This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
No more immigrants.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 matt_himself  Matataland 09 Sep 15 8.07am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Sep 2015 3.43pm
Quote Kermit8 at 08 Sep 2015 1.50pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Sep 2015 1.41pm
Quote Kermit8 at 08 Sep 2015 1.30pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 08 Sep 2015 1.00pm
We have always had immigrants......At a reasonable level I think there is an element of truth in all that guff the politicians want us to believe about immigration being positive......They all say it like a mantra. When I say a reasonable level I mean immigration used as a tool to balance the economy........Though I hasten to add not as tool to drive down wages for several already low paid workforces. Our immigration level should definitely take account of our housing situation. As a country I truly feel we are sticking our collective heads in the sand over housing provision......We are widening the divide between people. Many who work just have no realistic chance of owning their home........The baby boomers had the cream of the chances and have screwed it all up for the next generations. But to go back to my original point, immigration can be positive if it is controlled and takes account of the host population instead of treating them like dumping grounds and culturally rapidly changing the nature of their living spaces......That's what 'freedom of movement' has given us. People talk about London as being a success story......But they ignore that many many people left London because of rapid change.....Many people whose families had lived there for many generations. reasonableness and the immigration debate aren't on the same page. Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Sep 2015 1.01pm)
Something has gone right there since we were kids. It's a lot more varied colourful and interesting and, unfortunately, expensive but it is truly an amazing metropolis. The people make it fascinating imo. Respected by whom? Might be ok for wealthy people and visitors, pretty awful for ordinary people. I hear they are are fleeing to the likes of Devon. My London friends are "ordinary people". They love the place. But I will tell them they are wrong and it is pretty awful for them. Depends where you go in London. Some of its a s**thole, other parts are ok and some parts are really nice. Certainly immigration is neither negative or positive, its both, there are pro's and cons, and even some of those pros and cons vary according to how immigration affects you. The truth is that if you live in a South London say Bermondsey estate or council block, then its probably a negative experience immigration and refugees, but then you're already in one of the most negative aspects of London life anyhow. Its just now you can blame the immigrants, rather than the Housing Crisis, prices in London etc. But in truth, even without the refugees, you're still in a s**ty place, that's always been s**ty. Places like Thorton Heath, Peckham haven't really been made worse by Immigration and Ayslum, they were always s**t. The last paragraph is either based on ignorance or hopeless devotion to multiculturalism. Unfortunately immigration has made places like Thornton Heath worse. There are separate communities living in the same area who view each other as from the moon. The area is far less looked after than 25 years ago, largely due to the number of transient inhabitants. There is more crime and no go areas. Places that brough the community together, like pubs, are now shut down. Unfortunately you don't get to see this unless you live in the area.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| leggedstruggle Croydon 09 Sep 15 8.31am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Sep 2015 3.37pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Sep 2015 3.13pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Sep 2015 1.00pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Sep 2015 11.42am
I'm not sure there are too many ideology politicians left these days. It's all about votes and career. Let no one be under any illusion.They want your vote and your compliance. Anyone who wants a better life has to get it for themselves. Such as by smuggling themselves into the UK?
It is in the end a matter of perspective. My fear for Britain is that this is the thin end of the wedge in the longer term. Borders must be defended if the idea of nations is to be sustained. I wish everyone else a better and more prosperous existence, but not at the expense of myself or my loved ones. Thing is though, Asylum and refugees aren't actually a problem in terms of migration. In most years they're around 5% of the migration into a country, and eclipsed by the number of British people leaving each year. Definitely sustainable What concerns me more is that people simply shift their arguments into more and more hypothetical and rhetorical based justifications. Stats are a favorite tactic of the left. 5% this, 4% that, always presented as if we are starting from scratch, ignoring all the previous waves of immigration. Add up all these 5%s and 4%s and give us the true figures. The tactic is also used with things like terrorism; because you are more likely to be hit by a car than blown up by a religious fanatic, the significance of home terrorism is downplayed. All this is done for political reasons of course, to prop up the left's delusions.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Sep 15 9.52am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 09 Sep 2015 8.31am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Sep 2015 3.37pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Sep 2015 3.13pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Sep 2015 1.00pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Sep 2015 11.42am
I'm not sure there are too many ideology politicians left these days. It's all about votes and career. Let no one be under any illusion.They want your vote and your compliance. Anyone who wants a better life has to get it for themselves. Such as by smuggling themselves into the UK?
