the same of Cambridge. No problems senor.

But poverty is a problem here, we are the third most deprived area in England adjacent to no 1 Newham and no 2 Tower Hamlets.

LC1

 

[looney]

Dear London Calling,

Strange that you think I have "lost" the arguement when no one has answered any of my points namley.

" Why is it easier for "refugees" to go through an airport than slip across a border? Why do some or most cross umpteen borders?"


It proves YOU are the ignorant one if you have to refer to everyone as racist or aligned with the BNP or Tories when they come up with arguements you cant answer.


You didn't vote labour? I didn't vote at all, f*** em all!

As for migrant watch all there statistics are referenced so you can check for yourself if you ever wish to take your head out the sand.

Here let me help....................................
1 Home Office Statistical Bulletin
2 Home Office News Release (058/2003)This total does not include dependants who followed after the principal decision.

3 HOSB 17/00 paras 17 and 18.
4 Audit Commission Report " Another Country "
[quoted in The Times of 1 June 00] para 17.
5 H.O. Asylum Statistics December 2000 Table 1
6 HOSB 14/01 Tables 2.1 and 4.1
7 The Times 14 Feb 2001
8 Home Office News Release (058/2003)
9 As for footnote 8
10 Sunday Times 20 Dec 2000
11 Hansard Col 418
12 Written answer No 96 of May 2002
13 The Times 26 July 2001
14 HOSB 09/02
15 UNHCR Population Data Unit
16 The Times 26 Jan 01
17 The Times 20 Dec 2000. Report of Law Lords decision
on an appeal by Hamid Aitseguer, quoting Lord Hobhouse.
18 Sunday Times 11 Feb 2001
19 The Guardian 23 May 2001 supplement p 9
20 HOSB 09/02
21 Hansard 24 May 1976 Col 60
22 Home Office RDS Control of Immigration: statistics, UK 2001
23 White Paper, Feb 2002. Para 5:3
24 RDS Occasional Paper No 67, Summary Para 10
25 As for [24] Para 3.16
26 As for [24] Summary Para 4
27 C.Shaw. UK Population Trends in the 21st century,
Population Trends 103 Table 1 and pp37-46
28 As for 24 Para 6.34
29 Planning for London's Growth p16 (ISBN 1-85261-355-6)

They are all sourcable in google.

I do admire the way you like to invent arguements rather than look things up.........

Migrationwatch UK is a newly established, independent, think tank which has no links to any political party. It is chaired by Sir Andrew Green, a former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Professor David Coleman, the Professor of Demography at Oxford University, is an Honorary Consultant. We have an Advisory Council, listed in the Personal profile section.


You can put there names in google to see if they have any tory links if you like, but your track record so far has been to post bullshit so I dont even think you'll bother, just carry on making it up as you go along.

To me its not about race, its economics, therefor about numbers and capacity.


Officially, there has been net migration out of the country

Your a either a liar or a moron, Ive already posted links to the GOVERNMENT statistics site, maybe you dont know the difference between net and gross?

 

[looney]

Just to be absolutely clear on this - the close quantitative research of economic historians has shown that, at the time we first started arriving in significant numbers as traders in what became the Raj, average living standards for those living in the subcontinent were roughly equivalent to those in Britain (in fact, probably slightly higher). By the time we left, having 'invested in their infrastructure' in order to improve transport links to help remove yet more natural resources, living standards in Britain far outstripped those in the ex-Raj.

The researchers have now turned their attentions to other parts of the former Empire. Initial findings are that the Raj pattern applies nearly everywhere we went in and 'helped' the locals by establishing a vicious military administration and civil administration promoting 'free trade' between the mother country and the imperial dominions.

That is a red herring(excuse the pun),

The question you should be asking, or answering is.

1 Are those countries economically(GDP or GVA) better of than before.

2 What are the productivities differentials?

You could just as easily say that The south of England exploited the North as The South is now much more wealthy than before.

Remember we began arriving in India at the beggining of the industrial revolution so you would expect a degree of parity, also the defusion of technology in those times was a lot slower(if at all) so you would expect a big gap at the end.

Also bare in mind the structure of those economies and wealth is more easily/quickly generated form industry than agriculture.

 

[London Calling]

BACK TO MIRATION WATCH

Onward march of lobby against immigration

Martin Bright, Burhan Wazir and Emma Flatt


The Observer investigates the controversial group that is setting the agenda on asylum seekers


Their controversial research is headline-grabbing. Their controversial message is direct: Britain is overpopulated and does not need any more immigrants. The work of Migrationwatch UK now dominates the immigration debate. It has prompted stories such as 'One in Ten Londoners is an Immigrant', 'Illegals Put NHS at Breaking Point' and 'New Schools Needed for Asylum Seekers'.

