This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Anti immigration parties on the rise
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
leggedstruggle  Croydon 02 Sep 15 1.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 1.21pm
What constitutes an anti-British community though? In terms of the UK, terrorism, seems to have a history of being by people who are British (UK Born Muslims and British Irish). Doesn't that illustrate one of the problems - born here but loyalties lay elsewhere.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 bright&wright 02 Sep 15 2.57pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 11.51am
Quote bright&wright at 02 Sep 2015 9.59am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 9.31am
Quote matt_himself at 02 Sep 2015 9.05am
Living standards are falling, youth unemployment is hefty and people across Europe are told to make people welcome......because. Not necessarily my views but the failure of the European establishment to justify the benefits of the situation is to me the real failure. I don't think there really is any real benefit to Asylum for a nation, at least not in the short term. However, given the alternative is sending civilians back into a genocidal civil war, that has shown no signs of letting up doesn't seem to be an option. Maybe a lower standard of living is better than dead children, mass rape, torture and murder.
A reasonable solution isn't to expect only some countries to deal with the problem. Also in the Calais cases we're probably talking about different people than the ones I am. I'm generally in agreement in regards to economic migration (esp EU working migration except as necessary to fill vaccancies). What I am more concerned with is a tendency to put every migrant and asylum seeker into the same category. We have a responsibility towards refugees that isn't applicable to economic migrants.
Also, if that's the case - what happens if there is a genocidal civil war in China? How are you going to incorporate 1 billion new people into Europe? Because they sure as sh*t wouldn't pop down over the border to Russia or India if they know Europe has an open-door policy for refugees.
'We are going to make a little bit of history here’ Mr. J. Ertl. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 02 Sep 15 3.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote bright&wright at 02 Sep 2015 2.57pm
We have a responsibility to refugees? Do you genuinely believe the Syrians would look after you if the shoe was on the other foot? Also, if that's the case - what happens if there is a genocidal civil war in China? How are you going to incorporate 1 billion new people into Europe? Because they sure as sh*t wouldn't pop down over the border to Russia or India if they know Europe has an open-door policy for refugees. Yes, the assorted conventions on refugees we're signatories of, was passed through the UN, they define a refugee. What Syria would choose to do is entirely irrelevant, given its run by a tyrant who includes genocide as a domestic policy, and is a known supporter of terrorism and murder. I tend to think of the UK as being able and capable of rising to human decency and standards. As for China, we have granted asylum before to people persecuted by the Chinese state. I would imagine the best solution to a problem isn't to address unlikely hypothetical situations its also somewhat unlikely that a civil war in China would somehow displace 1bn people, given that would be effectively 3/4 of the entire population (and end the civil war).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 02 Sep 15 3.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 02 Sep 2015 1.54pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 1.21pm
What constitutes an anti-British community though? In terms of the UK, terrorism, seems to have a history of being by people who are British (UK Born Muslims and British Irish). Doesn't that illustrate one of the problems - born here but loyalties lay elsewhere. Not necessarily, some of those terrorists were very pro-British.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 02 Sep 15 3.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.50pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 1.38pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.32pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 1.27pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.15pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 12.55pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 12.31pm
What do the non-working migrants contribute exactly? Bear in mind that those advocating letting everyone in, are talking about letting in migrants who will not be allowed to work. (ps please don't say "let them work then" as they'd need to change that law beforehand, not afterwards.) They probably won't, but then they aren't migrants, they're asylum seekers / refugees. I'm not willing to send people back to war torn s**tholes where rape and murder are domestic policy. And I believe that this should be set not by which country they make it to, but regulated and controlled centrally, with the dispora sent to different countries on a more or less equal basis. I don't advocate letting everyone in, either, never have been, never will be.
