How many illegal immigrants are there in Britain? This is a question that Tony Blair was asked 20 times on Newsnight just before the election- to which he dissembled, equivocated and blustered. Official Home Office figures estimate that there are around 500,000 illegal immigrants currently in the UK. Is this an accurate figure?

Earlier this year, Spain offered an amnesty to people living and working there illegally: they received over 700,000 applications, and it is estimated that only around 75% of those eligible applied. The criteria for eligibility were strictly drawn: immigrants had to be living there [with proof of residency] for at least six months. Considering that most 'illegals' work for cash in hand, the true figure for illegal immigrants is obviously much higher. Furthermore, given that only those actually working could apply for an amnesty, the figure of 700,000 does not take into consideration non-working wives and children.

What then is the likely figure for illegal immigrants in Britain? Since the number of asylum seekers come to Britain rather than go to Spain, and also taking into account that the British economy is much stronger than that of Spain- and therefore the number of jobs available is much greater- we can conclude that the number of 'illegals' in Britain is far greater than that in Spain. I calculate the figure to be at least two million.

Before you dismiss this estimate as 'right wing scaremongering', recall that last year a Home Office official was forced to admit in court that immigration could be six times higher than official figures indicated. Remember also that every year over 12 million non-EU visitors arrive here; how many leave? Even if only 2% remain illegally, it would take only 8 years to reach the 2 million mark. This, dear hearts, is not taking into consideration all those entering illegally, or the hundreds of thousandas of bogus asylum seekers. One reflects that an estimate of 2 million may actually be an underestimate, but I wouldn't wish to be accused of trying to frighten people.

It would only be 'frightening' if they were all murderers :suspect:

Two points:

One, you'll never know how many illegal immigrants there are, by virtue of the fact that they live outside the system. Estimates on numbers are just an exercise in beurocratic masturbation.

Two, you'll never stop illegal immigration, short of employing some kind of human chain around the entirity of the British coastline.

Not so. There are plenty of other reasons why people fear the effects of huge migrations of people. What about the burden on public services? Welfare? The 'swamping ' threat famously referred to by Mrs Thatcher? The importation of foreign ethnic conflicts/grudges and religious/social intolerance [i.e, a love for our Welfare system but a hatred for our norms and values]?

But how many people leave the UK each year ?

The thing I 'fear' most in this, is the response to the kind of stirring that people like you do, Timo - but then provoking hysteria is just a way of life isn't it?

Originally posted by Strix
It would only be 'frightening' if they were all murderers :suspect:

Such complacency with regard to immigration is severely misplaced. England already has one of the highest population densities in the developed world (12 times that of the US, about 4 times that of France and twice that of Germany). I wonder if you have such a relaxed attitude to the increasingly important issues of traffic congestion and housing? - or do you think these issues are unrelated?

Originally posted by timo
What then is the likely figure for illegal immigrants in Britain? Since the number of asylum seekers come to Britain rather than go to Spain, and also taking into account that the British economy is much stronger than that of Spain- and therefore the number of jobs available is much greater- we can conclude that the number of 'illegals' in Britain is far greater than that in Spain. I calculate the figure to be at least two million.

I'm not sure whether this stand up at all - Spain is a massive country (compared to the UK) with a large sea borders comparatively close to North Africa. We already know that the Spanish owned enclaves in Morocco have been targets for potential immigrants from all over Africa and immigration into Spain has been increasing rapidly (from 1999-2000 is increased by 11.78% and from 2000-2001 it increased by 23.81%) so it's hard to suport your conclusion that the number of 'illegals' in Britian will be far greater than in Spain. Given size, proximity and paranoia about immigration I would have though that the number would be much lower?

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Such complacency with regard to immigration is severely misplaced. England already has one of the highest population densities in the developed world (12 times that of the US, about 4 times that of France and twice that of Germany).
Isn't that because we don't have any deserts or huge great swathes of mountains?

You can prove anything you like with statistics :roll:

Originally posted by Greenback
Two points:

One, you'll never know how many illegal immigrants there are, by virtue of the fact that they live outside the system. Estimates on numbers are just an exercise in beurocratic masturbation.

Two, you'll never stop illegal immigration, short of employing some kind of human chain around the entirity of the British coastline.

Neither of these points justify an abandonment of an attempt to control immigration. Of course, there always was and always will be illegal immigration. But there are good grounds for believing that the scale of illegal immigration is greater now than at any previous period in modern British history

Originally posted by timo
Not so. There are plenty of other reasons why people fear the effects of huge migrations of people. What about the burden on public services? Welfare? The 'swamping ' threat famously referred to by Mrs Thatcher? The importation of foreign ethnic conflicts/grudges and religious/social intolerance [i.e, a love for our Welfare system but a hatred for our norms and values]?

I agree with you timo..... dosen't take long for them to figure out how the system can work for them either, after a while they don't demand equal rights.....it's special rights, big difference.

Originally posted by Strix
Isn't that because we don't have any deserts or huge great swathes of mountains?

You can prove anything you like with statistics :roll:

Neither does France or Germany. Moreover, in the UK people tend to live in conurbations with high population densities. By virtually any criterion you may care to use, England is already overcrowded compared to the countries I have mentioned. The congestion in the South East is already threatening to spill over into green belt land.

Originally posted by evildrneil
I'm not sure whether this stand up at all - Spain is a massive country (compared to the UK) with a large sea borders comparatively close to North Africa. We already know that the Spanish owned enclaves in Morocco have been targets for potential immigrants from all over Africa and immigration into Spain has been increasing rapidly (from 1999-2000 is increased by 11.78% and from 2000-2001 it increased by 23.81%) so it's hard to suport your conclusion that the number of 'illegals' in Britian will be far greater than in Spain. Given size, proximity and paranoia about immigration I would have though that the number would be much lower?

Spain is indeed a massive country, with a much lower population density than that of England - so even if the numbers of illegals into the UK and Spain were to be the same, it might be argued that the impact of mass immigration on domestic transport systems and housing stock in Spain will be less than in England. Moreover, the UK has a post-war tradition of immigration, with well developed and organised immigration networks (many organised and run by recent immigrants). These provide conduits into this country for both legal and illegal migration. Spain also has a tradition of discouraging immigrants (e.g. by not allowing them to tap into tthe Spanish welfare system and by deporting them). It is true that more recently the volume of migrants into Spain has increased, but the numbers would have to be very much larger overall to match the numbers of migrants into the UK (including asylum seekers) since 1997.

