Dickheads go home !

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
So you are a more capable judge of morale

I'll say this once and once only. Nothing annoys me more than an inability to distinguish between morals and morale. I don't care how well written or how cleverly argued your point is, no matter what the topic, if you confuse morals with morale you are immediately assigned the mental label of '****tard'.

[Vaio]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
I'll say this once and once only. Nothing annoys me more than an inability to distinguish between morals and morale. I don't care how well written or how cleverly argued your point is, no matter what the topic, if you confuse morals with morale you are immediately assigned the mental label of '****tard'.

Careful Gayle, he called me a racist, he will be calling you an english teacher next

Vaio

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
I'll say this once and once only. Nothing annoys me more than an inability to distinguish between morals and morale. I don't care how well written or how cleverly argued your point is, no matter what the topic, if you confuse morals with morale you are immediately assigned the mental label of '****tard'.

Sorry. I'm from Norway.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
Sorry. I'm from Norway.

It's an unbelievably common mistake (obviously I don't mean being from Norway).

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
It's an unbelievably common mistake (obviously I don't mean being from Norway).

Sure, and I cannot say I've given it alot of thought. It's hardly relevant as you got my point tho.
Thanks for letting me know anyways.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Silver Smoke
Narrow-minded

POT TO KETTLE, COME IN KETTLE! YOU ARE BLACK, I REPEAT, YOU ARE BLACK!

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
POT TO KETTLE, COME IN KETTLE! YOU ARE BLACK, I REPEAT, YOU ARE BLACK!

You have reached your assigned amount of funnyness for today.

[Dace]

If someone is willing to die (by killing themselves) in Britain so they are not 'oppressed' in their own country why dont they go back to their own country and give their life against a regime that they see as oppressive?!

This way they help out their fellow countrymen.

Lots of Brits died fighting so they could live they way they choose (lo English Civil war lo Scots fighting English rule etc). If we had to do it i dont see why some other country gets 'let off the hook'.

**** 'em.

Also ... Britain gets like 120k immigrants a year (which is something like 20% of ALL IMMIGRANTS IN THE WORLD). All these immigrants are coming to a country which has about the highest population density of any country on earth. Can all you immigrants please **** off.

[Vaio]

racist

Vaio

[SilverSmoke]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
POT TO KETTLE, COME IN KETTLE! YOU ARE BLACK, I REPEAT, YOU ARE BLACK!

ah ****, didnt delete it fast enough. Actually I still stand my opinion about you but didnt want to start some flame crap.

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Dace
If someone is willing to die (by killing themselves) in Britain so they are not 'oppressed' in their own country why dont they go back to their own country and give their life against a regime that they see as oppressive?!

This way they help out their fellow countrymen.

Lots of Brits died fighting so they could live they way they choose (lo English Civil war lo Scots fighting English rule etc). If we had to do it i dont see why some other country gets 'let off the hook'.

**** 'em.

Also ... Britain gets like 120k immigrants a year (which is something like 20% of ALL IMMIGRANTS IN THE WORLD). All these immigrants are coming to a country which has about the highest population density of any country on earth. Can all you immigrants please **** off.

Yeah.. Go suicide bomb someone, while we sit and watch passivly. This will contribute to a better world; immensly![/irony]

[HAL-9000]

Immigrants come here and sponge off of us, getting given a house, free healthcare and no need to pay taxes. The fact that they are illegal means they generally can't get a job so they turn to crime, yadda yadda yadda. I say shoot on site. Bloody sponging bastards.

[SilverSmoke]

Originally posted by HAL-9000
Immigrants come here and sponge off of us, getting given a house, free healthcare and no need to pay taxes. The fact that they are illegal means they generally can't get a job so they turn to crime, yadda yadda yadda. I say shoot on site. Bloody sponging bastards.

maybe you should shoot your government, or actually that genius Tony Blair, he loves shooting anyway.

