You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > No more immigrants.
November 23 2024 12.28am

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

No more immigrants.

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 12 of 85 < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >

  

leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 04 Aug 15 8.42pm

Quote Kermit8 at 04 Aug 2015 8.30pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 04 Aug 2015 8.26pm

Quote Kermit8 at 04 Aug 2015 7.26pm

Quote Jamesrichards8 at 04 Aug 2015 7.19pm

Keep the immigrants coming in. Just don't expect British culture to survive, and don't expect British people to be happy about it. Because it's wrong.


Global free market capitalism = everyone will be, aptly, costa coffee coloured and culture diluted in 150 years and they will look back and wonder why their ancestors got their knickers in such a twist about such things.

Kermit's "analysis" get more and more desperate. First he starts with, "I don't actually have an immigration policy, but uncontrolled immigration is clearly highly beneficial" - so no doubt he thinks we should have more and remove the flimsy controls that we do have. Next he states that immigration is "inevitable" - you know it just sort of happens and you can do nothing about it. Now he is saying we won't know the difference in 150 years time because we will all be mixed race - just like it is in the USA I guess? I expect his next sage comment will be that "it will all turn out alright in the end" - probably Dr. Frankenstein's words as he threw the switch.


Your great-great-great-great grandson will be a lovely shade of brown. Get over it!

And when he's on 'Who Do You Think You Are'.....the raised eyebrows 'oh, dear' bit.

That's you, that is

Well, If I have a 4g x grandchild, he or she would have 1/64 of my genetics. The other 63 - so what? Anyway, how do you know I will have descendants - I might be a gay trans-sexual for all you know.

Edited by leggedstruggle (04 Aug 2015 8.43pm)

 


mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Kermit8 Flag Hevon 04 Aug 15 8.45pm Send a Private Message to Kermit8 Add Kermit8 as a friend

Quote Stirlingsays at 04 Aug 2015 8.42pm

Kermy only speaks for a minority of people....like the rest of the open door immigration supporters on here.

75 percent in England want reduced immigration....Hell even in Scotland.....It's 58 percent.....That's even with their far left nationalists in charge dibbling out their anti Ukip waffle.

They don't even represent the real views of the Scottish on the issue......God forbid what the numbers would be if more foreigners actually wanted to live in Scotland.

[Link]


I would be very interested if you could find a line on here from my hand that supports that assertion.

 


Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]


Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
oghash Flag 04 Aug 15 8.46pm Send a Private Message to oghash Add oghash as a friend

Quote leggedstruggle at 04 Aug 2015 8.42pm

Quote Kermit8 at 04 Aug 2015 8.30pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 04 Aug 2015 8.26pm

Quote Kermit8 at 04 Aug 2015 7.26pm

Quote Jamesrichards8 at 04 Aug 2015 7.19pm

Keep the immigrants coming in. Just don't expect British culture to survive, and don't expect British people to be happy about it. Because it's wrong.


Global free market capitalism = everyone will be, aptly, costa coffee coloured and culture diluted in 150 years and they will look back and wonder why their ancestors got their knickers in such a twist about such things.

Kermit's "analysis" get more and more desperate. First he starts with, "I don't actually have an immigration policy, but uncontrolled immigration is clearly highly beneficial" - so no doubt he thinks we should have more and remove the flimsy controls that we do have. Next he states that immigration is "inevitable" - you know it just sort of happens and you can do nothing about it. Now he is saying we won't know the difference in 150 years time because we will all be mixed race - just like it is in the USA I guess? I expect his next sage comment will be that "it will all turn out alright in the end" - probably Dr. Frankenstein's words as he threw the switch.


Your great-great-great-great grandson will be a lovely shade of brown. Get over it!

And when he's on 'Who Do You Think You Are'.....the raised eyebrows 'oh, dear' bit.

That's you, that is

Well, If I have a 4g x grandchild, he or she would have 1/64 of my genetics. The other 63 - so what? Anyway, how do you know I will have descendants - I might be a gay trans-sexual for all you know.

Edited by leggedstruggle (04 Aug 2015 8.43pm)

I'm pretty certain that you're not a Brighton fan.

 


Why would anyone chose to be a Seagull? The Eagle is a far superior creature.