It is in the end a matter of perspective. My fear for Britain is that this is the thin end of the wedge in the longer term. Borders must be defended if the idea of nations is to be sustained. I wish everyone else a better and more prosperous existence, but not at the expense of myself or my loved ones. Thing is though, Asylum and refugees aren't actually a problem in terms of migration. In most years they're around 5% of the migration into a country, and eclipsed by the number of British people leaving each year. Definitely sustainable What concerns me more is that people simply shift their arguments into more and more hypothetical and rhetorical based justifications. Stats are a favorite tactic of the left. 5% this, 4% that, always presented as if we are starting from scratch, ignoring all the previous waves of immigration. Add up all these 5%s and 4%s and give us the true figures. The tactic is also used with things like terrorism; because you are more likely to be hit by a car than blown up by a religious fanatic, the significance of home terrorism is downplayed. All this is done for political reasons of course, to prop up the left's delusions. You say that like using mathematical calculations and models is a bad thing. From memory, cited elsewhere in this thread using rough figures: In an average year, the number of Refugees gaining asylum in the UK is around 25,000 (the highest ever was in 2002 where 85,000 were granted asylum). In an average year 350,000 people emigrate or leave the UK, of which 155,000 are UK citizens. In terms of terrorism, only one of the July 7th bombers was not born in the UK, and he was born in Jamaica (and move to the UK aged 5). It should be a concern for vetting and application, but it would be absurd to consider it a major issue. Even in the Lee Rigby murder both of the c**ts were British, neither were granted Asylum (in fact both were Christians who later converted). Only one of the two was born outside the UK, and he became a UK citizen on the basis of his parents moving to the UK to work (one was a nurse and the other in the Nigerian Diplomatic service). None of them were ever granted Asylum. So in terms of the 5% average, its actual fairly insignificant because in every year since recording on Asylum, more British Citizens have left the UK than asylum claims have been granted. In terms of terrorism, none of those who've actually completed a terrorist attack have been granted Asylum (I don't have access to a complete list of every single UK terrorist so I can't look a plots that have been foiled or not resulted in the deaths).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Sep 15 9.58am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 09 Sep 2015 8.07am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Sep 2015 3.43pm
Quote Kermit8 at 08 Sep 2015 1.50pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Sep 2015 1.41pm
Quote Kermit8 at 08 Sep 2015 1.30pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 08 Sep 2015 1.00pm
We have always had immigrants......At a reasonable level I think there is an element of truth in all that guff the politicians want us to believe about immigration being positive......They all say it like a mantra. When I say a reasonable level I mean immigration used as a tool to balance the economy........Though I hasten to add not as tool to drive down wages for several already low paid workforces. Our immigration level should definitely take account of our housing situation. As a country I truly feel we are sticking our collective heads in the sand over housing provision......We are widening the divide between people. Many who work just have no realistic chance of owning their home........The baby boomers had the cream of the chances and have screwed it all up for the next generations. But to go back to my original point, immigration can be positive if it is controlled and takes account of the host population instead of treating them like dumping grounds and culturally rapidly changing the nature of their living spaces......That's what 'freedom of movement' has given us. People talk about London as being a success story......But they ignore that many many people left London because of rapid change.....Many people whose families had lived there for many generations. reasonableness and the immigration debate aren't on the same page. Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Sep 2015 1.01pm)
Something has gone right there since we were kids. It's a lot more varied colourful and interesting and, unfortunately, expensive but it is truly an amazing metropolis. The people make it fascinating imo. Respected by whom? Might be ok for wealthy people and visitors, pretty awful for ordinary people. I hear they are are fleeing to the likes of Devon. My London friends are "ordinary people". They love the place. But I will tell them they are wrong and it is pretty awful for them. Depends where you go in London. Some of its a s**thole, other parts are ok and some parts are really nice. Certainly immigration is neither negative or positive, its both, there are pro's and cons, and even some of those pros and cons vary according to how immigration affects you. The truth is that if you live in a South London say Bermondsey estate or council block, then its probably a negative experience immigration