[HAL-9000]

Originally posted by SilverSmoke
maybe you should shoot your government, or actually that genius Tony Blair, he loves shooting anyway.

Bah don't start talking about that goddamn idiot. How the hell did he get voted in for a second term?! I'da thought the petrol problem and the continued strikes by the rail network, the tube network, lotsa lorry drivers, etc. would have been enough to prove how incapable he is. The NHS is going down the pan and the immigration problem (yes it is a problem) is not helping things at all! I hope they find that the Iraq Dossier was in fact 'sexed up ' (who the hell came up with that term anyway? They stick pictures of scantilly clad ladies in the dossier or something?) so he is forced to resign. ROFL and now people are talking about him running for president of the USA. Let them have him. They won't be a superpower for long with him in charge!

[Cynical Oracle]

Obviously, this all boils down to your vote. Why don't you make a difference? Fight your dictatorship regieme!

[HAL-9000]

Lib Dems - no more tuition fees ahoy!

[Cynical Oracle]

This has become rediculous. Post a relevant argument, counter mine or be in any other way constructive and I'll continue. Untill then, bye bye.

[queball]

If there is a country with millions of people living in fear, why should we take any in when we know we can't accept them all? What's wrong with helping people in their own country?

The legalistic argument, that deporting someone is murder, is ridiculous. In cases where someone is in particular danger the officials do their best to take asylum seekers as they are obliged to under international law. If that fails then, well, so be it. That's the best system we have.

[1-X]

"I'm not a racist but..."

if these immigrants were genuine asylum seekers, why do they travel thousands more miles to get to the UK after crossing the border into their nearest safe neighbour?

We can't blame (for example) africans with aids for travelling to the UK where they can get thousands of pounds worth of free treatment that wouldn't be available to them at home, but at the end of the day, it's our own families that are going without to pay for it.

I hate the thought of genuine asylum seekers being rejected or assaulted because of the actions of economic/health migrants.

Maybe the government thinks public resentment will dissuade future immigrants (wishful thinking?) and are happy it detracts from other issues (until the next election)

Finally, there is a tendency to think of racism as a one way process, ie white > minorities. On the news last night was a man in birmingham proclaiming that september 11th was a miracle. I can't think of a good reason not to put him on a plane out of the country immediately, and this goes some way to explaining while the educated tolerant european neighbour is welcomed when the unskilled western-hating muslim is not. While that is a generalisation, it's also the public perception and therefore however unfair, the way it is.

[Vaio]

Originally posted by queball
If there is a country with millions of people living in fear, why should we take any in when we know we can't accept them all? What's wrong with helping people in their own country?

The legalistic argument, that deporting someone is murder, is ridiculous. In cases where someone is in particular danger the officials do their best to take asylum seekers as they are obliged to under international law. If that fails then, well, so be it. That's the best system we have.

Racist

Vaio

[HAL-9000]

There is a law stating that any immigrants should remain in their nearest safe neighbour. In our case the majority of immigrants come here after crossing many borders and arrive from France - STAY THERE FOR GODS SAKE WE DON'T WANT YOU!

[Vaio]

Originally posted by 1-X
"I'm not a racist but..."

if these immigrants were genuine asylum seekers, why do they travel thousands more miles to get to the UK after crossing the border into their nearest safe neighbour?

We can't blame (for example) africans with aids for travelling to the UK where they can get thousands of pounds worth of free treatment that wouldn't be available to them at home, but at the end of the day, it's our own families that are going without to pay for it.

I hate the thought of genuine asylum seekers being rejected or assaulted because of the actions of economic/health migrants.

Maybe the government thinks public resentment will dissuade future immigrants (wishful thinking?) and are happy it detracts from other issues (until the next election)

Finally, there is a tendency to think of racism as a one way process, ie white > minorities. On the news last night was a man in birmingham proclaiming that september 11th was a miracle. I can't think of a good reason not to put him on a plane out of the country immediately, and this goes some way to explaining while the educated tolerant european neighbour is welcomed when the unskilled western-hating muslim is not. While that is a generalisation, it's also the public perception and therefore however unfair, the way it is.