Or are you just saying that this should only apply to European countries and we should be dictated to by the EU, despite having the forethought to not join in their ridiculous Schengen zone. I think you really need to look at a UN organization, such as those already involved with refugees or NGO with the idea being to equally distribute the application processing, rather than localize it. Ideally you want an organization that's can process waves of refugees in border states to a crisis as well. They have no power to enforce anything on any country. And what happens when you decide that they have to go to let's say Mexico and they all say no. Then they get to return home. Clearly you can't use countries which are 'unstable' or a 'risk' (can't send a gay man to Angola who's fled Iran) , but clearly if you're not happy relocating to Mexico or Western Super-Mare your life isn't at risk, and you can go back to Syria. That's how I see it. Even Preston should look a better option to someone who is a genuine refugee.
I like the idea but they'll find a reason why they can't go to every country they don't want to go to. Obviously I'm not thinking splitting up families etc. Its not about fair, its about being arbitrary and as fair as possible to all involved. I'm not even sure that the UK constitutes lucking out, I'd have gone with Germany, France, Norway, Belgium Sweden, Holland as being more the 'jackpot'. You know your life sucks if moving to a council estate in Glasgow or Western Super-Mare is 'lucking out'
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 02 Sep 15 3.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 3.18pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.50pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 1.38pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.32pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 1.27pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.15pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 12.55pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 12.31pm
What do the non-working migrants contribute exactly? Bear in mind that those advocating letting everyone in, are talking about letting in migrants who will not be allowed to work. (ps please don't say "let them work then" as they'd need to change that law beforehand, not afterwards.) They probably won't, but then they aren't migrants, they're asylum seekers / refugees. I'm not willing to send people back to war torn s**tholes where rape and murder are domestic policy. And I believe that this should be set not by which country they make it to, but regulated and controlled centrally, with the dispora sent to different countries on a more or less equal basis. I don't advocate letting everyone in, either, never have been, never will be.
Or are you just saying that this should only apply to European countries and we should be dictated to by the EU, despite having the forethought to not join in their ridiculous Schengen zone. I think you really need to look at a UN organization, such as those already involved with refugees or NGO with the idea being to equally distribute the application processing, rather than localize it. Ideally you want an organization that's can process waves of refugees in border states to a crisis as well. They have no power to enforce anything on any country. And what happens when you decide that they have to go to let's say Mexico and they all say no. Then they get to return home. Clearly you can't use countries which are 'unstable' or a 'risk' (can't send a gay man to Angola who's fled Iran) , but clearly if you're not happy relocating to Mexico or Western Super-Mare your life isn't at risk, and you can go back to Syria. That's how I see it. Even Preston should look a better option to someone who is a genuine refugee.
I like the idea but they'll find a reason why they can't go to every country they don't want to go to. Obviously I'm not thinking splitting up families etc. Its not about fair, its about being arbitrary and as fair as possible to all involved. I'm not even sure that the UK constitutes lucking out, I'd have gone with Germany, France, Norway, Belgium Sweden, Holland as being more the 'jackpot'. You know your life sucks if moving to a council estate in Glasgow or Western Super-Mare is 'lucking out' How far are you extending the family to? Adult siblings, cousins, in-laws etc? You might not be, but they seem blindingly sure of it. You know the chance of ending up in either of those two places is few and far between, and then you can simply move on once granted permission to stay. It's not even a arbitary system within the UK, meaning it's not fair on those in the South East.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| bright&wright 02 Sep 15 4.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 3.13pm
Quote bright&wright at 02 Sep 2015 2.57pm
We have a responsibility to refugees? Do you genuinely believe the Syrians would look after you if the shoe was on the other foot? Also, if that's the case - what happens if there is a genocidal civil war in China? How are you going to incorporate 1 billion new people into Europe? Because they sure as sh*t wouldn't pop down over the border to Russia or India if they know Europe has an open-door policy for refugees. Yes, the assorted conventions on refugees we're signatories of, was passed through the UN, they define a refugee. What Syria would choose to do is entirely irrelevant, given its run by a tyrant who includes genocide as a domestic policy, and is a known supporter of terrorism and murder. I tend to think of the UK as being able and capable of rising to human decency and standards. As for China, we have granted asylum before to people persecuted by the Chinese state. I would imagine the best solution to a problem isn't to address unlikely hypothetical situations its also somewhat unlikely that a civil war in China would somehow displace 1bn people, given that would be effectively 3/4 of the entire population (and end the civil war).