I feel Timo raises some very intersting points visa vee illegals,we have probably underestimated the scale of the problem for a long time.
Two million is far too many to not care about,we simply have to get to grips with this problem once and for all,trouble is the political will is not there from the main stream parties,so unless they have a biblical change of heart we will simply either accept it or vote for a party who will actually DO SOMETHING about it.:thumbsup:

Strix,
There is no need whatsover to be so rude. I don't like your use of the phrase, 'people like you' in relation to myself, nor do I appreciate being accused of 'stirring'. As for your claim that ' provoking hysteria is just a way of life', comment would be superfluous. Please respect the right of your fellow posters to their opinions.

Originally posted by royjames
Two million is far too many to not care about

It is also ENTIRELY conjecture and assumes you agree with the premises of Timo's argument (I for one don't!). This is one of the dangers of making estimates it only takes a few Chinese whispers before it is "well established fact"

We all KNOW the problem is there....the problem on here is some people don't believe it is a problem so refuse to see it.

As for relative scales of the problem - does anyone really know and anyone who does is not likely to let on are they?

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Neither of these points justify an abandonment of an attempt to control immigration. Of course, there always was and always will be illegal immigration. But there are good grounds for believing that the scale of illegal immigration is greater now than at any previous period in modern British history

No, of course they don't justify that at all. It goes without saying that illegal immigration is undesirable, it's just that there's no way to stop it.

In terms of scale, the number of asylum seekers entering Britain is decreasing year by year, so it follows that this trend would be replicated in terms of illegal immigrants too.

Originally posted by evildrneil
It is also ENTIRELY conjecture and assumes you agree with the premises of Timo's argument (I for one don't!). This is one of the dangers of making estimates it only takes a few Chinese whispers before it is "well established fact"

He could also be underestimating too.

Originally posted by poppins
I agree with you timo..... dosen't take long for them to figure out how the system can work for them either, after a while they don't demand equal rights.....it's special rights, big difference.

More nonsensical hot air from the Forum's most able muck spreader.

Anyway, two million, 50 million, 100,000, 12... Who knows? It's like trying to guess how many sweets are in the jar without knowing how big the jar is. It's a problem, but one that (in terms of solid fact re. asylum applications) seems to be decreasing, and personally speaking there are other issues that are far more important.

Roy, what will you do to stop all illegal immigration? Because I put it to you that it is completely impossible to do so. Feel free to prove me wrong :)

Originally posted by Greenback
No, of course they don't justify that at all. It goes without saying that illegal immigration is undesirable, it's just that there's no way to stop it.

In terms of scale, the number of asylum seekers entering Britain is decreasing year by year, so it follows that this trend would be replicated in terms of illegal immigrants too.

I don't think your argument about the parallel trends in the numbers of asylum seekers and of illegal migrants follows at all. Indeed, the converse is more likely to be the case. As developed countries tighten up on asylum procedures (making it more difficult for would-be migrants to enter legally) the would-be migrants are likely to seek other ways of entering.

There are also 9 million bicycles in Bejing!

Evildrneil,
There is nothing morally problematic about making estimates, or extrapolating, and predicting future trends. Of course we will never know the 'true' figure for the number of illegal immigrants in the UK, as Greenback has said, they are 'outside the system'. Nevertheless, it is possible to arrive at an educated guess based upon the recent figures for amnesty applications in Spain, the comments of a Home Office official and the number of non-EU visitors a year. I make no claims to the ends that my figure of two million illegal immigrants represents an absolute, intrinsic truth. Estimates are self-explanatory. However, I think mine is far nearer to 'the truth' than the official figures indicate.

Contrary to what Strix implies, I am no potential Dr Goebbels. I, like millions, am genuinely concerned about the scale and impact of huge waves of unregulated immigration upon our already [as Lord Chaverly cogently points out] overcrowded land. This does not equate to a desire to see repatriation introduced, except in the case of the roughly two million illegal migrants who have no right whatsoever to be here.

Originally posted by royjames
we will simply either accept it or vote for a party who will actually DO SOMETHING about it.:thumbsup:

It's what they would do about it that worries me though Roy.

I would support a clamp-down on imigration but I'm not sure I could support mass deportation or anything like that.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
I don't think your argument about the parallel trends in the numbers of asylum seekers and of illegal migrants follows at all. Indeed, the converse is more likely to be the case. As developed countries tighten up on asylum procedures (making it more difficult for would-be migrants to enter legally) the would-be migrants are likely to seek other ways of entering.

Again – who knows? I would guess that the geo-political situation at any given point in time would have a greater impact on the number of people migrating to Britain than any (domestic) politically motivated belt-tightening. But it is just a guess.

But if what you are putting forward above actually is the reality of the situation, then you're providing an argument in favour of the relaxation of asylum regulations, aren't you? ;)

Originally posted by Greenback
More nonsensical hot air from the Forum's most able muck spreader.



Roy, what will you do to stop all illegal immigration? Because I put it to you that it is completely impossible to do so. Feel free to prove me wrong :)


Muck spreader...:clap: :clap:

Originally posted by timo
Evildrneil,
There is nothing morally problematic about making estimates, or extrapolating, and predicting future trends. Of course we will never know the 'true' figure for the number of illegal immigrants in the UK, as Greenback has said, they are 'outside the system'. Nevertheless, it is possible to arrive at an educated guess based upon the recent figures for amnesty applications in Spain, the comments of a Home Office official and the number of non-EU visitors a year. I make no claims to the ends that my figure of two million illegal immigrants represents an absolute, intrinsic truth. Estimates are self-explanatory. However, I think mine is far nearer to 'the truth' than the official figures indicate.

Making estimates is fine - taking estimates as established fact is the problem! Oh and you have made a claim for your estimate - that is it "nearer to 'the truth' than the official figures indicate".

Personally I think it is more a reflection of your politics and world view than the truth - but then we don't share the smale political and world view. We can argue backwards and forwards about which is right or wrong but will get nowhere. Perhaps instead we should adress a few questions that we can get a meaningfull answers to - so how about:

1. Why are people immigrating here.
2. Does immigration have a net benefit to society (both in social and economic terms)?
3. Is the crowding in the southeast due to immigration or due to companies locating in/near London forcing people to relocate to the South East in order to find employment?

Originally posted by Greenback
Again – who knows? I would guess that the geo-political situation at any given point in time would have a greater impact on the number of people migrating to Britain than any (domestic) politically motivated belt-tightening. But it is just a guess.

But if what you are putting forward above actually is the reality of the situation, then you're providing an argument in favour of the relaxation of asylum regulations, aren't you? ;)

No, I'm not. We need much more rigorous controls of both asylum migration and illegal migration. Migration pressures are likely to grow rather than to recede unless we do something urgently to dispel the perception that our migration controls are weak or easily bypassed. Indeed, we need a coherent policy on migration which deals with both 'legal' and illegal immigration and which is much more effective at the implementation stage (where it really counts) than hitherto.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Neither does France or Germany. Moreover, in the UK people tend to live in conurbations with high population densities. By virtually any criterion you may care to use, England is already overcrowded compared to the countries I have mentioned. The congestion in the South East is already threatening to spill over into green belt land.

but is it just "illegals" that are living there.
illegal immigrants can't be blamed for everything.