Racist

Vaio

[Vaio]

I'm using Cynical Orange's criteria in suggesting certain people are racist btw it's not as if I would even consider thinking they are actually racist

Vaio

[queball]

Originally posted by Vaio
I'm using Cynical Orange's criteria in suggesting certain people are racist btw it's not as if I would even consider thinking they are actually racist

Vaio

Racist.

[W]

Not all immigrants are illegal. Most imigrants pay the same taxes as everyone else. And even illegal imigrants usually have alot better reason for breaking the law than most non-immigrants. It surprises me to see people who break stupid laws like copyrights and speeding limits argue against illegal immigrants solely on the basis that they're breaking the law by being in the country. Someone missed the definition of principles.

That said, I've no understanding at all of those who suicide like this. Wouldn't a better form of suicide be to get sendt back to the home country, and shout out your protest there? Or even try to actually LIVE with things.

[Nusselt]

im still unclear as to the argument behind the original post.

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

As said many, many times before; Why do they come to england?
There are so many other countries without oppressive regiemes, they even have to travel through some of them to get here.

[Dace]

Originally posted by W
That said, I've no understanding at all of those who suicide like this. Wouldn't a better form of suicide be to get sendt back to the home country, and shout out your protest there? Or even try to actually LIVE with things.

That's what i said.

[Nusselt]

Originally posted by Cmdr_Cyrax
As said many, many times before; Why do they come to england?
There are so many other countries without oppressive regiemes, they even have to travel through some of them to get here.

i still fail to see how this links to the original post,



in answer to your specific question most (globally) dont come here, the ones that do are apparently under the mistaken impression that we'll be helpful, many probably do come for economic reasons, to make some money to either rebuild their lives or improve them.

The biggest numbers have been from Iraq, but thats ok we've gone there and 'liberated' them now, if you believe that they came here for economic reasons then we are accountable, we helped impose sanctions in their country that led to the economic situation its in. If you believe that the iraqi people are a lot freer now, and that they were abused etc under sadam hussien then do they or dont they fit the criteria for someone seeking asylum?


The second biggest are from zimbabwe, do i really need to argue for the reasons why they come?

The third biggest numbers are from afghanistan, now as ive argued before a case can be and has been made that they should return and rebuild now that afghanistan has a new goverement, however an equally valid case can be made that the security situation in afghanistan is far from stable and the country far from secure.



Britain is a first world country with the worlds fourth largest economy, most people fleeing do indeed go to neighbouring countries that are themselves third world nations, but you know what they dont bitch half as much as we do. If Britain sits on the security council and thinks itself capable of helping to make decisions that affect the planet, then its more then capable enough to deal with the consequences.

[Nusselt]

Originally posted by W

That said, I've no understanding at all of those who suicide like this. Wouldn't a better form of suicide be to get sendt back to the home country, and shout out your protest there? Or even try to actually LIVE with things.

Hey the palastinians dont come here they commit suicide against their oppressors glad to see you agree

[queball]

This guy was Iranian.

[Nusselt]

Originally posted by queball
This guy was Iranian.

was he here for economic reasons? if so are we in any way affecting the iranian economy through the imposition of sanctions?


was he fleeing persecution? in which case he would kill himself rather than go back

[Dace]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
For starters I don't see any problem with economic migration, from a capitalist perspective we havea globalised economy so we should have a globalized labour market, furthermore is anyone honestly suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to go to another country in the hope of finding a job?

You might not see a problem with it however as you are not an economist i would rather not take your opinion.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Secondly as I understand it asylum seekers aren't actually allowed to work in this country for the first 6 months of their stay so it's a bit hard to call them scroungers. Also those who are turned down from asylum status aren't given any state benefits, or allowed to work. They aren't being deported so they have no choice but to beg or to starve.