Last week, Home Office figures showed the number of asylum seekers entering the country this year is likely to top 100,000. Migrationwatch believes figures such as these show it was right to alert the nation to a coming disaster. They argue that mass immigration will drive up the population with disastrous consequences for the environment, social cohesion and public health.

But what exactly is Migrationwatch UK? It was founded by Sir Andrew Green, a retired career diplomat who was Britain's ambassador to Syria and Saudi Arabia.

Green has been obsessed by Britain's asylum laws since the mid-1990s, when, as a Foreign Office official, he was tasked with deporting the Islamic dissident Mohammed al-Massari from Britain. 'We wanted him out, the Saudis wanted him out and we spent 18 months trying to get him out. When we failed I realised the asylum system was in chaos.'

He met his collaborator David Coleman, professor in demography at Oxford University though the letters page of the Times. When Green set up the Migrationwatch website at the end of last year Coleman became his adviser.

Their research consisted of the simple analysis of government population projections, which they hoped would spark a debate.

'We had no reaction at all. Nobody wanted to discuss the issue,' Green told The Observer.

The turning point for Migrationwatch, came in June, when the environment editor of the Times, Anthony Browne, wrote an article arguing for tighter immigration controls. 'He said the economic reasons for mass immigration were as bogus as any asylum seeker. I thought that was brave,' said Green.

The two men had lunch and Browne wrote the story of the ex-ambassador who was devoting his life to the immigration debate. At the beginning of August, when Migrationwatch published a paper claiming net immigration would rise by two million within a decade, the rest of the press finally caught on to the group.

Green claims they received 160 calls in one day after the report was published. The Home Office briefed against the report, but later Green was called before the Home Affairs Select Committee along with representatives from the Refugee Council and the Immigration Advisory Service. Migrationwatch had arrived.

Smith and Coleman say they are presenting the facts. Until 1982, they say, more people left Britain than entered it. But for two decades now the opposite has been the case. Coleman said: 'I was surprised at the controversy over the summer. It's a pity it has to be like this, because heat is not a good environment for discussion.'

Browne said it was an important voice in the debate. 'I think it is dangerous to impose mass immigration on a people who don't want it. Basically, we just let in anyone who turns up even when there are noticeable drawbacks? Albanian, Kurdish, Pakistani and Jamaican organised criminals, Islamic fascists openly calling for the death of all Jews, TB at Third World levels, riots in northern towns, overcrowding in London, shortage of housing and so on.'

But some believe the arguments proposed by Browne, Greene and Coleman are not entirely neutral.

Writing in Prospect magazine earlier this year, Nigel Harris, the author and immigration expert, said: 'The fears and resentments that underlie the need to blame foreigners are real enough. Structural change damages some and benefits others. But in general, foreigners... are irrelevant to these processes. They are simply scapegoats.'

Leigh Daynes, of Refugee Action, said Migrationwatch was not independent: 'It is a partisan pressure group, whose influence far exceeds its authority. Its sole objective is to fuel ill-informed public debate on migration by polarising the issues. There is an absolute and fundamental difference between migration and asylum. Migrationwatch seeks to obscure this fact. '

The right-wing credentials of Migrationwatch are well-established. Coleman was special adviser to former Tory Ministers Leon Brittan and William Waldegrave. Green was one of the Tories' favourite diplomats. He is a close friend of disgraced former Minister Jonathan Aitken. Green sits with Aitken on the board of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, an organisation that controversially campaigns on alleged slavery in Sudan.

The Observer: for the full artice, go to the website below.







GB




http://www.observer.co.uk/race/story/01125585167600.html


_
America at war
Armed Forces
Arts&Culture
Black Elders
Black Workers
Broadband
Business
Campaigns
Children
Civil rights
Disability
Education
Environment
Events
Government
Health
Human Rights
Immigration
International
Ireland
IT
Jobs
Legal
Links
Linux
Northern Ireland
Police
Politics
Reparations
Reports
Rural racism
Scotland
Spiritual
Sports
Stephen Lawrence
The 1990 Trust
Training
Wales
WCAR
Women
Youth


Onward march of lobby against immigration

Martin Bright, Burhan Wazir and Emma Flatt


The Observer investigates the controversial group that is setting the agenda on asylum seekers


Their controversial research is headline-grabbing. Their controversial message is direct: Britain is overpopulated and does not need any more immigrants. The work of Migrationwatch UK now dominates the immigration debate. It has prompted stories such as 'One in Ten Londoners is an Immigrant', 'Illegals Put NHS at Breaking Point' and 'New Schools Needed for Asylum Seekers'.