Originally posted by Johnh
There are also 9 million bicycles in Bejing!

and that's a fact.

Originally posted by willman
but is it just "illegals" that are living there.
illegal immigrants can't be blamed for everything.

Migration is exacerbating an already serious problem of overcrowding in the South East. Strict immigration controls would make this problem more manageable than it is now.

Evildrneil,
I agree that personal disposition, psychobiography, world-view and political persuasions do colour judgement and play a part in the way one interpretes phenomena. That is true of everyone. I have never claimed to offer anything other than subjective opinion and educated guesses. I just happen to think that , in the case of figures for illegal immigrants, my estimate is probably nearer to the empirical 'truth' than is the Home Office estimate of 500,000.

You suspect that my estimate is really a reflection of my world-view, which you do not share. In my case, I suspect that your world-view plays a part in your instant dismissal of my argument. It seems that you, and a few others on here , simply cannot accept that huge migrations of people are resented by the majority of British people. To you, I am probably a Blimpish figure, out of touch, and living in a 'little England' of the mind. I think you would be very surprised if you met me. In my profession I deal with huge numbers of people from a wide variety of socio-economic, ethnic and religious backgrounds, of all age groups. I listen to their opinions, views and fears. Two major themes emerge regarding the future of Britain: one is the failure of multiculturalism and the other is foreboding re increased racial tension. That is why I fear further mass immigration and the resentment it will cause.

Why do people come here? Because of our relatively 'free' society, generous welfare system, and the fact that our economy is one of the strongest in the world. I don't blame them for wanting to come, but if we do not curb the flow, 'we the people' will become 'we, another people', and there is no social mandate for that. What about the 'rights' of the Anglo-Celtic majority, whose ancestry goes back centuries? Do they not have a 'say' in who is allowed here? It seems that they do not.

I think the deficits outweigh the benefits regarding mass immigration. There are economic arguments for and against mass immigration. However, the severe racial tensions that unthought-through mass immigration has caused make me cynical about race-relations in general. Formerly happy, pleasant areas have become battlegrounds between hostile, rival ethnic groups in our country. There are too many examples to cite, and I cannot believe that anyone could deny their existence. I do not merely refer to inner-city areas either. Nor am I blaming non-whites for all the trouble. The plain fact is, the multicultural model is discredited, and the integrationist model never worked in the first place.

Re the south east conjestion and overcrowding, both the decisions of companies to relocate to London and massive immigration play a part. I think that, as Lord C suggests, the latter is the most important variable in any discussion. London in particular contains a great many 'no-go' enclaves for certain ethnic groups, and this includes non-whites. The problem of so-called 'black on black' violence is rife too.

Far from being some blinkered fogie who only reads the Telegraph, and still listens to wax-cylinder recordings, I am very much part of the modern, urban world. I do not see a country at ease with itself. I see a country in which the majority [96% are 'white'] feel that the country they once fondly regarded as their own, is being taken from them by stealth. In the 80s, only the working classes spoke openly about such things. The middle classes, if they discussed such 'vulgar' matters at all, did so in whispers. Now, in the age of 'Islamikazi' attacks, waves of 'asylum seekers' and race riots, they talk of little else. Those of you of the left/liberal consensus may dismiss the concerns of those such as Lord C and I about mass immigration, but we reflect the views of the majority rather than the minority.

Originally posted by timo
One reflects that an estimate of 2 million may actually be an underestimate, but I wouldn't wish to be accused of trying to frighten people.

Have to wonder what the effect of all these illegals is on the economy. Presumably without access to welfare benefits they have to work for what they can get via the gang-masters, which is unlikely to be as much as the minimum wage.

I suspect the govt. are fairly happy with the situation as legal and illegal immigration has a depressing effect on low-wage pay levels. Costs are kept down and profits stay up, but the next global economic down-turn could see all these hapless migrants having to resort to begging or crime to survive.

It will be interesting to see how the govt. deal with that situation. ;)

Originally posted by Greybeard
Have to wonder what the effect of all these illegals is on the economy. Presumably without access to welfare benefits they have to work for what they can get via the gang-masters, which is unlikely to be as much as the minimum wage.

I suspect the govt. are fairly happy with the situation as legal and illegal immigration has a depressing effect on low-wage pay levels. Costs are kept down and profits stay up, but the next global economic down-turn could see all these hapless migrants having to resort to begging or crime to survive.

It will be interesting to see how the govt. deal with that situation. ;)

You have hit on an important point here Greybeard. Historically, employers have tended to favour migration because it provides them with a virtually inexhaustible supply of cheap labour, thereby pricing indigenous workers out of the labour market in certain occupations. The burden of migration has tended to be born by low wage indigenous workers, who also have been forced to compete for housing with recent migrants. I suggest you read the wonderful and moving book by Michael Collins on the effects of mass migration on the indigenous working class in London's East End. Meanwhile, the well heeled elites and their offspring are free to lecture the lower orders about the benefits of migration, and engage in other forms of moral posturing, from the safety and security of their leafy suburbs.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Migration is exacerbating an already serious problem of overcrowding in the South East. Strict immigration controls would make this problem more manageable than it is now.

cobblers - people live where the work & pay is, redistibute this through out the uk & everyone will move accordingly. unfortunately no one can make a profit in the lake district & its logistical hell so they stay in the south east.
scotland is crying out for immigrants but no one wants to move there, 'cos there's no jobs & no prospects.

imho as a Yorkshireman u can send 'em all to the south east.

The phrase "I'm not racially-prejudiced, but..." prefaces many more conversations these days... Resentment of preferential treatment and the passing of what appear to be one-sided racial-discrimination laws, coupled with perceived instances of disregard for the ethics and customs of the majority living here, is increasing steadily it seems to me...

Fears of being 'swamped' or 'taken over' may be heard being expressed from some hitherto reticent sources... Timo has a good point, the melting-pot is simmering, it's only a matter of time before it boils over, unless something is done to assuage those fears.

Originally posted by willman
cobblers - people live where the work & pay is, redistibute this through out the uk & everyone will move accordingly. unfortunately no one can make a profit in the lake district & its logistical hell so they stay in the south east.
scotland is crying out for immigrants but no one wants to move there, 'cos there's no jobs & no prospects.

imho as a Yorkshireman u can send 'em all to the south east.