What would you call someone who receives state benefit other than a scrounger?

Also, no choice but to beg or starve???

I've got a third option ... CRIME you dumb ****.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Thirdly how much oppression counts as oppression? If the police came round your house and threatened you, does that count as a reason to leave, or should they wait to be imprisoned or have their thumbs broken?

Look it's their country and it's their problem. During the English rule of Scotland (har har its still going on ... but im talking a while back) English Lords in Scotland got to rape whoever they wanted. **** happens. As a country we've learnt to deal with it and we came out alright. Let them deal with it and maybe they'll come out a better nation because of it.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Fourthly we need immigrants in this country, Asylum seekers don't cost us that much money and in fact the economic benefits of immigration are there for all to see, go to your local high street and look at the shops, mostly immigrant entrepeneurs. Asian and European children actually do better at school then English kids.

We dont need that many immigrants. What part of 120 THOUSAND a year do you not understand?

Also, YOU ARE TALKING COMPLETELY OUT OF YOUR ARSE ON THE 'Asian Kids do better at School than English kids' front. I saw the stats and some asians did slightly better and some asians did worse.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Fifthly I doubt anyone could say that immigrants don't work hard, presumably it was hard enough to get to this country in the first place and they are prepared to work like 4 jobs without sleep or shelter in order to raise money for their families. Furthermore if you look at the working conditions in the developing world it would make most of our careers look like some sort of dream holiday.

Immigrants dont work hard.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Finally I was in the holocaust exhibition the other day and it turns out then people said much the same things about the jews when they were fleeing Nazi Germany. They were supposed to be Lazy and greedy they were supposed to be disease ridden and immoral, and "there was just no room for them". Sure it was a terrible tragedy but someone else would just have to look after them.

Your logic is terrible. I'm reminded of my mother who uses such things as "you should look before you jump" to back up her argument on say why i should clean my room. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING MIGHT BE TRUE YOU CANNOT LINK IT TO ANOTHER THING AND THEN MAKE THE OTHER THING TRUE AS WELL.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
With regards to this particular story I think that the Kafkarian nightmare that is the British benefits and immigration system would drive people to anythinig. Imagine being kept waiting to be processed for 6 moths only to be turned down for an application. This guy was from Iran right, is anyone denying that there is oppression in Iran?

YES IMAGINE BEING KEPT WAITING 6 MONTHS IN THIS COUNTRY WHEN YOU SHOULDNT BE HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. OHHH NOES WHAT A TERRIBLE TRAGEDY!!!!!!1111

If there is oppression then he (and all the other immigrants) should do something about it. Doing something about it does not mean coming to Britain to try and live here. That is just trying to forget about the problem.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Back in 2001 Jack Straw sent someone back to Iraq!!! saying that "he believed they would receive a fair trial" 1 year later he was describing the Iraqi governments as one of the worst in history. For heavens sake we should have more sympathy and I am proud to say that our country is one of the most culturally diverse in the world.

Errmmmm dont you have to villainise (sp?) a country before you can go to war with it and steal its oil?

Dont confuse one issue with another.

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
It's pretty easy to be an illegal immigrant, lets remmeber that these people are not criminals, their crime is not of their choosing and they have not harmed you, so they are merely untouchables, persecuted by the state, for no particular reason. It's shameful.

Technically they have harmed me (crime etc).

And persecuted by the state? Which state? Ours? We send them back if they dont fall withing the guidlines. That aint persecution thats following laws laid out by lots of countries. Persecution by their own country? If they dont like the way their country is run they should do something about it.



STOP BEING SO ****ING STUPID!

[Dante Hicks]

They are only 'illegal' immigrants because we make it illegal to enter Britain except in certain conditions. These conditions are quite difficult to meet, especially if you're coming from a country like Iraq, Iran or wherever. Hell, when my wife came to the UK it was a bloody nightmare making her a 'legal' migrant and that's where we both speak the language, have a home, jobs, references, etc.