Last week, Home Office figures showed the number of asylum seekers entering the country this year is likely to top 100,000. Migrationwatch believes figures such as these show it was right to alert the nation to a coming disaster. They argue that mass immigration will drive up the population with disastrous consequences for the environment, social cohesion and public health.

But what exactly is Migrationwatch UK? It was founded by Sir Andrew Green, a retired career diplomat who was Britain's ambassador to Syria and Saudi Arabia.

Green has been obsessed by Britain's asylum laws since the mid-1990s, when, as a Foreign Office official, he was tasked with deporting the Islamic dissident Mohammed al-Massari from Britain. 'We wanted him out, the Saudis wanted him out and we spent 18 months trying to get him out. When we failed I realised the asylum system was in chaos.'

He met his collaborator David Coleman, professor in demography at Oxford University though the letters page of the Times. When Green set up the Migrationwatch website at the end of last year Coleman became his adviser.

Their research consisted of the simple analysis of government population projections, which they hoped would spark a debate.

'We had no reaction at all. Nobody wanted to discuss the issue,' Green told The Observer.

The turning point for Migrationwatch, came in June, when the environment editor of the Times, Anthony Browne, wrote an article arguing for tighter immigration controls. 'He said the economic reasons for mass immigration were as bogus as any asylum seeker. I thought that was brave,' said Green.

The two men had lunch and Browne wrote the story of the ex-ambassador who was devoting his life to the immigration debate. At the beginning of August, when Migrationwatch published a paper claiming net immigration would rise by two million within a decade, the rest of the press finally caught on to the group.

Green claims they received 160 calls in one day after the report was published. The Home Office briefed against the report, but later Green was called before the Home Affairs Select Committee along with representatives from the Refugee Council and the Immigration Advisory Service. Migrationwatch had arrived.

Smith and Coleman say they are presenting the facts. Until 1982, they say, more people left Britain than entered it. But for two decades now the opposite has been the case. Coleman said: 'I was surprised at the controversy over the summer. It's a pity it has to be like this, because heat is not a good environment for discussion.'

Browne said it was an important voice in the debate. 'I think it is dangerous to impose mass immigration on a people who don't want it. Basically, we just let in anyone who turns up even when there are noticeable drawbacks? Albanian, Kurdish, Pakistani and Jamaican organised criminals, Islamic fascists openly calling for the death of all Jews, TB at Third World levels, riots in northern towns, overcrowding in London, shortage of housing and so on.'

But some believe the arguments proposed by Browne, Greene and Coleman are not entirely neutral.

Writing in Prospect magazine earlier this year, Nigel Harris, the author and immigration expert, said: 'The fears and resentments that underlie the need to blame foreigners are real enough. Structural change damages some and benefits others. But in general, foreigners... are irrelevant to these processes. They are simply scapegoats.'

Leigh Daynes, of Refugee Action, said Migrationwatch was not independent: 'It is a partisan pressure group, whose influence far exceeds its authority. Its sole objective is to fuel ill-informed public debate on migration by polarising the issues. There is an absolute and fundamental difference between migration and asylum. Migrationwatch seeks to obscure this fact. '

The right-wing credentials of Migrationwatch are well-established. Coleman was special adviser to former Tory Ministers Leon Brittan and William Waldegrave. Green was one of the Tories' favourite diplomats. He is a close friend of disgraced former Minister Jonathan Aitken. Green sits with Aitken on the board of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, an organisation that controversially campaigns on alleged slavery in Sudan.

Under UK Leglisation, a carrier of refugees, migrants etc can be fined if this prople are proved not to be geniune. This begs the question how on earth can say BA make a spot check on a geniune case in seconds whilst it could take the Home Office months or years.

Airports normally have the tightest security of all countries with the exceptions of Presendential palaces etc.

People wanting to leave a country will know that the flying route is a no no.

There are therefore the three classic routes:

Routes designed by Political refugees,
Black market routes, these are the ones where you see truck loads of people being emptied out of refrigerated lorries, and the really dodgy
Gang orientated routes where the immigrants will serve their time in GB paying off debts via prostitution etc

All of these routes will be mastered by the above people.

The majority of the EC no longer has economic borders,(there's a Treaty whose name I cannot remember) therefore lorries can travel through Europe without checks. Until the UK which is not part of the Treaty.

Why do people come to UK? There the old historic Empire reasons, our status in the world, our TV especially BBC Worls Service is seen by more people than any other, do we still have streets of gold, and we are probably seen and probably still are more tolerant than most nations. With a few exceptions.