Again, you have completely missed the point. Regional disparities exist in most developed countries and governments have a responsibility to address the problems arising from them. Indeed, in the UK we have had a policy to deal with the North-South divide since the 1920s. However, the problems of congestion and overcrowding in the South East are difficult enough to deal with as they are, without being compounded and exacerbated by migration. If we had a properly regulated and controlled system of migration, we might even be able to introduce a policy of regional dispersal (which was a policy favoured by the Liberals at one time) but the fact is that we do not. Indeed, I would go further and argue that the UK does not need any further migration on anything like the scale we have seen in recent years. We are experiencing enough problems as it is in absorbing the migrants already here.

i agree that the uk is becoming overpopulated in certain areas, however i don't accept it is due to illegal immigrants.
internal migration as in the case of scotland causes as many problems as illegals, if not more.

controlling illegal immigrants will have little effect on the issues as you stated it would.


customers demand cheaper products which causes suppliers to cut costs, immigrants illegal or not still earn more on "slave" wages than they did previously.and u can' get an englishman out of bed for minimum wage in some cases or there wouldn't be an unemployment figure for the uk.

As for jobs, I understand that a high percentage of unrewarding jobs done during "unsocial" hours in this country is done by our immigrants: Office cleaning, hospital cleaning, harvesting seasonal produce.
Without these workers which of us would be prepared to do such labour intensive work?
Many immigrants do work.

Originally posted by willman
i agree that the uk is becoming overpopulated in certain areas, however i don't accept it is due to illegal immigrants.
internal migration as in the case of scotland causes as many problems as illegals, if not more.

controlling illegal immigrants will have little effect on the issues as you stated it would.


customers demand cheaper products which causes suppliers to cut costs, immigrants illegal or not still earn more on "slave" wages than they did previously.and u can' get an englishman out of bed for minimum wage in some cases or there wouldn't be an unemployment figure for the uk.

I suggest you read my previous post on the effects of migration on the price of labour in certain occupational categories. I think you underestimate your fellow Englishmen - they will get out of bed for a decent wage (i.e. where supply and demand conditions for labour have not been - from their viewpoint - adversely affected by migration). As for your argument that the control of illegal migration will have little effect on the problems of congestion and housing in the South East - well, it depends on the numbers involved and also the extent to which it compounds the problems of overcrowding already exacerbated by internal (indigenous) migration and also by the number of asylum seekers, refugees and other illegal migrants.

Well said, Lord C. I do not think we need any more immigration either, to say the least! I realise that we can never stop the free passage of people for good, and I would never wish to. However, as Pseudonym suggests, resentment from , 'hitherto reticent sources' can be clearly heard. It is folly to ignore this widespread foreboding and anger. The mood of the country is not a particularly tolerant one at the moment, and many people feel that the English of the South East , West Midlands and former Yorkshire/Lancashire mill towns in particular have been expected to accomodate exceptionally high numbers of foreign immigrants in the blink of an historical eye. In these particular areas, there has been what can only be described as a supplanting of the original inhabitants and their culture by foreign peoples. The majority population of Anglo-Celtic stock are the English 'proper'. They regard themselves as such, and the Afro-Caribbean, Asian and East European immigrant population would not argue with that either. Indeed, I have met Afro-Caribbeans who would rather die than be called 'English'. They are right. They never were. So, why do politicians and the liberal elite engage in systematic evasion and pretence about the effects of mass immigration and the true feelings of the majority 'white' population? What is the point of this dumbshow?

Originally posted by Floe
As for jobs, I understand that a high percentage of unrewarding jobs done during "unsocial" hours in this country is done by our immigrants: Office cleaning, hospital cleaning, harvesting seasonal produce.
Without these workers which of us would be prepared to do such labour intensive work?
Many immigrants do work.

As i have said above, indigenous workers would be prepared to do these jobs for a decent wage. If supply exceeds demand, the price (in this case for the jobs you mention) will be low - and migration creates a virtually inexhaustible supply of cheap labour.

Lord C is quite correct here. For too long we have been subjected to the propaganda that the native British , 'were too lazy' to do certain jobs in the late 50s, early 60s, and that it was 'essential' for mass immigration in order to fill the jobs 'British people wouldn't do'. The argument is perpetuated today, as an excuse to open the gates to further waves of foreigners. As my friend, Lord C cogently states, Englishmen and women will 'get out of bed' for a 'decent wage', and it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise. We have a minority of feckless, transient members of the 'dependancy culture' or 'Underclass', but they are in a minority, usually to be found in our inner-cities and sink estates.

Originally posted by timo
How many illegal immigrants are there in Britain? This is a question that Tony Blair was asked 20 times on Newsnight just before the election- to which he dissembled, equivocated and blustered. Official Home Office figures estimate that there are around 500,000 illegal immigrants currently in the UK. Is this an accurate figure?

Earlier this year, Spain offered an amnesty to people living and working there illegally: they received over 700,000 applications, and it is estimated that only around 75% of those eligible applied. The criteria for eligibility were strictly drawn: immigrants had to be living there [with proof of residency] for at least six months. Considering that most 'illegals' work for cash in hand, the true figure for illegal immigrants is obviously much higher. Furthermore, given that only those actually working could apply for an amnesty, the figure of 700,000 does not take into consideration non-working wives and children.

What then is the likely figure for illegal immigrants in Britain? Since the number of asylum seekers come to Britain rather than go to Spain, and also taking into account that the British economy is much stronger than that of Spain- and therefore the number of jobs available is much greater- we can conclude that the number of 'illegals' in Britain is far greater than that in Spain. I calculate the figure to be at least two million.

Before you dismiss this estimate as 'right wing scaremongering', recall that last year a Home Office official was forced to admit in court that immigration could be six times higher than official figures indicated. Remember also that every year over 12 million non-EU visitors arrive here; how many leave? Even if only 2% remain illegally, it would take only 8 years to reach the 2 million mark. This, dear hearts, is not taking into consideration all those entering illegally, or the hundreds of thousandas of bogus asylum seekers. One reflects that an estimate of 2 million may actually be an underestimate, but I wouldn't wish to be accused of trying to frighten people.

there certainly aren't 2 million. Bear in mind with the introduction of the new EU member states that thousands of illegals became legals.

Also when Romania and Bulgaria join there will be thousands of illegals becoming legal.

Originally posted by timo
Lord C is quite correct here. For too long we have been subjected to the propaganda that the native British , 'were too lazy' to do certain jobs in the late 50s, early 60s, and that it was 'essential' for mass immigration in order to fill the jobs 'British people wouldn't do'. The argument is perpetuated today, as an excuse to open the gates to further waves of foreigners. As my friend, Lord C cogently states, Englishmen and women will 'get out of bed' for a 'decent wage', and it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise. We have a minority of feckless, transient members of the 'dependancy culture' or 'Underclass', but they are in a minority, usually to be found in our inner-cities and sink estates.

sorry, completely disagree here. The main jobs taken by immigrants are seasonal agricultural work, Hotels/Nursing/Hospitality and factory work.