Most people who travel are probably economic migrants, but because of our stupid laws (as T&F mentioned) they aren't actually allowed to work. That's right folks, capital can flow all around the world without a care in the world, but if labour tries it...

I don't see why people are so bitter about economic migrants anyway. They do most of the ****ty jobs that British people don't want to do - and keeps wages artificially low for all you capitalists out there. Plus, we can ignore Northern Europe's stupid birth rate and continue on with the atomised joke of a 'society' we've managed to create, pretending nothing is wrong.

As Nod is fond of saying, if you are happy with English people who pay no taxes getting 'free houses' (not that it works like that) why does it matter if foriegn people do it? If it's simply a matter of people getting free access to resources then surely abolishing the welfare state or the NHS would be a smarter first move - rather than worrying about the country of residence of the users of such services.

p.s. While specific individuals may or may not be "racist" this entire debate is centred around race or culture. If someone migrates from Ireland, or Canada, or New Zealand and chooses to live in an English small town they will probably be mildly accepted. If a Somalian does the same thing we will have issues about "whether they fit in", or "upset the balance of the area". It strikes me as a lot more honest to say we don't want any ******s in our country, if that's the consensus.

[_RATM_]

DACE FOR ****ING GOD! \o/
VOTE DACE!

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Dace
We dont need that many immigrants. What part of 120 THOUSAND a year do you not understand?

"The Government could give a lead in Europe. After too many years of scrabbling for solutions, the Home Office is considering a proposal to double the permitted number of short-term economic migrants to 120,000 a year, because we need them."

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/asylu...722580,00.html

[Dace]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
They are only 'illegal' immigrants because we make it illegal to enter Britain except in certain conditions.

Just like murderers are only in jail because we made that illegal too.

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
As Nod is fond of saying, if you are happy with English people who pay no taxes getting 'free houses' (not that it works like that) why does it matter if foriegn people do it?

It is to do with genetics. You dont mind so much someone who shares alot of genes with you surviving because it means part of you survives too etc. These foreigners are less closely related to me than the scum from this country who scrounge off the state.

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
p.s. While specific individuals may or may not be "racist" this entire debate is centred around race or culture. If someone migrates from Ireland, or Canada, or New Zealand and chooses to live in an English small town they will probably be mildly accepted. If a Somalian does the same thing we will have issues about "whether they fit in", or "upset the balance of the area". It strikes me as a lot more honest to say we don't want any ******s in our country, if that's the consensus.

See my 'gene argument' again here. People from those countries are probably from Britain (generations back) anyway so people wont care as much.

Also culture does have a part to play. We have a culture which works for us. If it gets warped/diluted/whatever by too much outside influence too quickly then this successful culture might end up ****ing upand becoming ****. Change is what people are worried about especially when change is only liable to make things worse (statistically/logically speaking).

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Originally posted by Nusselt
i still fail to see how this links to the original post,

If he genuinely wanted protection from persicution in his native country he'd apply for assylum in another 'safe' country when Britain refused him.

If he wanted to stay in Britain at any cost he'd do something drastic that would bring sympathy to his cause.

[Dace]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
"The Government could give a lead in Europe. After too many years of scrabbling for solutions, the Home Office is considering a proposal to double the permitted number of short-term economic migrants to 120,000 a year, because we need them."

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/asylu...722580,00.html

I got my figures from an inter-government departmental 'magazine' and the 120k figure was projected from the number of immigrants britain had received in the first quarter of the year (ie 30k) SO GO AND **** YOURSELF.

[1-X]

Originally posted by Dace
During the English rule of Scotland (har har its still going on ... but im talking a while back) English Lords in Scotland got to rape whoever they wanted.

Are you getting real history mixed up with Melvyn McGibson's Braveheart?