By the way Loon I never stated you lost the the argrument! I just don't like what you say!!!!!

By the way what do you do?

LC1



_

_

_

 

[London Calling]

AND ANOTHER POST ON MIGRATION WATCH, WHICH ISN'T THAT NEUTRAL

From the luxury of an Oxford College

The new group that lies about refugees

by HELEN SHOOTER

A BOGUS group posing as an authority on immigration in Britain has become the toast of the right wing press and Tories. Migrationwatch UK is constantly quoted in the Times, Sun and Daily Mail. These are the papers that relish attacking workers on strike as much as they enjoy bashing refugees. The group's name is supposed to make you think it is a respected think-tank, like Human Rights Watch.

It claims, "This is an independent organisation. We have no political axes to grind." The right wing newspapers treat it as a serious group that is just interested in the facts about immigration. But its real aim is to whip up fear and hysteria over refugees. The men who run Migrationwatch UK are happy to serve some of the most privileged, anti working class people in the country.

The organisation was set up just a year ago by ex-diplomat Sir Andrew Green and his sidekick, Oxford don David Coleman. The two reek of the Tories.

Both worked for Margaret Thatcher's hated Tory government, the union-busters who systematically tried to smash ordinary working people. Coleman is now a professor at the elite and luxurious St John's College at Oxford University. He was a special adviser to several top Thatcher-loving Tories between 1985 and 1987.

One of the ministers he served was Leon Brittan. As home secretary Brittan spearheaded the Tories' attack on the miners during their strike in 1984-5. The Times said of Brittan, "His rapid authorisation of police reinforcements to keep open the Nottinghamshire pits played a crucial role in defeating the miners' strike, as did his clear guidance on picketing law." David Coleman also advised ultra-posh William Waldegrave, Tory environment minister.

Waldegrave was one of the architects of the hated poll tax. He chaired the working party that dreamt up the scheme. He also pioneered the Tories' 1989 Housing Act that attacked council housing and paved the way for soaring rents. Coleman is still a close friend of Jonathan Aitken, the former Tory cabinet minister.

Aitken lied in court to cover up how his Saudi friends paid for him to stay at the Ritz hotel in Paris when he was defence minister. He was jailed for 18 months for perjury and perverting the course of justice. Sir Andrew Green, the founder of Migrationwatch UK, has an equally dirty past. He started out as a top civil servant who became an ambassador and twice met Oliver North in Washington during the 1980s.

North was famously prosecuted for his role in the Iran-Contra affair. The Iran-Contra affair involved Ronald Reagan's government selling arms to Iran. The proceeds were diverted to fund the brutal Contra rebels who were trying to overthrow the popular left wing Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Green went on to become ambassador to Saudi Arabia from 1996 to 2000. At the same time he was a non-executive director for the arms firm Vickers, one of Britain's biggest arms exporters to Saudi Arabia.

In 1996 the Saudi rulers made it clear that arms deals, including ones with Vickers, were under threat. The hitch was a Saudi dissident named Mohammed Al-Massari. Al-Massari had been imprisoned and tortured by the Saudis for opposing their brutal regime.

He fled to Britain, but the Saudi regime were keen to get their hands on him again. They told Green that the arms deals could be cancelled if the dissident was allowed to stay in Britain.

Green obliged them by straining every muscle to get Al-Massari deported. Amnesty International's assessment was that "the UK government's stance reflects a desire to preserve good relations with Saudi Arabia at the expense of raising human rights issues".

This is the rotten background of the rich men behind Migrationwatch UK. Their figures are as bogus as their claims to be non-political. The number of refugees coming into Britain has been consistently overestimated for the last ten years. That is according to a report released last month by the Office of National Statistics based on its assessment of the 2001 census. Britain ranks only tenth among European countries in terms of asylum seekers per head of the population.

Yet the right wing press repeat the made-up figure from Migrationwatch UK that immigration will rise by two million in the next decade. Migrationwatch UK echoes the arguments put out by the far right. The group brands all migrants as a "problem".

It damns nurses from abroad who play a vital role in the NHS and students who come here to study, as well as desperate refugees fleeing war and persecution. The group scapegoats migrants for the shortages in "housing provision, housing demand, health, education and transport".