The minumum wage is now £5.05 per hour. That is a decent wage for that type of work. Native workers just aren't interested in doing them. Why? Benefits and laziness. Some people think that those jobs are below them and we seem to be breeding a lot of workshy people.

The minumim wage works out at £10,500 per annum for a 40 hr week. That is roughly the same as starting working for the Home Office at the lowest grade.

Robbie,
Don't be sorry, you are allowed to disagree here! Actually, I disagree with you, sir! Certainly there are pockets of 'workshy' people, such as the 'Underclass' identified by those such as Charles Murray, and said to form a transient population who do not subscribe to mainstream values and norms. Their condition of relative poverty and educational underachievement may be cultural rather than structural in cause. However, I do not think that the majority of 'the native population' see certain jobs as beneath them. We are talking about a small minority, surely?

Having said that, I think that you make a pertinent point here regarding the figures for the minimum wage [annually], and the parallel with a junior grade Home Office clerk. That gives me pause for thought, I must admit.

The World Health Organisation provides a definition of a 'normal' sperm count:


the concentration of spermatozoa should be at least 20 million per ml.


the total volume of semen should be at least 2ml.


the total number of spermatozoa in the ejaculate should be at least 40 million.


at least 75 per cent of the spermatozoa should be alive (it is normal for up to 25 per cent to be dead).


at least 30 per cent of the spermatozoa should be of normal shape and form.


at least 25 per cent of the spermatozoa should be swimming with rapid forward movement.


at least 50 per cent of the spermatozoa should be swimming forward, even if only sluggishly.
40 Million per ejaculation. People are not special if we can fire that many potential humans into our pants at the sight of a single inch of cleavage. Science, that we are mainly responsible for, has enabled populations to expand in areas that have virtually no chance of sustaining these numbers. Then we whine when they try to get to a place that will. Open all boarders. Stop science as a cultural preference. Stop mass production. Kill progess. People would soon stop wanting to come here.

most people aren't workshy but I feel that generation by generation the work ethic seems to be getting less and less.

I do think the minimum wage aint a bad first job pay packet.

I deal with Eastern European immigrants and there seems to be a much better attitude to hard work. Probably because we have a higher standard of living, benefits and many see it as a chance to start afresh in a new country

Originally posted by timo
Strix,
There is no need whatsover to be so rude. I don't like your use of the phrase, 'people like you' in relation to myself, nor do I appreciate being accused of 'stirring'. As for your claim that ' provoking hysteria is just a way of life', comment would be superfluous. Please respect the right of your fellow posters to their opinions.
How did you expect this thread to spin out with an attention grabbing title like that?

Who did you expect to respond, and what did you expect them to say?

Personally, I expected it to turn into a carbon copy of all the other 'immigrant' threads on here, before descending into the usual row that gets it closed.

It's all been said before

Originally posted by timo
Evildrneil,
I agree that personal disposition, psychobiography, world-view and political persuasions do colour judgement and play a part in the way one interpretes phenomena. That is true of everyone. I have never claimed to offer anything other than subjective opinion and educated guesses. I just happen to think that , in the case of figures for illegal immigrants, my estimate is probably nearer to the empirical 'truth' than is the Home Office estimate of 500,000.

But we are never going to know he truth(TM) in this case are we? You can claim your estimate is closer to the truth and I can claim that the and as both points of view depend upon our world views they will never meet and given enough time I'm sure this thread will turn into 'your a bunch of racists' VS 'your a bunch of liberal fags' and everyone with more than two braincells to rub together will throw up their hands in disgust and leave the thread to sink into the mire of extremism (from both sides). Personally I think your calculations are dubious and based on spurious premises but my beliefs probably tick the same unrealism boxes to you (and Lord C et al.) Now if we can agree that we are going to differ over this point perhaps we can move on to possibly more fruitfull areas of debate like is there actually a problem, if so what is the problem and what can be done about it?

The problem is we have around 2 million who should not be here,its hardly rocket science.
The next question is what to do about it,do we simply carry on as we are or do we really get to grips with the situation.
We have to find a way of sreening these people out from the rest and to remove evey last one of them without delay.
Thats my prefered choice,remove them all and this will send out the message that we are no longer soft on illegal immigration.
This will discourage those who are thinking about trying there luck here.

Originally posted by royjames
The problem is we have around 2 million who should not be here,its hardly rocket science.

Do we - where are the figures supporting this? Why shouldn't they be here? Are the number coming in equalled by the number leaving?

Originally posted by royjames
The problem is we have around 2 million who should not be here,its hardly rocket science.
The next question is what to do about it,do we simply carry on as we are or do we really get to grips with the situation.
We have to find a way of sreening these people out from the rest and to remove evey last one of them without delay.
Thats my prefered choice,remove them all and this will send out the message that we are no longer soft on illegal immigration.
This will discourage those who are thinking about trying there luck here.

Roy, I work in immigration and we don't.

The reason they should not be here is obvious they are here illegally,as to the question of those leaving. who do you refer to about that?
And I feel Timo is probably nearer the mark that the goverment who to be honest are hardly going to say its far worse than it really is.

Originally posted by robbie
Roy, I work in immigration and we don't.


Ok Robbie do you say the home office have it right on the amount we have here?
You can PM me if you wish as seeing as you work for the goverment I dont want you to be compromised.:thumbsup:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by timo
[B] As my friend, Lord C cogently states, Englishmen and women will 'get out of bed' for a 'decent wage', and it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

is that a decent wage specified by the worker or the employer.
the employer can only paythe wage the market can sustain.
demanding large wages smacks of union & social philosophies both of which have failed.

Originally posted by timo
Robbie,
However, I do not think that the majority of 'the native population' see certain jobs as beneath them. We are talking about a small minority, surely?

.
in which case why are companies permenantly advertising for jobs that no one will fill.except immigrants.
how many of your friends butter bread at the sandwich factories?

Originally posted by royjames
Ok Robbie do you say the home office have it right on the amount we have here?
You can PM me if you wish as seeing as you work for the goverment I dont want you to be compromised.:thumbsup:

I have signed the Official Secrets Act Roy so maybe not :)

Originally posted by willman
[QUOTE]Originally posted by timo
[B] As my friend, Lord C cogently states, Englishmen and women will 'get out of bed' for a 'decent wage', and it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

is that a decent wage specified by the worker or the employer.
the employer can only paythe wage the market can sustain.
demanding large wages smacks of union & social philosophies both of which have failed.