and refugees, but then you're already in one of the most negative aspects of London life anyhow. Its just now you can blame the immigrants, rather than the Housing Crisis, prices in London etc. But in truth, even without the refugees, you're still in a s**ty place, that's always been s**ty. Places like Thorton Heath, Peckham haven't really been made worse by Immigration and Ayslum, they were always s**t. The last paragraph is either based on ignorance or hopeless devotion to multiculturalism. Unfortunately immigration has made places like Thornton Heath worse. There are separate communities living in the same area who view each other as from the moon. The area is far less looked after than 25 years ago, largely due to the number of transient inhabitants. There is more crime and no go areas. Places that brough the community together, like pubs, are now shut down. Unfortunately you don't get to see this unless you live in the area. My family come from the area, Thorton Heath has always been a s**t hole, Croydon has always been crap as has Peckham. They've also always had high crime rates. They're worse now definitely, but its not just immigration, the death of Industry in the UK really created problems of low wages and unemployment in South London. The crime is different to some extent, but South London has always had a problem with Gangs, right back since the 60s. The Flying Squad identified South London as being a principle location of threat for Armed Robbery. People tend to romanticize the past. Violence was common place in the 70s and 80s, in a way it isn't now, and it was largely much more tolerated. Youths fighting youths in the streets isn't a new thing. As for the pubs shutting down, that's a phenomena that has even affect largely white areas. Even out in the countryside of Oxfordshire and Berkshire, we are seeing the same thing.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Sep 15 10.09am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 09 Sep 2015 8.07am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Sep 2015 3.43pm
Quote Kermit8 at 08 Sep 2015 1.50pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Sep 2015 1.41pm
Quote Kermit8 at 08 Sep 2015 1.30pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 08 Sep 2015 1.00pm
We have always had immigrants......At a reasonable level I think there is an element of truth in all that guff the politicians want us to believe about immigration being positive......They all say it like a mantra. When I say a reasonable level I mean immigration used as a tool to balance the economy........Though I hasten to add not as tool to drive down wages for several already low paid workforces. Our immigration level should definitely take account of our housing situation. As a country I truly feel we are sticking our collective heads in the sand over housing provision......We are widening the divide between people. Many who work just have no realistic chance of owning their home........The baby boomers had the cream of the chances and have screwed it all up for the next generations. But to go back to my original point, immigration can be positive if it is controlled and takes account of the host population instead of treating them like dumping grounds and culturally rapidly changing the nature of their living spaces......That's what 'freedom of movement' has given us. People talk about London as being a success story......But they ignore that many many people left London because of rapid change.....Many people whose families had lived there for many generations. reasonableness and the immigration debate aren't on the same page. Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Sep 2015 1.01pm)
Something has gone right there since we were kids. It's a lot more varied colourful and interesting and, unfortunately, expensive but it is truly an amazing metropolis. The people make it fascinating imo. Respected by whom? Might be ok for wealthy people and visitors, pretty awful for ordinary people. I hear they are are fleeing to the likes of Devon. My London friends are "ordinary people". They love the place. But I will tell them they are wrong and it is pretty awful for them. Depends where you go in London. Some of its a s**thole, other parts are ok and some parts are really nice. Certainly immigration is neither negative or positive, its both, there are pro's and cons, and even some of those pros and cons vary according to how immigration affects you. The truth is that if you live in a South London say Bermondsey estate or council block, then its probably a negative experience immigration and refugees, but then you're already in one of the most negative aspects of London life anyhow. Its just now you can blame the immigrants, rather than the Housing Crisis, prices in London etc. But in truth, even without the refugees, you're still in a s**ty place, that's always been s**ty. Places like Thorton Heath, Peckham haven't really been made worse by Immigration and Ayslum, they were always s**t. The last paragraph is either based on ignorance or hopeless devotion to multiculturalism. I live in Reading, worked in Slough for 10 years. I'm fairly well experienced in living in social areas of different ethnic groups and cultures. Most seem to get along fairly well and integrated well, and a minority of all groups seem to have an chip on their shoulder about other groups (including whites). Maybe its just my experience that in the main most people get along to get along, mix fairly well in work and socially, and its the exceptions who seem to isolate themselves and blame others (usually a phenomena of the poor areas, with high unemployment).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 09 Sep 15 10.13am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Sep 2015 9.52am