No wonder the Nazi British National Party has praised Migrationwatch UK. New Labour makes feeble attempts to distance itself from the group's findings. But the group reinforces the government's crackdown on refugees. David Blunkett himself commented that refugee children "swamp" local schools. Migrationwatch UK was even invited to contribute to a home affairs select committee alongside the highly regarded Refugee Council.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figures that don't add up

LIE 1: Refugees are flooding into Britain

THE NUMBER of people who applied for asylum in Britain actually fell last year to 71,365. That is just 0.12 percent of the population. The right wing press don't comment on the high number of Australian and French people who come to Britain to work. Instead they whip up racism over "floods of Gypsy beggars" or "immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa". Britain and other European countries face being underpopulated because of the low birth rate. "The working population will shrink rapidly. I don't know how we are going to run our societies with such a rate of decline," said an economics professor in the Observer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

LIE 2: Britain is a magnet for asylum seekers

REFUGEES ARE only entitled to £37.77 a week to live off. That is 70 percent of income support, which poor families have to struggle to live on. The government refuses to allow refugees to work. That means some are reduced to begging on the streets.

Refugees are not a drain on resources. Just £1.78 a month is spent by every taxpayer on supporting refugees-just 0.25 percent of Britain's total budget. The overcrowding in schools, hospitals and doctors' surgeries is not caused by refugees, but by chronic underfunding from Tory and New Labour governments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

LIE 3: Most refugees are 'bogus'

THE SINGLE largest group of refugees entering Britain come from Iraq. New Labour presented the case for the human rights abuses many Iraqis suffer in a video it promoted last week.

A high proportion of refugees also come from Zimbabwe, Somalia and Afghanistan. Many regimes around the world, often allies of the US and Britain, inflict torture and violence on their people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

LIE 4: Immigrants take up jobs

MANY INDUSTRIES in Britain are crying out for workers. There is a shortage of 200,000 basic tradespeople and labourers, and 80,000 truck drivers. The NHS needs 1,000 lab technicians.

People who settle in Britain are often forced into jobs no one else will do. Some 70 percent of catering workers are from abroad. Britain's agribusiness relies on 19,000 workers from Eastern Europe to pick fruit and vegetables each summer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Driven to their death

TWO GROUPS of refugees fleeing to Britain last week showed the desperate methods they have been forced into by New Labour's policies. Some 13 refugees were found in a sealed container in Folkestone wrapped up in lengths of carpet.

Fortunately they escaped the tragedy of the 58 Chinese refugees who suffocated in the back of a lorry in Dover two years ago. But two boys, 12 and 14 years old, did not get to Britain alive. They were found dead under the carriage of a plane at Heathrow airport last week.

The two boys were found huddled together in the plane's wheel compartment. They died from lack of oxygen and the freezing temperatures which can reach minus 40C.

A police spokesperson commented, "Every year we have between six or ten cases of people dying as they try to make their way here. But we have never before seen stowaways as young as this."

Blunkett boasts of closing the Sangatte refugee camp. But it only means desperate people will resort to risking their lives by stowing away on planes and boats to get into Britain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[looney]

I'm an economist.

 

[fatbadger]

That is a red herring(excuse the pun),

The question you should be asking, or answering is.

1 Are those countries economically(GDP or GVA) better of than before.

2 What are the productivities differentials?

You could just as easily say that The south of England exploited the North as The South is now much more wealthy than before.

Remember we began arriving in India at the beggining of the industrial revolution so you would expect a degree of parity, also the defusion of technology in those times was a lot slower(if at all) so you would expect a big gap at the end.

Also bare in mind the structure of those economies and wealth is more easily/quickly generated form industry than agriculture.

Please see above for a list of red herrings.

Please see below suggested reading for you:

Michael Adas, State, market and peasant in colonial South and Southeast Asia (1998)
D. Arnold and R. Guha (eds), Nature, culture, imperialism: essays on the environmental history of South Asia (1998)
A.K. Banerji, Aspects of Indo-British economic relations 1858-1898 (1982)
S. Bose, Peasant labour and colonial capital: rural Bengal since 1770 (1993)
Rajnarayan Chandavarkar, Imperial power and popular politics: class, resistance and the state in India, c. 1850-1950 (1998)
Neil Charlesworth, British India and the Indian Economy 1800-1914 (1982 )
K.N. Chaudhuri and C.J. Dewey (eds), Economy and society: essays in Indian economic and social history (1979)
Robert E. Frykenberg (ed.), Land tenure and peasant in South Asia (1977)
Ranajit Guha, Elementary aspects of peasant insurgency in colonial India (1998)
David Hardiman (ed.), Peasant resistance in India 1858-1914 (1994)
Peter Harnetty, Imperialism and free trade: Lancashire and India in the mid-nineteenth century (1972)
Ian J. Kerr, Building the railways of the Raj 1850-1900 (1997)
Ian J. Kerr, Railways in modern India (2001)
Dharma Kumar, Colonialism, property and the state (1998)
D. Kumar and M. Desai (eds), The Cambridge economic history of India, vol. II: 1750-1970 (1982)
*David Ludden, An agrarian history of South Asia (1999)
R. Macleod and D. Kumar, Technology and the Raj: western technology and technological transfers to India 1700-1947 (1995)
Maria Misra, Business, race and politics in British India c.1850-1960 (1999)
Chitta Panda, The decline of the Bengal Zamindars : Midnapore 1870-1920 (1996)
*Gyan Prakash (ed.), The world of the rural labourer in colonial India (1994)
D. Rothermund, An economic history of India from pre-colonial times to 1991 (1993)
*B.R. Tomlinson, The economy of modern India 1860-1970 (1993)
*Jairus Banaji, ‘Capitalist domination and the small peasantry: the Deccan districts in the late 19th century’, in Gyan Prakash (ed.), The world of the rural labourer in colonial India (1994)
B.B. Chaudhuri, ‘The process of ‘depeasantization’ in Bengal and Bihar, 1885-1947’, Indian Historical Review, 2 (1975)
K.N. Chaudhuri, ‘India’s international economy in the nineteenth century: an historical survey’, MAS, 2 (1968)
Mariam Dossal, ‘Seeds of change: cash crops and commercial agriculture in 19th century western India’, in M. Dossal and R. Maloni (eds), State intervention and popular response (1999)
James Foreman-Peck, ‘Foreign investment and imperial exploitation: balance of payments reconstruction for nineteenth-century Britain and India’, EcHR, 42 (1989)
Irfan Habib, ‘Studying a colonial economy – without perceiving colonialism’, MAS, 19/3 (1985)
Peter Harnetty, ‘Crop trends in the Central Provinces of India, 1861-1921’, MAS, 11/3 (1977)
John Hurd, ‘Railways and the expansion of markets in India 1861-1921’, Explorations in Econ. Hist., 12 (1975)
Vasant Kaiwar, ‘The colonial state, capital and the peasantry in Bombay Presidency’, MAS, 28/4 (1994)
Vasant Kaiwar, ‘Nature, property and polity in colonial Bombay’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 27/2 (2000)
Ira Klein, ‘Urban development and death: Bombay city 1870-1914’, MAS, 20/4 (1986)
M. McAlpin, ‘The impact of trade on agricultural development: Bombay Presidency 1855-1920’, Explorations in Econ. Hist. (1975)
M. McAlpin, ‘Railroads, prices and peasant rationality: India 1860-1900’; JEcH (1972)
David Mosse, ‘Colonial and contemporary ideologies of “Community management”: the case ot tank irrigation in South India’, MAS, 33/2 (1999)
J.F. Richards, J.E. Hagan and E.S. Haynes, ‘Changing land use in Bihar, Punjab and Harayana 1850-1970’, MAS, 19 (1985)
C. Simmons, ‘"De-industrialization", industrialization and the Indian economy, 1850-1947’, MAS, 19 (1985)
*B.R. Tomlinson, ‘The historical roots of Indian poverty: issues in the economic and social history of modern South Asia 1880-1960’, MAS, 22 (1988)
*B.R. Tomlinson, ‘Empire of the dandelion: ecological imperialism and economic expansion, 1860-1914’, JICH, 26/2 (1998)
*D. Washbrook, ‘The commercialization of agriculture in colonial India: production, subsistence and reproduction in the “Dry South”, c.1870-1930’, MAS, 28/1 (1994)
*S. Ambirajan, Classical political economy and British policy in India (1978)
W.J. Barber, British economic thought and India, 1600-1858 (1975)
*P.J. Cain and A.G. Hopkins, British imperialism (1993) vol. I, ch. 10,
A.W.Silver, Manchester men and Indian cotton 1847-72 (1972)
Burton Stein (ed.), The making of agrarian policy in British India 1770-1900 (1992)
Eric Stokes, The peasant and the Raj: studies in agrarian society and peasant rebellion in colonial India (1980)
Ian Stone, Canal irrigation in British India (1984)
B.R. Tomlinson, The political economy of the Raj 1914-47 (1979)
B.B. Chaudhuri, ‘The agrarian question in Bengal and the government of India 1850-1900’, Calcutta Historical Journal, 1 (1976)
C. Hambly, ‘Richard Temple and the Punjab tenancy act of 1868’, EHR, 79 (1964)
Ira Klein, ‘English free traders and Indian tariffs, 1874-96’, MAS, 5 (1971)
R.J. Moore, ‘Imperialism and free trade policy in India, 1853-4’, EcHR, 17 (1964)
*P. Robb, ‘British rule and Indian ‘improvement’’, EcHR, 34 (1981)
*P. Robb, ‘Bihar, the colonial state and agricultural development in India, 1880-1920’, IESHR, 25 (1988)