I've got to say I used to work for £2.60 an hour as a pot washer when I was 16. Cack money but it was money. I can't believe people can moan when you have a minimum wage of £5.05 (I know it is £3.30 for 16 year olds)

Originally posted by LordChaverly
...I suggest you read the wonderful and moving book by Michael Collins on the effects of mass migration on the indigenous working class in London's East End. ...

Do you mean this book?

The Likes of Us: A Biography of the White Working Class (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1862077789/qid=1129241617/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_11_2/202-4656322-2294204)

Originally posted by evildrneil
is there actually a problem, if so what is the problem and what can be done about it?

The problem seems to be that the govt. don't want to tackle the problem. They are trying to close the door on illegal immigration as illustrated by the recent arrests in the Turkish trafficking case, - but even very conservative estimates suggest that tens of thousands of Kurds have entered the country illegally over the last few years via this trafficking gang.

The immigration authorities will have a pretty good idea of where to find them because they tend to join friends and family already here, so presumably immgration officers will be doing house-to-house checks in certain areas of North London, Doncaster and Hull etc ???

It's a little surprising The Daiyl Mail and The Sun aren't clamouring for such action.

Strix,
If this thread is 'a carbon copy ' of other threads on immigration, and 'it has all been said before', why waste your time commenting? I am not interested in your pointless, negative views. Please comment when you have something to offer in terms of debate.

i think the point is that your coments are negative.
there appears to be no rational thinking apart from stating imaginary figures.
you have proposed no real solutions or even offered an understanding of the real employment situation in the uk.
"englishmen" will not get up @ 4am to pick cabbages or potatos, even students are finding this work not to their liking.
therefore there is a strong need for immigrant workers, the fact they are illegal does not change this fact.
perhaps the fact they are illegal and unable to make any claims on benefits should be more positive to your way of thinking.

Originally posted by willman
i think the point is that your coments are negative.
there appears to be no rational thinking apart from stating imaginary figures.
you have proposed no real solutions or even offered an understanding of the real employment situation in the uk.
"englishmen" will not get up @ 4am to pick cabbages or potatos, even students are finding this work not to their liking.
therefore there is a strong need for immigrant workers, the fact they are illegal does not change this fact.
perhaps the fact they are illegal and unable to make any claims on benefits should be more positive to your way of thinking.

You seem to be incapable of understanding that the virtually inexhaustible supply of cheap labour from abroad will inevitably depress wage rates and will therefore make certain types of occupation unattractive to indigenous workers. You also fail to understand the macroeconomic effects of migration on demand. If immigrant workers were purely workers, with no housing, transport or sustenance needs, then temporary gaps in the labour supply could be filled. But every mass migration creates addition demand, creating a vicious cycle - which is the glaring flaw in the currently popular argument that we need more migrants to 'solve' our loomimg pensions crisis. The negative externalities of immigrant labour will be borne by the general population (inclusing indigenous workers), not by the employers. It is ironic that you cite 'rational thinking' as a virtue, as there is virtually none of it in your post.

Originally posted by serapis
Do you mean this book?

The Likes of Us: A Biography of the White Working Class (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1862077789/qid=1129241617/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_11_2/202-4656322-2294204)

Yes, this is the one. An excellent book. It offers a genuinely new perspective on our recent social history. Indeed, its approach is startlingly original. I remember a reviewer in the Sunday Times (I think it was) said the book moved him to tears.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Yes, this is the one. An excellent book. It offers a genuinely new perspective on our recent social history. Indeed, its approach is startlingly original. I remember a reviewer in the Sunday Times (I think it was) said the book moved him to tears.

I've added it to my wish-list on Amazon and when I’ve finished the Da Vinci Code I’ll give it a read.

Thanks for the recommendation :thumbsup:

Thankyou, Lord C, for the book recommendation too. I shall definately get hold of a copy. Julie Burchill has been saying similar things for the last couple of years about the 'ghettoisation' of the white working class. As someone who works in a middle class profession, I sometimes encounter people with greater knowledge, experience of and empathy with small-scale tribal peoples of the Third World than the native white working classes. Whenever racial conflict arises, it is automatically assumed that it was initiated by whites. Any aggression from asian or black people is automatically assumed to be 'self-defence'.

Witness too the contrast in media coverage between the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence and the protracted torture and racist murder of Kriss Donald. In the latter case, the white , working class 15 year old was kidnapped by a gang of asian men, taken on a long taxi journey, during which he was severely beaten, to a home-made torture chamber in which it is alleged he was tortured with the added refinement of castration. Where are the Prime Minister's speeches, the monuments, the Guardian editorials in his case? Sorry, we are not supposed to talk about Kriss. Whilst all Scottish papers covered the racist murder, it did not make the front page of any English paper. We should pretend it never happened, one supposes?

Timo - Black on White crime is never 'racially motivated' - surely you knew that. Only white people are guilty of that. Any offence involving a white person on a non-white person is equally automatically 'racist' in intent or so the media would have you believe. Perhaps 7/7 and the other attempts will change this view longer term but I doubt it too much.

Of course, my dear Owl, I should have realised!

I should think so too....

I'll get slated again for my comment once the PC Mafia get to read it.

:D

Originally posted by Internetowl
Perhaps 7/7 and the other attempts will change this view longer term but I doubt it too much.

I was unaware that the 7/7 bombings only targetted white people. Then again, maybe the black and asian victims of this atrocity who were plastered over - well, every front page in the land - were phantom spirits invented by the media... :rolleyes:

7/7 was an attack on the West - it was hardly a random act.

However you look at it, it was an attack on Britain (the majority of which are white, christian peoples) or is that now no longer the case?

Originally posted by Internetowl
7/7 was an attack on the West - it was hardly a random act.

However you look at it, it was an attack on Britain (the majority of which are white, christian peoples) or is that now no longer the case?

You were talking about race crime, and you segued into a comment that 7/7 may change attitudes towards racist attacks on whites.

Since one of the areas carefully chosen by the bombers was Aldgate, an area heavily populated by Muslims, I'm not sure of the relevance to your original point.

The 7/7 attacks were an attack on every colour, creed and race.