The Seagull lives under it's damp pier meekly looking out, blinded by the sheer quality of the Eagle's palace.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Kermit8 Flag Hevon 04 Aug 15 8.51pm Send a Private Message to Kermit8 Add Kermit8 as a friend

Quote leggedstruggle at 04 Aug 2015 8.42pm

Quote Kermit8 at 04 Aug 2015 8.30pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 04 Aug 2015 8.26pm

Quote Kermit8 at 04 Aug 2015 7.26pm

Quote Jamesrichards8 at 04 Aug 2015 7.19pm

Keep the immigrants coming in. Just don't expect British culture to survive, and don't expect British people to be happy about it. Because it's wrong.


Global free market capitalism = everyone will be, aptly, costa coffee coloured and culture diluted in 150 years and they will look back and wonder why their ancestors got their knickers in such a twist about such things.

Kermit's "analysis" get more and more desperate. First he starts with, "I don't actually have an immigration policy, but uncontrolled immigration is clearly highly beneficial" - so no doubt he thinks we should have more and remove the flimsy controls that we do have. Next he states that immigration is "inevitable" - you know it just sort of happens and you can do nothing about it. Now he is saying we won't know the difference in 150 years time because we will all be mixed race - just like it is in the USA I guess? I expect his next sage comment will be that "it will all turn out alright in the end" - probably Dr. Frankenstein's words as he threw the switch.


Your great-great-great-great grandson will be a lovely shade of brown. Get over it!

And when he's on 'Who Do You Think You Are'.....the raised eyebrows 'oh, dear' bit.

That's you, that is

Well, If I have a 4g x grandchild, he or she would have 1/64 of my genetics. The other 63 - so what? Anyway, how do you know I will have descendants - I might be a gay trans-sexual for all you know.

Edited by leggedstruggle (04 Aug 2015 8.43pm)


Gay trans-sexuals can have children too, you know. 'Male' born with bit of a cock/v*****/womb and soon to become woman 25 years later but he pre-op shags a man. Hey, presto!

Hope that hasn't put you off your sausage sandwich supper. With ketchup.

Edited by Kermit8 (04 Aug 2015 8.52pm)

 


Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]


Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
davenotamonkey Flag 04 Aug 15 9.05pm Send a Private Message to davenotamonkey Add davenotamonkey as a friend

Quote ghosteagle at 04 Aug 2015 6.26pm

Quote Cucking Funt at 04 Aug 2015 6.25pm

Quote ghosteagle at 04 Aug 2015 6.23pm

Quote Cucking Funt at 04 Aug 2015 6.20pm

Quote ghosteagle at 04 Aug 2015 6.16pm

Quote Cucking Funt at 04 Aug 2015 6.13pm

Quote nickgusset at 04 Aug 2015 5.58pm

Quote fed up eagle at 04 Aug 2015 5.36pm

Quote susmik at 04 Aug 2015 4.31pm

Quote crystal balls at 04 Aug 2015 4.24pm

Quote The Sash at 04 Aug 2015 11.10am

Quote fed up eagle at 04 Aug 2015 11.05am

Quote The Sash at 04 Aug 2015 10.39am

Quote fed up eagle at 04 Aug 2015 10.20am

Quote Catfish at 04 Aug 2015 8.43am

Of interest, it would be helpful if posters could start by defining what they think immigration is.

Are you talking about anyone coming here to live, whether legally or not, of any nationality and for any reason?

If, on the other hand, you are talking about specific groups, nationalities, races, then please do say so up front. Saves so much time.


There is nothing wrong with people coming here to set up a legitimate attempt at a better life through work etc, not the people in Calais who are hell bent on coming here because of all the riches it brings. They aren't proper immigrants, they are economic migrants.

As are pretty much 99% of those here legally.

Lets be honest they don't come here for the weather or our sandy beaches


Maybe I didn't put my point across correctly so apologies. My main point is that the people in Calais have no skill, we have enough unskilled labour that should be put to work. The left's main argument is that these people are escaping war torn parts of the world, well if that was the case they should claim asylum in the first country they arrive in, not travel across 5-6 borders and demanding that it's here that they want to come. Doctors, scientists, engineers, nurses, footballers yes, unskilled people who want to be propped up by the state a definite NO.


Not actually true - there was an interview with a guy the other day on the Beeb - cant remember exact country of origin but he was a qualified accountant - now you could argue that accountancy isn't exactly an area where we need to welcome immigrants with CIMA qualifications with open arms but not everyone hopping the fence is here to grab as many benefits as they can and f*** our daughters...

For what its worth I totally agree on the asylum part - first 'safe' country you meet should mean that country have the obligation to grant you asylum and you take it or leave it.