I digress. I think the fact that we give billions of pounds in foreign aid annually, have done for decades, that we already take in a large number of migrants and that these refugees come from a region of the world that have NEVER been welcoming to any group of people that is not Muslim, have never at any point been an ally to us in any war and would quite happily see Israel wiped off the planet - I'm not really sure we do owe them anything...?
'We are going to make a little bit of history here’ Mr. J. Ertl. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 02 Sep 15 4.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 3.28pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 3.18pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.50pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 1.38pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.32pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 1.27pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.15pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 12.55pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 12.31pm
What do the non-working migrants contribute exactly? Bear in mind that those advocating letting everyone in, are talking about letting in migrants who will not be allowed to work. (ps please don't say "let them work then" as they'd need to change that law beforehand, not afterwards.) They probably won't, but then they aren't migrants, they're asylum seekers / refugees. I'm not willing to send people back to war torn s**tholes where rape and murder are domestic policy. And I believe that this should be set not by which country they make it to, but regulated and controlled centrally, with the dispora sent to different countries on a more or less equal basis. I don't advocate letting everyone in, either, never have been, never will be.
Or are you just saying that this should only apply to European countries and we should be dictated to by the EU, despite having the forethought to not join in their ridiculous Schengen zone. I think you really need to look at a UN organization, such as those already involved with refugees or NGO with the idea being to equally distribute the application processing, rather than localize it. Ideally you want an organization that's can process waves of refugees in border states to a crisis as well. They have no power to enforce anything on any country. And what happens when you decide that they have to go to let's say Mexico and they all say no. Then they get to return home. Clearly you can't use countries which are 'unstable' or a 'risk' (can't send a gay man to Angola who's fled Iran) , but clearly if you're not happy relocating to Mexico or Western Super-Mare your life isn't at risk, and you can go back to Syria. That's how I see it. Even Preston should look a better option to someone who is a genuine refugee.
I like the idea but they'll find a reason why they can't go to every country they don't want to go to. Obviously I'm not thinking splitting up families etc. Its not about fair, its about being arbitrary and as fair as possible to all involved. I'm not even sure that the UK constitutes lucking out, I'd have gone with Germany, France, Norway, Belgium Sweden, Holland as being more the 'jackpot'. You know your life sucks if moving to a council estate in Glasgow or Western Super-Mare is 'lucking out' How far are you extending the family to? Adult siblings, cousins, in-laws etc? You might not be, but they seem blindingly sure of it. You know the chance of ending up in either of those two places is few and far between, and then you can simply move on once granted permission to stay. It's not even a arbitary system within the UK, meaning it's not fair on those in the South East. Those currently applying for asylum. So if you escape with your cousins, then yeah. If your cousins later flee then they might have to make do with living in a different country. As for people moving around in the country, that's fair enough, once you've been granted asylum, you're a free citizen. If you're moving to the South East where the employment prospects are probably better, you've already proven yourself above some of the people already here. I would say that until granted asylum, applicants should be more or less distributed across the UK, rather than ghettoized, in any and all areas, not just dumped in the s**ty parts of the UK and left to make the best of it.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 02 Sep 15 4.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 4.31pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 3.28pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 3.18pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.50pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 1.38pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.32pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 1.27pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.15pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 12.55pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 12.31pm
What do the non-working migrants contribute exactly? Bear in mind that those advocating letting everyone in, are talking about letting in migrants who will not be allowed to work. (ps please don't say "let them work then" as they'd need to change that law beforehand, not afterwards.) They probably won't, but then they aren't migrants, they're asylum seekers / refugees. I'm not willing to send people back to war torn s**tholes where rape and murder are domestic policy. And I believe that this should be set not by which country they make it to, but regulated and controlled centrally, with the dispora sent to different countries on a more or less equal basis. I don't advocate letting everyone in, either, never have been, never will be.