Greenback,
I respect your views, and you always offer logical, detailed analyses of whatever topic you are dealing with. However, in this case, I think you are underestimating the level of resentment felt by the white majority. Yes, you are quite correct to point out that Aldgate has a large muslim population and that the 7/7 attacks were effectively an attack on,'every creed, colour and race'. However, what people believe to be the case is often more important than what actually is the case. The general public, the majority [96%] of which are 'white', cannot be blamed for viewing the conflict as 'racial' as well as religious, since the suspects are usually young Arab, Asian or African men. I am aware that one suspect was of British Afro-Caribbean origin, but the 'non-white' origins of the suspects do play a part in 'racialising' the terrorism in the minds of the majority. In real terms the bombings most certainly injure and kill people of all creeds and races, but the majority at risk throughout the country are 'white'.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LordChaverly
[B]You seem to be incapable of understanding that the virtually inexhaustible supply of cheap labour from abroad will inevitably depress wage rates and will therefore make certain types of occupation unattractive to indigenous workers.



thought minimum wage was introduced to rectify the issue of cheap labour or slave labour. yet the indigenous populace still feel better to claim off the state.
perhaps reading more than one book on the topic may offer abroader perspective on a fairly blinkered "one trick pony" approach.

why is it that because i have a different perspective on things than you i appear to be uncapable of understanding anything.
get all the lazy white folk into work & jobs would not be avialable for any migrant workers in the first place.
quoting bull**** froma book still only forms your opinion to which i do not have to adhere, or have you not figured that bit out yet.

Willman,
There is no need to dismiss Lord Chaverly's evidence as 'bulls***'. He is the most erudite and well-informed poster I have ever encountered on the forum, bar none. He has not dismissed your view out of hand, but rather dissented from it, providing cogent evidence to the contrary. You do Lord C a great injustice when you imply that he is a reductionist, blinkered thinker. If anything, he is someone deeply interested in ideas, and quite 'open' to evidence from all sides in my experience.

Originally posted by timo
Willman,
There is no need to dismiss Lord Chaverly's evidence as 'bulls***'. He is the most erudite and well-informed poster I have ever encountered on the forum, bar none. He has not dismissed your view out of hand, but rather dissented from it, providing cogent evidence to the contrary. You do Lord C a great injustice when you imply that he is a reductionist, blinkered thinker. If anything, he is someone deeply interested in ideas, and quite 'open' to evidence from all sides in my experience.


he cited no EVIDENCE only opinion.he stated in two posts that he feels i am incapable of understanding HIS opinion.none of my posts belittled his approach only offered my personal opinion - THAT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE NOT TO BLAME FOR EVERYTHING WRONG IN THIS COUNTRY.

i seriously think that the bnp should start a tv channel and have you & lord c on as the 2 ronnies, good double act.

Originally posted by timo
Witness too the contrast in media coverage between the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence and the protracted torture and racist murder of Kriss Donald.

I'd never heardof Kriss Donald until you just mentioned him.

Originally posted by timo
Greenback,
I respect your views, and you always offer logical, detailed analyses of whatever topic you are dealing with. However, in this case, I think you are underestimating the level of resentment felt by the white majority. Yes, you are quite correct to point out that Aldgate has a large muslim population and that the 7/7 attacks were effectively an attack on,'every creed, colour and race'. However, what people believe to be the case is often more important than what actually is the case. The general public, the majority [96%] of which are 'white', cannot be blamed for viewing the conflict as 'racial' as well as religious, since the suspects are usually young Arab, Asian or African men. I am aware that one suspect was of British Afro-Caribbean origin, but the 'non-white' origins of the suspects do play a part in 'racialising' the terrorism in the minds of the majority. In real terms the bombings most certainly injure and kill people of all creeds and races, but the majority at risk throughout the country are 'white'.

I have to echo Strix's earlier comments that this is becoming tiresome - as a 'British Afro-Caribbean/Yorkshire man' born and raised in Sheffield which is my home, btw, who makes his way through life, works bloody hard for a living (as most of us do), engage to my partner (who's white - love see no colour!), not hurting anybody, has good values/manners (opens doors for people, etc) and a good heart - I love to check the forum from time to time, but I don't post much because I feel afraid that there's some people out there (who post on here) are just quite nasty.

You are welcome to have your opinions, but think about other peoples feelings who might be reading this, but they might be too intimidated to respond.

Yep, I know it's a family forum, but strangly enough, I don't feel like one of the family...

Yes, the recent atrocities are shocking, but as Greenback quite rightly said 7/7 was an attack on every colour/creed/race.

I don't know what the answers are, although i continue to seek.

My post(s) may appear simplistic to many on here (I usually post on the funnies), and I might not be the 'great debater', but I don't bury my head in the sand either.

Thanks for your time....

Bye for now:sad:

Willman,
Lord C and I as a BNP version of 'The Two Ronnies'? LOL. Actually, we have been called a 'double act' several times before. One poster even called dear old Lord C my 'straight man'. This occasioned hilarity. As did the poster who thought that Timo and Lord C were actually the same poster. Actually, neither of us support the BNP. I am a traditional, Burkean conservative, and it is up to Lord C to define his political affiliation. Not that he has to do so, of course. I am flattered to be linked with him in peoples' minds. That means I am associated with a first-rate intellectual, a wise and witty poster and a gentleman. Aside from the BNP jibe, you could not have flattered me more greatly!

Nick,
Re Kriss Donald, you are certainly not alone there. There was an English media 'blackout'. I wonder why that was?

Originally posted by timo
Nick,
Re Kriss Donald, you are certainly not alone there. There was an English media 'blackout'. I wonder why that was?

There arn't even any non-Scottish links on Google about it. I'm amazed that this never got mentioned in the papers, especially the tabloids.

Originally posted by Greenback
You were talking about race crime, and you segued into a comment that 7/7 may change attitudes towards racist attacks on whites.

Since one of the areas carefully chosen by the bombers was Aldgate, an area heavily populated by Muslims, I'm not sure of the relevance to your original point.

The 7/7 attacks were an attack on every colour, creed and race.

Not so, Aldgate is in the heart of City of London business district. It is not "an area heavily populated by Muslims".

The bomb at Aldgate was intended to kill office workers, tourists and businessmen

Originally posted by willman
i seriously think

Really? The evidence would suggest otherwise. Lord C and timo are two of the most respected posters on this Forum. I hope, one day, you'll be able to convey your opinions with the same eloquence and dignity they do, until then, try and not shout. It really does show you up as being at the bottom of the food chain.

Nick,
Gradually, more and more people outside of Scotland are becoming aware of the Kriss Donald murder. It is as shocking as the brutal slaying of Stephen Lawrence. The element of protracted torture may make it even more shocking to some.

I had a look for links to this 'poor' person

Found this on the pipex news page
Kriss suspect sent back to UK

Kriss suspect sent back to UK

Three people wanted in connection with the death of a teenager were on their way to the UK under police guard on Wednesday after being extradited.
A Government official confirmed that the suspects, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, are being flown from abroad in connection with the death of Glasgow teenager Kriss Donald.

Kriss, 15, from Glasgow's Pollokshields area, was found dead in the east end of the city in March 2004.