Ian Stone, ‘Canal irrigation and agrarian change: the experience of the Ganges Canal Tract, Muzaffarnagar District (U.P.), 1840-1900’, in K.N. Chaudhuri and C.J. Dewey (eds), Economy and Society (1979)
*B. R. Tomlinson, ‘Economics and Empire: The Periphery and the Imperial Economy’, in Andrew Porter (ed.), The Oxford history of the British Empire, vol. 3: the 19th century (1999)
D. Washbrook, ‘Economic depression and the making of "traditional" society in colonial India, 1820-55’, TRHS, 6th ser., 3 (1993)
M. Alamgir, Famine in south Asia: political economy of mass starvation (1980)
*B.M. Bhatia, Famines in India 1860-1925 (3rd edn, 1991)
W.A. Dando, The geography of famine (1980)
Mike Davis, Late Victorian holocausts: El Nino famines and the making of the Third World (2001)
T. Dyson (ed.), India’s historical demography: studies in famine, disease and society (1990)
J. Kynch, Famine in British India (1993)
*Arup Maharatna, The demography of famines: an Indian historical perspective (1996)
H.K. Mishra, Famines and poverty in India (1991)
H.S. Srivastava, The history of Indian famines 1858-1918 (1968)
*S. Ambirajan, ‘Malthusian population theory and Indian famine policy in the 19th century’, Population Studs., 29 (1976)
A.K. Bagchi, ‘Land tax, property-rights and peasant insecurity in colonial India’, Jnl of Peasant Studs., 20 (1992)
*L. Brennan, ‘The development of the India Famine Codes: personalities, policies and politics’, in B. Currey and G. Hugo (eds), Famine as a geographical phenomenon (1984)
S. Commander, ‘Malthus and the theory of "unequal powers": population and food production in India 1800-1947’, MAS, 20 (1986)
*Kate Currie, ‘British colonial policy and famines: some effects and implications of “free trade” in the Bombay, Bengal and Madras Presidencies, 1860-1900’, South Asia, 14/2 (1991)
*Jean Drèze, ‘Famine prevention in India’, in Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen (eds), The political economy of hunger: vol. 2: famine prevention (1990)
*Tim Dyson, ‘On the demography of South Asian famines, part 1’, Population Studies, 45 (1991)
*A.K. Ghose, ‘Food supply and starvation: a study of famines with reference to the Indian sub-continent’, Oxford Economic Papers, 34 (1982)
*I. Klein, ‘When the rains failed: famine, relief and mortality in British India’, IESHR, 21 (1984)
*I. Klein, ‘Population growth and mortality in British India: the demographic revolution’, IESHR, 27(1990)
Ira Klein, ‘Death in India, 1871-1921’, JAS, 32/4. (1973)
*M.B. McAlpin, ‘Famines, epidemics and population-growth: the case of India’, JIH, 14 (1983); also in R.I. Rotberg and T.K. Rabb, Hunger and History (1983)
Mehtabunisa, ‘Women in famine: the paradox of status in India’, in B. Currey and G. Hugo (eds), Famine as a geographical phenomenon (1984)
Thomas R. Metcalf, ‘The British and the moneylender in Nineteenth-Century India’, Jnl of Modern History, 34 (1962)
Cormac Ó Gráda, ‘Markets and famines: a simple test with Indian data’, Economics Letters, 57/2 (1997)
*Michelle Burge McAlpin, Subject to Famine: food crises and economic change in western India, 1860-1920 (1983)
N. Neelakanteswara Rao, Famines and relief administration: a case study of coastal Andhra, 1858-1901 (1997)
Laxman D. Satya, Cotton and famine in Berar, 1850-1900 (1997)
Navtaj Singh, Starvation and colonialism: a study of famines in the 19th century British Punjab, 1858-1901 (1996)
*Elizabeth Whitcombe, Agrarian conditions in northern India, vol 1: the United Provinces under British Rule 1860-1900 (1972)
David Arnold, ‘Hunger in the garden of plenty: the Bengal Famine of 1770’, in A. Johns (ed), Dreadful visitations (1999)
*M. Chakrabarti, ‘Lethal connection: winter rice, poverty and famine in late 19th century Bengal’, Calcutta Historical Jnl, 18 (1996)
R.O. Christensen, 'Famine and agricultural economy: a case study of Haryana during the British period', South Asian Studies, 1 (1984)
*David Hardiman, ‘Usury, dearth and famine in western India’, P&P, 152 (1996)
Douglas E. Haynes, ‘Urban weavers and rural famine in Western India, 1870-1900’, in M. Dossal and R. Maloni (eds), State intervention and popular response (1999)
*C.V. Hill, ‘Philosophy and reality in Riparian South Asia: British famine policy and migration in colonial North India’, MAS, 25 (1991)
*Michelle Burge McAlpin, Dearth, Famine, and Risk: The Changing Impact of Crop Failures in Western India, 1870-1920’, Jnl of Economic History, 39 (1979)
B. Mohanty, ‘Migration, famines and sex-ratio in Orissa between 1881 and 1921’, IESHR, 29 (1992)
B. Murton, ‘Spatial and temporal patterns of famine in southern India before the Famine Codes’, in B. Currey and G. Hugo (eds), Famine as a geographical phenomenon (1984)
D. Rajasekhar, 'Famines and peasant mobility: changing agrarian structure in Kurnool District of Andhra', IESHR, 28/2 (1991)
S. Sharma, ‘The 1837-8 famine in Uttar Pradesh: some dimensions of popular action’, IESHR, 30 (1993)
N. Singh, ‘British response 1858-1901’, in Starvation and colonialism: a study of famines in the 19th century British Punjab, 1858-1901 (1996)
Kohei Wakimura, ‘Famines, epidemics and mortality in northern India, 1870-1921’, in Tim Dyson (ed.), India’s historical demography: studies in famine, disease and society (1990)