Quote leggedstruggle at 09 Sep 2015 8.31am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Sep 2015 3.37pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Sep 2015 3.13pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Sep 2015 1.00pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Sep 2015 11.42am
I'm not sure there are too many ideology politicians left these days. It's all about votes and career. Let no one be under any illusion.They want your vote and your compliance. Anyone who wants a better life has to get it for themselves. Such as by smuggling themselves into the UK?
It is in the end a matter of perspective. My fear for Britain is that this is the thin end of the wedge in the longer term. Borders must be defended if the idea of nations is to be sustained. I wish everyone else a better and more prosperous existence, but not at the expense of myself or my loved ones. Thing is though, Asylum and refugees aren't actually a problem in terms of migration. In most years they're around 5% of the migration into a country, and eclipsed by the number of British people leaving each year. Definitely sustainable What concerns me more is that people simply shift their arguments into more and more hypothetical and rhetorical based justifications. Stats are a favorite tactic of the left. 5% this, 4% that, always presented as if we are starting from scratch, ignoring all the previous waves of immigration. Add up all these 5%s and 4%s and give us the true figures. The tactic is also used with things like terrorism; because you are more likely to be hit by a car than blown up by a religious fanatic, the significance of home terrorism is downplayed. All this is done for political reasons of course, to prop up the left's delusions. You say that like using mathematical calculations and models is a bad thing. From memory, cited elsewhere in this thread using rough figures: In an average year, the number of Refugees gaining asylum in the UK is around 25,000 (the highest ever was in 2002 where 85,000 were granted asylum). In an average year 350,000 people emigrate or leave the UK, of which 155,000 are UK citizens. In terms of terrorism, only one of the July 7th bombers was not born in the UK, and he was born in Jamaica (and move to the UK aged 5). It should be a concern for vetting and application, but it would be absurd to consider it a major issue. Even in the Lee Rigby murder both of the c**ts were British, neither were granted Asylum (in fact both were Christians who later converted). Only one of the two was born outside the UK, and he became a UK citizen on the basis of his parents moving to the UK to work (one was a nurse and the other in the Nigerian Diplomatic service). None of them were ever granted Asylum. So in terms of the 5% average, its actual fairly insignificant because in every year since recording on Asylum, more British Citizens have left the UK than asylum claims have been granted. In terms of terrorism, none of those who've actually completed a terrorist attack have been granted Asylum (I don't have access to a complete list of every single UK terrorist so I can't look a plots that have been foiled or not resulted in the deaths). I am not saying asylum seekers are terrorists which I think you are implying I am for some reason? Certainly all the recent homegrown terrorists have foreign 'hertitage' though. Another poster has pointed out that IS has stated that it will get terrorists into Europe posing as refugees. The playing down of the seriousness of terrorism is the UK is illustrated by a past poster on this very forum, who argued that the Rigby murder was insignificant as more people died from food allergies - surprised you have not used this 'mathematical calculation and model' in your smoke and mirrors.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 09 Sep 15 10.19am |
|
|---|---|
|
The 20,000 Syrians who will come to the UK over the next 5 years will not begin to satisfy the likes of Yvette Cooper and some left-wingers who seemingly want open access for the world's suffering people.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Sep 15 11.17am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 09 Sep 2015 10.13am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Sep 2015 9.52am
Quote leggedstruggle at 09 Sep 2015 8.31am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Sep 2015 3.37pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Sep 2015 3.13pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Sep 2015 1.00pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Sep 2015 11.42am
I'm not sure there are too many ideology politicians left these days. It's all about votes and career. Let no one be under any illusion.They want your vote and your compliance. Anyone who wants a better life has to get it for themselves. Such as by smuggling themselves into the UK?