[Dace]

Originally posted by 1-X
Are you getting real history mixed up with Melvyn McGibson's Braveheart? ;)

I dont think so.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Dace
It is to do with genetics. You dont mind so much someone who shares alot of genes with you surviving because it means part of you survives too etc.

This is just using genetics as a cod rationalisation for your point. YOU may not mind English people (people who "share your genes") using the NHS, but lots of people do. It's simply saying you value Group X more than Group Y. Which as I say, is fine but it's better we are honest and open about these things.

Anyway : If the issue (as I said) is simply you don't want foriegners in "our" country because you don't like them, that's cool, but there's no point having a rational debate about the economics of such matters. Why bother? "I hate ******s" should be a sufficient point.

Originally posted by Dace
I got my figures from an inter-government departmental 'magazine' and the 120k figure was projected from the number of immigrants britain had received in the first quarter of the year (ie 30k)

I think you've missed my point quite dramatically. I was not disputing your figure about the 120k immigrants. I was referring to your point of "there's no way we need that many immigrants" as within 10 seconds of searching I found a newspaper article which stated 120k economic migrants is exactly what we need.

p.s. As a btw for your previous point of "You're not an economist" to T&F, I find this quite amusing as The Economist (rightist bastion) supports immigration...

[queball]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Most people who travel are probably economic migrants, but because of our stupid laws (as T&F mentioned) they aren't actually allowed to work. That's right folks, capital can flow all around the world without a care in the world, but if labour tries it...

So the laws should be simplified. You seem to agree with the spirit; that people should come here either as asylum seekers or to work. We have stupidly complicated laws on plenty of things. That doesn't mean we should vote for the first person promising to scrap everything.

[Dace]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
This is just using genetics as a cod rationalisation for your point. YOU may not mind English people (people who "share your genes") using the NHS, but lots of people do. It's simply saying you value Group X more than Group Y. Which as I say, is fine but it's better we are honest and open about these things.

Anyway : If the issue (as I said) is simply you don't want foriegners in "our" country because you don't like them, that's cool, but there's no point having a rational debate about the economics of such matters. Why bother? "I hate ******s" should be a sufficient point. I think you've missed my point quite dramatically. I was not disputing your figure about the 120k immigrants. I was referring to your point of "there's no way we need that many immigrants" as within 10 seconds of searching I found a newspaper article which stated 120k economic migrants is exactly what we need.

p.s. As a btw for your previous point of "You're not an economist" to T&F, I find this quite amusing as The Economist (rightist bastion) supports immigration...

Point 1: I was open and honest.

Point 2: Reading the Guardian gives you AIDS.

Point 3: I'd like to read the article from The Economist on immigration as i suspect you are 'slewing' the facts (ie i suspect they say more along the lines of Free Job market in Europe is a good idea as apposed to bring in Ay-rabs by the truck load).

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by queball
So the laws should be simplified. You seem to agree with the spirit; that people should come here either as asylum seekers or to work. We have stupidly complicated laws on plenty of things. That doesn't mean we should vote for the first person promising to scrap everything.

Ultimately I'd abolish citizenship and border controls, et al.

As a short term measure, if we are to be prejudiced, then people should be able to enter the country, and work, etc. If people object to "scroungers" just don't give them public funds (e.g. housing, benefits, etc). The taxes they would produce would easily pay for any other use of services (roads, emergancy health care, etc). My wife pays taxes, can work, if she is injured she can go to a UK doctor, etc. She cannot sign on, and she has no housing benefit (etc) type entitlements.

The idea you need permission from the government to work strikes me as odd.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Dace
Point 3: I'd like to read the article from The Economist on immigration as i suspect you are 'slewing' the facts (ie i suspect they say more along the lines of Free Job market in Europe is a good idea as apposed to bring in Ay-rabs by the truck load).

From :http://phoenix.liunet.edu/~uroy/eco4...tion-TE/01.htm

Freeing migration could enrich humanity even more than freeing trade. But only if the social and political costs are contained, says Frances Cairncross

[...]