Edited by The Sash (04 Aug 2015 11.11am)


The thing is, once an asylum seeker is granted asylum in any other EU country they will have the same rights to movement of labour as any other citizen throughout the EU, so could actually come here if they wanted.

Interestingly in the first quarter of the year around 250,000 people came to the EU to claim asylum; less than 10,000 came to the UK, over 70,000 went to Germany, with France and Italy receiving over 30,000 each. Even Hungary had 17,000 applicants.

The myth that immigrants all want to come to the UK just doesn't stack up. And the availability of benefits and the amount paid to immigrants is not appreciably different to most other EU countries.


I have noticed that it is only immigrants in France at Calais that are breaking down fences, boarding trains, running through the tunnel and breaking into cars and Lorries that are in the public eye. This is not happening in Germany or Hungary. I wonder why....could it be that we pay ANYONE who enters a pile of cash and give them a house and free healthcare which in turn brings the whole countries services to a critical state as it is now.....not to mention once some are in they bring their whole family tribe in????


Exacttly. You hit the nail on the head Sir.

No he hasn't. It's complete unsubstantiated bs.


It's not. Why else do they want to come here rather than, say, Germany, Holland, France, Belgium etc. which, (co-incidentally or not) are not so generous?

Work it out, mate.

Do you have any numbers handy? I have seen many posters claim this and many claim that actually they don't get more in the UK than Germany etc but nobody seems to be providing any actual evidence......


How many are there hanging round Calais? 7000? Ok, so that's 7000. Excluding those that are en route through other EU countries.

I was questioning the idea that the uk is more generous to immigrants than other EU countries. I had read that they got better benefits in Germany and Sweden.


Perhaps you should nip over to Calais and show them what you've read as they clearly believe otherwise.

Not necessarily, if true it means that their reasons for coming here are based on something other than a simple economic equation.

Here we hit the real issue: it's not about the "facts" of which country doles out the best milk and honey for this lot - it's about what they think is the best country. We can sit here debating whether you get better Elk in Sweden or Wurst in Germany, but they don't care. They (based on interviews with them) perceive (rightly or wrongly) that the UK is the best place for them, and that's where they want to go.

It's highly plausible they have a better smattering of English than they do of Swedish or German, so it's UK for them! Coupled with award of a passport after 5 years, the point is utterly moot: they can practice their "freedom of movement" within the EU and go where they want.

No amount of fact-finding changes the fact that the perception (no thanks to leftist idiots such as those pervading this board) of the UK as a soft-touch will bring them here in hoardes.

We now have between 400,000 and 800,000 illegal immigrants in the UK. The reality is that, whilst Calais is a lens through which to view this, many, many more are entering through other means. Calais is great for false signalling: "look at all these swivel-eyed little Englanders frothing over a few hundred/thousand clamouring to get in from France" is great PR to obfuscate the fact that it is a problem, we aren't addressing it, and we're not even acknowledging its scale.


Edited by davenotamonkey (04 Aug 2015 9.19pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
davenotamonkey Flag 04 Aug 15 9.08pm Send a Private Message to davenotamonkey Add davenotamonkey as a friend

I should also add that the OP is a bit of a hyperbolic fool ("No more immigrants"?), but the kneejerk ("No more Zaha" is just as preposterous.

How about instead we control the quality and quantity of economic migrants into the country, whilst also accepting a sustainable share of **genuine** asylum seekers?

I've been called racist for less.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 04 Aug 15 9.30pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote davenotamonkey at 04 Aug 2015 9.08pm

I should also add that the OP is a bit of a hyperbolic fool ("No more immigrants"?), but the kneejerk ("No more Zaha" is just as preposterous.

How about instead we control the quality and quantity of economic migrants into the country, whilst also accepting a sustainable share of **genuine** asylum seekers?

I've been called racist for less.


But only by fools.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 04 Aug 15 9.32pm

Quote Kermit8 at 04 Aug 2015 8.45pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 04 Aug 2015 8.42pm

Kermy only speaks for a minority of people....like the rest of the open door immigration supporters on here.

75 percent in England want reduced immigration....Hell even in Scotland.....It's 58 percent.....That's even with their far left nationalists in charge dibbling out their anti Ukip waffle.

They don't even represent the real views of the Scottish on the issue......God forbid what the numbers would be if more foreigners actually wanted to live in Scotland.