It is in the end a matter of perspective. My fear for Britain is that this is the thin end of the wedge in the longer term. Borders must be defended if the idea of nations is to be sustained. I wish everyone else a better and more prosperous existence, but not at the expense of myself or my loved ones. Thing is though, Asylum and refugees aren't actually a problem in terms of migration. In most years they're around 5% of the migration into a country, and eclipsed by the number of British people leaving each year. Definitely sustainable What concerns me more is that people simply shift their arguments into more and more hypothetical and rhetorical based justifications. Stats are a favorite tactic of the left. 5% this, 4% that, always presented as if we are starting from scratch, ignoring all the previous waves of immigration. Add up all these 5%s and 4%s and give us the true figures. The tactic is also used with things like terrorism; because you are more likely to be hit by a car than blown up by a religious fanatic, the significance of home terrorism is downplayed. All this is done for political reasons of course, to prop up the left's delusions. You say that like using mathematical calculations and models is a bad thing. From memory, cited elsewhere in this thread using rough figures: In an average year, the number of Refugees gaining asylum in the UK is around 25,000 (the highest ever was in 2002 where 85,000 were granted asylum). In an average year 350,000 people emigrate or leave the UK, of which 155,000 are UK citizens. In terms of terrorism, only one of the July 7th bombers was not born in the UK, and he was born in Jamaica (and move to the UK aged 5). It should be a concern for vetting and application, but it would be absurd to consider it a major issue. Even in the Lee Rigby murder both of the c**ts were British, neither were granted Asylum (in fact both were Christians who later converted). Only one of the two was born outside the UK, and he became a UK citizen on the basis of his parents moving to the UK to work (one was a nurse and the other in the Nigerian Diplomatic service). None of them were ever granted Asylum. So in terms of the 5% average, its actual fairly insignificant because in every year since recording on Asylum, more British Citizens have left the UK than asylum claims have been granted. In terms of terrorism, none of those who've actually completed a terrorist attack have been granted Asylum (I don't have access to a complete list of every single UK terrorist so I can't look a plots that have been foiled or not resulted in the deaths). I am not saying asylum seekers are terrorists which I think you are implying I am for some reason? Certainly all the recent homegrown terrorists have foreign 'hertitage' though. Another poster has pointed out that IS has stated that it will get terrorists into Europe posing as refugees. The playing down of the seriousness of terrorism is the UK is illustrated by a past poster on this very forum, who argued that the Rigby murder was insignificant as more people died from food allergies - surprised you have not used this 'mathematical calculation and model' in your smoke and mirrors. A foreign heritage. So that's the issue, people with a foreign heritage are more likely, but incredibly unlikely, to be or become terrorists. Of course people with foreign heritage also end up joining the army, police (in fact far more do than become terrorists). But we should always focus on the negative aspect, rather than be realistic and look at it as a comparison. Lee Rigby was murdered, by two British citizens, who converted to fundamentalist Islam. Its a tragedy, and rightly demonized, the issue I had with how quickly it was co-opted by the far right and certain media elements as being anything other than a very unusual, and uncommon event, into a cause of anti-migration