Even so, a growing number of European governments now accept that there is an economic case for immigration. This striking change is apparent even in Germany, which has recently been receiving more foreigners, relative to the size of its population, than has America. Last year, a commission headed by a leading politician, Rita Süssmuth, began its report with the revolutionary words: “Germany needs immigrants.” Recent legislation based on the report (and hotly attacked by the opposition) streamlines entry procedures.

[...]

But there is a gulf between merely accepting the economic case and delighting in the social transformation that immigrants create. Immigrants bring new customs, new foods, new ideas, new ways of doing things. Does that make towns more interesting or more threatening? They enhance baseball and football teams, give a new twang to popular music and open new businesses.

----

It's not all positive stuff there, but I'll let you read the article. There are dozens of others, I used to sub to the Economist so I used to read them then and there, most aren't public viewing in the archives (Without some faggy pay system)

[queball]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Ultimately I'd abolish citizenship and border controls, et al.

As a short term measure, if we are to be prejudiced, then people should be able to enter the country, and work, etc. If people object to "scroungers" just don't give them public funds (e.g. housing, benefits, etc). The taxes they would produce would easily pay for any other use of services (roads, emergancy health care, etc). My wife pays taxes, can work, if she is injured she can go to a UK doctor, etc. She cannot sign on, and she has no housing benefit (etc) type entitlements.

The idea you need permission from the government to work strikes me as odd.

I don't have any problem with someone coming to the UK to work. I'm not too sure about the mechanics but I think any company can employ someone from abroad if they wish and any foreigner can get a visa if they can demonstrate that they will work. The alternative is letting in people who can't demonstrate that they will work (or have a husband who works ). With no job and no benefits as Dace pointed out they are unlikely to be model citizens.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by queball
I'm not too sure about the mechanics but I think any company can employ someone from abroad if they wish and any foreigner can get a VISA if they can demonstrate that they will work.

Yes, this can happen but it's rare simply because the process is quite annoying to go through. Plus it's heavily biased towards more "high powered" jobs. A firm might be willing to go through the paperwork for say, a manager or a senior programmer. It's unlikely to go through it for a clerk or more low-level position.

In some fields, this is exactly where the demand for staff lies. Take my firm, for instance. We are currently looking for people to do phone work. The job is low-level and fairly low paid. The economics wouldn't justify recruiting abroad for a £15k position.

Of course, this is all null and void since a lot of people are employed abroad for low level positions. It's simply done illegally with people already here. All this means is that the people work in apalling conditions (no unions, no health and safety rights, etc) while the employers make no NI contributions, etc.

When my wife entered the UK she had to show she was healthy, willing and able to work, and able to support herself without recourse to public funds. After that, she was reasonably free to get on with things. A more sensible (intermediate ) position would simply make this the blanket rule for everyone.

[Dace]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
It's not all positive stuff there,

Much as i suspected.

"Because the rich world's women spurn motherhood, immigrants give birth to many of the rich world's babies. Foreign mothers account for one birth in five in Switzerland and one in eight in Germany and Britain. If these children grow up underprivileged and undereducated, they will create a new underclass that may take many years to emerge from poverty."

We get immigrants.

They are either smart or dumb (no inbetween).

The smart ones help our economy (in the short term).

The dumb ones have dumb kids who drag down our economy (in the mid term).

What the country needs is not immigrants but rather a Government programme to encourage native women to have kids.

[Dace]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Finally I was in the holocaust exhibition the other day and it turns out then people said much the same things about the jews when they were fleeing Nazi Germany. They were supposed to be Lazy and greedy they were supposed to be disease ridden and immoral, and "there was just no room for them". Sure it was a terrible tragedy but someone else would just have to look after them.

I didnt notice Ärketrollmannens sig before however as quoting it gives me victory in this argument i will do so.

Quote it that is.

From Ärketrollmannens signature
Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.