Or are you just saying that this should only apply to European countries and we should be dictated to by the EU, despite having the forethought to not join in their ridiculous Schengen zone. I think you really need to look at a UN organization, such as those already involved with refugees or NGO with the idea being to equally distribute the application processing, rather than localize it. Ideally you want an organization that's can process waves of refugees in border states to a crisis as well. They have no power to enforce anything on any country. And what happens when you decide that they have to go to let's say Mexico and they all say no. Then they get to return home. Clearly you can't use countries which are 'unstable' or a 'risk' (can't send a gay man to Angola who's fled Iran) , but clearly if you're not happy relocating to Mexico or Western Super-Mare your life isn't at risk, and you can go back to Syria. That's how I see it. Even Preston should look a better option to someone who is a genuine refugee.
I like the idea but they'll find a reason why they can't go to every country they don't want to go to. Obviously I'm not thinking splitting up families etc. Its not about fair, its about being arbitrary and as fair as possible to all involved. I'm not even sure that the UK constitutes lucking out, I'd have gone with Germany, France, Norway, Belgium Sweden, Holland as being more the 'jackpot'. You know your life sucks if moving to a council estate in Glasgow or Western Super-Mare is 'lucking out' How far are you extending the family to? Adult siblings, cousins, in-laws etc? You might not be, but they seem blindingly sure of it. You know the chance of ending up in either of those two places is few and far between, and then you can simply move on once granted permission to stay. It's not even a arbitary system within the UK, meaning it's not fair on those in the South East. Those currently applying for asylum. So if you escape with your cousins, then yeah. If your cousins later flee then they might have to make do with living in a different country. As for people moving around in the country, that's fair enough, once you've been granted asylum, you're a free citizen. If you're moving to the South East where the employment prospects are probably better, you've already proven yourself above some of the people already here. I would say that until granted asylum, applicants should be more or less distributed across the UK, rather than ghettoized, in any and all areas, not just dumped in the s**ty parts of the UK and left to make the best of it.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 02 Sep 15 4.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote bright&wright at 02 Sep 2015 4.27pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 3.13pm
Quote bright&wright at 02 Sep 2015 2.57pm
We have a responsibility to refugees? Do you genuinely believe the Syrians would look after you if the shoe was on the other foot? Also, if that's the case - what happens if there is a genocidal civil war in China? How are you going to incorporate 1 billion new people into Europe? Because they sure as sh*t wouldn't pop down over the border to Russia or India if they know Europe has an open-door policy for refugees. Yes, the assorted conventions on refugees we're signatories of, was passed through the UN, they define a refugee. What Syria would choose to do is entirely irrelevant, given its run by a tyrant who includes genocide as a domestic policy, and is a known supporter of terrorism and murder. I tend to think of the UK as being able and capable of rising to human decency and standards. As for China, we have granted asylum before to people persecuted by the Chinese state. I would imagine the best solution to a problem isn't to address unlikely hypothetical situations its also somewhat unlikely that a civil war in China would somehow displace 1bn people, given that would be effectively 3/4 of the entire population (and end the civil war).