Important studeis no the historiography of colonial India, within which the debates over the colonial legacy can be situated:
N.G. Barrier, ‘India: recent writing on the history of British India’, in G.G. Iggers and H.T. Parker (eds), International handbook of historical studies (1979)

C.A. Bayly, ‘Rallying around the subaltern - review article’, Jnl of Peasant Studs. 16 (1988)

R. Guha, ‘On some aspects of the historiography of colonial India’, in R. Guha (ed), Subaltern Studies 1 (1982)

R. Guha, ‘Dominance without hegemony and its historiography’, in R. Guha (ed.), Subaltern studies 4 (1989)

Irfan Habib, ‘Studying a colonial economy – without perceiving colonialism’, MAS, 19/3 (1985)

Gyan Prakash, 'Subaltern studies as postcolonial criticism', AHR, 99 (1994)

G. Prakash, ‘Writing post-orientalist histories of the Third World: perspectives from Indian historiography’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 32 (1990)

Rosalind O’Hanlon and David Washbrook, ‘After Orientalism: Culture, Criticism, and Politics in the Third World’, in Comparative Studies in Society and History, 34 (1992)

 

[Dave the OAP]

fuckin hell guys...chill

 

[looney]

Oh and those articles are heavily spun and very leftwing, Migrant watch just refers to Gov stats.


Figures that don't add up

LIE 1: Refugees are flooding into Britain

THE NUMBER of people who applied for asylum in Britain actually fell last year to 71,365. That is just 0.12 percent of the population. The right wing press don't comment on the high number of Australian and French people who come to Britain to work. Instead they whip up racism over "floods of Gypsy beggars" or "immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa". Britain and other European countries face being underpopulated because of the low birth rate. "The working population will shrink rapidly. I don't know how we are going to run our societies with such a rate of decline," said an economics professor in the Observer.


THE NUMBER of people who applied for asylum in Britain actually fell last year to 71,365. That is just 0.12 percent of the population.

That figures wrong but lets assume its right.

71,000 asylum seekers + 150,000 work permitholders = 2,20,000 people approx .4 % or over a decade 4% and 2.2 million as Migrant watch and the government have projected.

The thing is its like filling a glass, you pour that lot into an empty glass fine, but what if the glass is close to being full?

Instead they whip up racism over "floods of Gypsy beggars" or "immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa"


There are 1.6 million Roma/pikeys about to become EU citizens in Jan 80% unemployed and persecuted, UK is the ONLY country giving altermatic right to work/ abode.

Government estemate 5 to 13 thousand, MW estimate 45,000 and the economist magazine calls it "The wild card".

I rekon it could be as high as 100,000+ but then thats a guess and knowledge of the level of persecution they suffer in Slovakia, and Hungry.

Either way Its a massive unecessary gamble that could SHATTER Socail cohesion and propell the BNP into power.

Would you take that risk?


I'll only bother with the rest if i have time, busy, ttfn.

 

[Dandyman]

Professor Coleman is also a (former?) member of the Galton Institute, previously known as the Eugenics Society.

My dictionary defines eugencis as "the study of methods of improving the human race, especially by selective breeding".

Sounds a lovely man.