and anti-Muslim propaganda. Both prior to this were Christians (as was one of the July 7th terrorists) maybe we should consider Christians a risk? Nearly all of the UK Islamist terrorist murders in the UK, have involved someone who converted from Christianity. Of course we shouldn't it would be as absurd as basing any kind of policy decision about foreign heritage as being linked to terrorism. Its also worth noting, that its an assumption that many of those fleeing Syria are Muslims. The risk of IS infiltrating as refugees should be considered, obviously, but in terms of getting people into the UK, its a very poor tactic, given we believe 500-1000 British citizens are currently part of IS, and could fairly easily come back to the UK (being british, having passports etc). I suspect a large percentage are unknown to the authorities as being in Syria. Plus the waiting isn't condusive to IS tactics (which tend not to be very long term elaborate plans like Al-Qaeda, but short term and based around people who've returned from IS territory). They could be in refugee camps for several years before being sent to a country which even then is unlikely to be a country involved in the bombing).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Sep 15 11.21am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Willo at 09 Sep 2015 10.19am
The 20,000 Syrians who will come to the UK over the next 5 years will not begin to satisfy the likes of Yvette Cooper and some left-wingers who seemingly want open access for the world's suffering people. Who are these left wingers who want open access. I thought they wanted the UK to consider people for Asylum who had fled Syria. That isn't open access. The UK turns down 59% of Asylum Applications. Its not just the left wing. I noticed that a right wing government has being providing money to Syrian refugee relief and already given 5155 Syrians Asylum since the war started. Have the Conservative party become left wing?
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| rob1969 Banstead Surrey 09 Sep 15 11.26am |
|
|---|---|
|
Getting away from the usual Left v Right argument on here for a moment. Seems that the Germans are suffering a lack of children and as result their population is expected to decline by 10M odd by 2060.. Hence they need migrants and preferably young, fit, males - who can work and contribute to the German economy - as are majority of those now making their way to Germany. By contract the |UK population is expected to increase to over 80million by 2060 - giving the UK the biggest population in Europe and in the case of England the most dense. Hence we do not need a major influx of migrants. Also DC stated intention of only taking migrants from the exiting refugee camps around Syria means they will mainly be women, children and the elderly. Those most likely to be unproductive and costly to keep.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 09 Sep 15 11.44am |
|
|---|---|
|
This the reality. That my friends is the bottom line.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 09 Sep 15 11.48am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Sep 2015 11.17am
Quote leggedstruggle at 09 Sep 2015 10.13am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Sep 2015 9.52am
Quote leggedstruggle at 09 Sep 2015 8.31am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Sep 2015 3.37pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Sep 2015 3.13pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Sep 2015 1.00pm
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 08 Sep 2015 11.42am
I'm not sure there are too many ideology politicians left these days. It's all about votes and career. Let no one be under any illusion.They want your vote and your compliance. Anyone who wants a better life has to get it for themselves. Such as by smuggling themselves into the UK?