[Link]


I would be very interested if you could find a line on here from my hand that supports that assertion.

This is the point though Mr. K. you never do explicitly say it. However, you never explicitly deny it either, and you never tell us what your immigration policy is. We have to draw our own conclusions.

 


mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Stirlingsays Flag 04 Aug 15 9.32pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Quote Kermit8 at 04 Aug 2015 8.45pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 04 Aug 2015 8.42pm

Kermy only speaks for a minority of people....like the rest of the open door immigration supporters on here.

75 percent in England want reduced immigration....Hell even in Scotland.....It's 58 percent.....That's even with their far left nationalists in charge dibbling out their anti Ukip waffle.

They don't even represent the real views of the Scottish on the issue......God forbid what the numbers would be if more foreigners actually wanted to live in Scotland.

[Link]


I would be very interested if you could find a line on here from my hand that supports that assertion.

We have open door immigration in relation to the EU. So are you now saying you're against 'freedom of movement'?

Because that is open door and that's what I'm referring to.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
legaleagle Flag 04 Aug 15 9.32pm

Quote davenotamonkey at 04 Aug 2015 9.08pm

I should also add that the OP is a bit of a hyperbolic fool ("No more immigrants"?), but the kneejerk ("No more Zaha" is just as preposterous.

How about instead we control the quality and quantity of economic migrants into the country, whilst also accepting a sustainable share of **genuine** asylum seekers?

I've been called racist for less.

That's not racist.Things like that can sometimes crop up where some of the reasons stimulating someone calling for restrictions on immigration are,for example, being averse per se to and demonising "economic migrants" and "asylum seekers", and seeing the preservation of what they think of as "British culture"as something under deep threat per se from having economic migrants and granting people asylum who qualify.

Other than re EU nationals (and pros and cons of free movement of goods,services and labour is a whole other thread in itself,including outward migration),your immigration policy proposal's basically the situation now.

We have have a pretty strict policy re non EU economic migrants including a "points-like test" and the numbers granted asylum are not large.People may raise the question of illegal entrants and over stayers,but that doesn't relate to immigration policy itself,but rather to enforcement.

I agree that the less the knee jerk hyperbole comes into it,the better the chance for an informed rational discussion.


Edited by legaleagle (04 Aug 2015 9.38pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
leggedstruggle Flag Croydon 04 Aug 15 9.36pm

Quote legaleagle at 04 Aug 2015 9.32pm

Quote davenotamonkey at 04 Aug 2015 9.08pm

I should also add that the OP is a bit of a hyperbolic fool ("No more immigrants"?), but the kneejerk ("No more Zaha" is just as preposterous.

How about instead we control the quality and quantity of economic migrants into the country, whilst also accepting a sustainable share of **genuine** asylum seekers?

I've been called racist for less.

That's not racist.Things like that can sometimes crop up where some of the reasons stimulating someone calling for restrictions on immigration are,for example, being averse per se to and demonising "economic migrants" and "asylum seekers", and seeing the preservation of what they think of as "British culture"as something under deep threat per se from having economic migrants and granting people asylum who qualify.

Other than re EU nationals (and pros and cons of free movement of goods,services and people is a whole other thread in itself,including outward migration),your proposal's basically the situation now.

We have have a pretty strict policy re non EU economic migrants including a "points-like test" and the numbers granted asylum are not large.People may raise the question of illegal entrants and over stayers,but that doesn't relate to immigration policy itself,but rather to enforcement.

I agree that the less the knee jerk hyperbole comes into it,the better the chance for an informed rational discussion.

Edited by legaleagle (04 Aug 2015 9.35pm)

LOL

 


mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
-TUX- Flag Alphabettispaghetti 04 Aug 15 9.42pm Send a Private Message to -TUX- Add -TUX- as a friend

Quote Stirlingsays at 04 Aug 2015 9.30pm

Quote davenotamonkey at 04 Aug 2015 9.08pm

I should also add that the OP is a bit of a hyperbolic fool ("No more immigrants"?), but the kneejerk ("No more Zaha" is just as preposterous.

How about instead we control the quality and quantity of economic migrants into the country, whilst also accepting a sustainable share of **genuine** asylum seekers?

I've been called racist for less.


But only by fools.

Stirling appears to be immune to yellow cards despite many of his comments. The first to complain but seems to be made of Teflon for some reason when answered. Old Boys Network?


 


Time to move forward together.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 12 of 85 < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > No more immigrants.