Well if nuclear weapons have been used, bizarrely in a civil war, then you could imagine that population of 1.3 billion is going to be a lot smaller. The significant factors in civil wars tend to be where you fall in terms of local demographics and sectarian division. Around 3m people have been displaced by the Civil war as refugees, around 1/6th of the Population, to Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Turkey. Around 150,000 have applied for Asylum in the EU and another 33,000 placed have been pledged by the EU (85% of which are in Germany). The UNHRC wants to find locations for another 130,000. Quote bright&wright at 02 Sep 2015 4.27pm
I think the fact that we give billions of pounds in foreign aid annually, have done for decades, that we already take in a large number of migrants and that these refugees come from a region of the world that have NEVER been welcoming to any group of people that is not Muslim, have never at any point been an ally to us in any war and would quite happily see Israel wiped off the planet - I'm not really sure we do owe them anything...? Foreign Aid, such as the foreign aid isn't a free hand out. It usually comes with 'cavets' for its use, and often is a loan, usually towards British interests. Well except for Judaism, Christians (about six different types), Zoroastrians, Gnostics, Samaritanists, the Ba'hii, Isikism, Yarsanism, Mandeism, the Druze, Shabakism and Illahism. Then you have the migratory religions, Buddhism has always been popular in middle east, Hinduism and Seikhs also have a presence. Apart from those, the Middle East has always been intolerant of other religions and beliefs. Its important to remember that you cannot define an entire geographical area and people, on the basis of the few that you heard about on the news. Also in regards to War, I'd like to play the Lawrence of Arabia card (not to mention the Arab Legion that fought against the Axis powers). The Axis courted Arab Nationalists but Arabs (which isn't the same as Muslim) fought on both sides.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 02 Sep 15 4.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I think what makes these immigration debates pointless is really that those on the pro side wish to win a philosophical/moral argument regardless of any facts or interpretation of facts while finding it impossible to accept that many others would just prefer it if migrants hadn't come here at all. Which ever side you are on, it surely must be agreed that we now have a whole lot of issues to deal with that we didn't have before. Some will ignore these because they don't fit with their belief system while others will play them up to excuse their own limitations. The truth lies somewhere in the middle I suspect.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 02 Sep 15 4.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 4.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 4.31pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 3.28pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 3.18pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.50pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 1.38pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.32pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 1.27pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 1.15pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 02 Sep 2015 12.55pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Sep 2015 12.31pm
What do the non-working migrants contribute exactly? Bear in mind that those advocating letting everyone in, are talking about letting in migrants who will not be allowed to work. (ps please don't say "let them work then" as they'd need to change that law beforehand, not afterwards.) They probably won't, but then they aren't migrants, they're asylum seekers / refugees. I'm not willing to send people back to war torn s**tholes where rape and murder are domestic policy. And I believe that this should be set not by which country they make it to, but regulated and controlled centrally, with the dispora sent to different countries on a more or less equal basis. I don't advocate letting everyone in, either, never have been, never will be.
Or are you just saying that this should only apply to European countries and we should be dictated to by the EU, despite having the forethought to not join in their ridiculous Schengen zone. I think you really need to look at a UN organization, such as those already involved with refugees or NGO with the idea being to equally distribute the application processing, rather than localize it. Ideally you want an organization that's can process waves of refugees in border states to a crisis as well. They have no power to enforce anything on any country. And what happens when you decide that they have to go to let's say Mexico and they all say no. Then they get to return home. Clearly you can't use countries which are 'unstable' or a 'risk' (can't send a gay man to Angola who's fled Iran) , but clearly if you're not happy relocating to Mexico or Western Super-Mare your life isn't at risk, and you can go back to Syria. That's how I see it. Even Preston should look a better option to someone who is a genuine refugee.
I like the idea but they'll find a reason why they can't go to every country they don't want to go to. Obviously I'm not thinking splitting up families etc. Its not about fair, its about being arbitrary and as fair as possible to all involved. I'm not even sure that the UK constitutes lucking out, I'd have gone with Germany, France, Norway, Belgium Sweden, Holland as being more the 'jackpot'. You know your life sucks if moving to a council estate in Glasgow or Western Super-Mare is 'lucking out' How far are you extending the family to? Adult siblings, cousins, in-laws etc? You might not be, but they seem blindingly sure of it. You know the chance of ending up in either of those two places is few and far between, and then you can simply move on once granted permission to stay. It's not even a arbitary system within the UK, meaning it's not fair on those in the South East. Those currently applying for asylum. So if you escape with your cousins, then yeah. If your cousins later flee then they might have to make do with living in a different country. As for people moving around in the country, that's fair enough, once you've been granted asylum, you're a free citizen. If you're moving to the South East where the employment prospects are probably better, you've already proven yourself above some of the people already here. I would say that until granted asylum, applicants should be more or less distributed across the UK, rather than ghettoized, in any and all areas, not just dumped in the s**ty parts of the UK and left to make the best of it.
No, but they will only get housing benefit and welfare paid in one local council, without an approved movement being approved. I'd also be insistant that they also underwent some skills and language classes during the period of application.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.