It is in the end a matter of perspective. My fear for Britain is that this is the thin end of the wedge in the longer term. Borders must be defended if the idea of nations is to be sustained. I wish everyone else a better and more prosperous existence, but not at the expense of myself or my loved ones. Thing is though, Asylum and refugees aren't actually a problem in terms of migration. In most years they're around 5% of the migration into a country, and eclipsed by the number of British people leaving each year. Definitely sustainable What concerns me more is that people simply shift their arguments into more and more hypothetical and rhetorical based justifications. Stats are a favorite tactic of the left. 5% this, 4% that, always presented as if we are starting from scratch, ignoring all the previous waves of immigration. Add up all these 5%s and 4%s and give us the true figures. The tactic is also used with things like terrorism; because you are more likely to be hit by a car than blown up by a religious fanatic, the significance of home terrorism is downplayed. All this is done for political reasons of course, to prop up the left's delusions. You say that like using mathematical calculations and models is a bad thing. From memory, cited elsewhere in this thread using rough figures: In an average year, the number of Refugees gaining asylum in the UK is around 25,000 (the highest ever was in 2002 where 85,000 were granted asylum). In an average year 350,000 people emigrate or leave the UK, of which 155,000 are UK citizens. In terms of terrorism, only one of the July 7th bombers was not born in the UK, and he was born in Jamaica (and move to the UK aged 5). It should be a concern for vetting and application, but it would be absurd to consider it a major issue. Even in the Lee Rigby murder both of the c**ts were British, neither were granted Asylum (in fact both were Christians who later converted). Only one of the two was born outside the UK, and he became a UK citizen on the basis of his parents moving to the UK to work (one was a nurse and the other in the Nigerian Diplomatic service). None of them were ever granted Asylum. So in terms of the 5% average, its actual fairly insignificant because in every year since recording on Asylum, more British Citizens have left the UK than asylum claims have been granted. In terms of terrorism, none of those who've actually completed a terrorist attack have been granted Asylum (I don't have access to a complete list of every single UK terrorist so I can't look a plots that have been foiled or not resulted in the deaths). I am not saying asylum seekers are terrorists which I think you are implying I am for some reason? Certainly all the recent homegrown terrorists have foreign 'hertitage' though. Another poster has pointed out that IS has stated that it will get terrorists into Europe posing as refugees. The playing down of the seriousness of terrorism is the UK is illustrated by a past poster on this very forum, who argued that the Rigby murder was insignificant as more people died from food allergies - surprised you have not used this 'mathematical calculation and model' in your smoke and mirrors. A foreign heritage. So that's the issue, people with a foreign heritage are more likely, but incredibly unlikely, to be or become terrorists. Of course people with foreign heritage also end up joining the army, police (in fact far more do than become terrorists). But we should always focus on the negative aspect, rather than be realistic and look at it as a comparison. Lee Rigby was murdered, by two British citizens, who converted to fundamentalist Islam. Its a tragedy, and rightly demonized, the issue I had with how quickly it was co-opted by the far right and certain media elements as being anything other than a very unusual, and uncommon event, into a cause of anti-migration and anti-Muslim propaganda. Both prior to this were Christians (as was one of the July 7th terrorists) maybe we should consider Christians a risk? Nearly all of the UK Islamist terrorist murders in the UK, have involved someone who converted from Christianity. Of course we shouldn't it would be as absurd as basing any kind of policy decision about foreign heritage as being linked to terrorism. Its also worth noting, that its an assumption that many of those fleeing Syria are Muslims. The risk of IS infiltrating as refugees should be considered, obviously, but in terms of getting people into the UK, its a very poor tactic, given we believe 500-1000 British citizens are currently part of IS, and could fairly easily come back to the UK (being british, having passports etc). I suspect a large percentage are unknown to the authorities as being in Syria. Plus the waiting isn't condusive to IS tactics (which tend not to be very long term elaborate plans like Al-Qaeda, but short term and based around people who've returned from IS territory). They could be in refugee camps for several years before being sent to a country which even then is unlikely to be a country involved in the bombing). So recent terrorism has nothing top do with Islam. Perhaps, as Rod Liddle suggests, we should start calling them " ‘Really Bloody Horrible People Who Have Nothing To Do With Islam’? It’s a bit of a mouthful, I admit, but it gets the message across and it will please the imams over here. Or some of them, at least. So the next time something horrible happens, Huw Edwards could say: ‘And the BBC has just learned that this latest atrocity, in which 70 people were decapitated, has been carried out by Really Bloody Horrible People Who Have Nothing To Do With Islam. And now here’s Lizzie with all the sports news." Should we consider all Christians a risk? No, none of them have carried out recent terrorist attacks, they have all been by people who are Muslim - recent converts or not. But of course it has nothing to do with Islam.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| 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.