He had been repeatedly stabbed then set on fire while still alive.

In December, shopkeeper Daanish Zahid, 20, was sentenced to a minimum of 17 years for his murder.

Zahid Mohammed, 20, was cleared of murder but jailed for five years after admitting the abduction and racially aggravated assault of Kriss.

Warrants for the arrest of the three were issued by Strathclyde Police in 2004.

The suspects agreed to be extradited to Britain to face trial.

Officers flew out to a foreign country, which cannot be named for legal reasons, last week.

They are escorting the three, along with a Glasgow MP, on the journey to Glasgow today.

They are expected to arrive back in the city in the early afternoon.

Published: Wednesday 05th October 2005


Why can't the country they are being extradited from be named at this point - it is in other reports out there on the web, as is what they 'did' to this poor soul.

Its obvious why the Media have tried to ignore this story - it doesn't fit with their current perception of Britain today

Its certainly simmering....

Originally posted by mojoworking
Not so, Aldgate is in the heart of City of London business district. It is not "an area heavily populated by Muslims".

The bomb at Aldgate was intended to kill office workers, tourists and businessmen

To be honest I'm not particularly au fait with the ethnic make-up of various areas of London, I am relying on the BBC which reports it as such.

The bombers were targetting the British, and I reckon nothing more really needs to be said than that.

I think re. Stephen Lawrence, the furore surrounding the case was mainly concerned with the police reaction to the murder, and the protracted court case that followed, rather than the nature of the crime itself?

Not that the case of Kriss Donald isn't shocking, mind.

As long as there are hysterical headlines like those that frequently appear in the likes of the Mail, Express and Star, I think I'll hold back from suggesting that there's a media conspiracy against whitey. :)

Originally posted by cloudybay
Really? The evidence would suggest otherwise. Lord C and timo are two of the most respected posters on this Forum. I hope, one day, you'll be able to convey your opinions with the same eloquence and dignity they do, until then, try and not shout. It really does show you up as being at the bottom of the food chain.

p'haps if people listened or read all my post i would not need to" raise my voice" so that a very basic child like concept could be understood.

perhaps an understanding of the vocabulary used would be more appropriate.

obviously selecting a partial quote has some sort of deep meaning - whilst being totally irrelevant in the discussion.
the post is on illegal immigrants not whether someone can use flamboyant vocabulary or even whether you wish to vote for them at the next election.

Greenback,
I suspect that there is a degree of ingrained prejudice against the white working class in the media. To be honest, I have been accused of 'middle class snobbery' towards this socio-economic group a few times. I don't think that there is an organised conspiracy against 'white' people per se, but I suspect that papers such as The Guardian have less sympathy with white victims of racism, than black or asian victims. Many Guardian writers [and not a few 'socialists' of the 'Champagne' variety, of my acquaintance] seem to despise the native, white working classes in particular, i.e Toynbee and Alibhai-Brown. They cannot forgive the working classes their patriotism, and they heap the blame for the failure of the 'multicultural' experiment squarely on the heads of 'stubborn', 'racist' whites who will not accept change.

The arrogance of some left-wing politicians towards the white, working class [from which some came] in relation to their fears about immigration has been breathtaking over the years. Academics too, have often pontificated about the glorious 'melting pot' of the inner-cities, and 'the joy of diversity'. It is all well and good to do so, if one lives in the leafy suburbs or a rural village. The white, working classes have had to cope with massive cultural changes in a very short period of time. Their world has been changed utterly by mass immigration, and they feel not so much 'swamped' as drowned. This is a tragic and potentially explosive situation.

"Sending them back" isn't the answer. Firstly, it is impractical, secondly if immigrants are sent back, then all those British who have emmigrated over the years should return.
We are exposed nightly to the sight of British people setting off to Spain or France to set up home there.
They prefer the culture. They don't necessarily expect to speak the language or accept the local religion, or learn about the history.
Perhaps the immigrants here prefer the culture, without expecting to conform to our religious, political or historical attitudes.
I suspect that our multicultal country is here to stay and we need to look at ways of making it work.

Kick em out............................................

Floe,
To my knowledge, nobody has spoken in favour of repatriation as a solution to racial problems on this thread, except in relation to illegal immigrants. We have had the usual jibes about 'BNP' membership, but as yet no 'nazi' or 'brownshirt' insults, so you win first prize for your assumption that we who are concerned about immigration wish to 'send them back', whether legal or not. To reiterate, I am not a member of the BNP, and I do not favour repatriation as a solution.

Originally posted by timo
Evildrneil,
Why do people come here? Because of our relatively 'free' society, generous welfare system, and the fact that our economy is one of the strongest in the world. I don't blame them for wanting to come, but if we do not curb the flow, 'we the people' will become 'we, another people', and there is no social mandate for that. What about the 'rights' of the Anglo-Celtic majority, whose ancestry goes back centuries? Do they not have a 'say' in who is allowed here? It seems that they do not.

I see a country in which the majority [96% are 'white'] feel that the country they once fondly regarded as their own, is being taken from them by stealth......but we reflect the views of the majority rather than the minority.

It's funny that you should ask why people want to come here. Britain and Ireland have been the biggest exporter of their own citizens in the history of civlisation(in relation to population size). As well as exporting people, they also did a very good job of exporting their culture to all these foreign shores, particularly during the Victorian era when it became the 'latest' thing to spread the christian word to these 'heathens' and show them how to live as 'civilised' people. This 'Christian Commonwealth link' has always been one reason for people migrating to the UK. Britain, as a result of it's Empire, also became very wealthy by exploiting the countries in the Commonwealth (as well as some that are no longer, or never were, part of it), so some would argue that perhaps this sapping of 'our wealth' is in fact redistribution of stolen/owed money, or at the very least that the empire was built using other peoples sweat and blood.

Another reason people come to this country is because of the history it has in upholding human rights (something that started with the anti-slavery movement which, funnily enough, went against Britain's initial complicity in it). Britain together with the USA were partly responsible for starting International Law when they signed the Trans-Atlantic Charter, which is why Amnesty International carries weight in this country (unfortunately America has severely undermined it's position over the last 50 years in this respect, especially now with it's campaign on Terrorism and the Internationally illegal war in Iraq, and Amnesty is considered a bit of a meddling nuisance over the pond).

As for your Majority white statement...the National Socialist Party of Germany were once a majority but it didn't mean they were necessarily in the right (and before anyone picks up on this, I'm not comparing white Brits to Nazis). And do you really think that ALL white British folk are of Anglo-Celtic origin? And even if they were do you really think they would all agree with your opinion? And what about all the none-white British people, do they not have a right to be heard?

You're probably right in your observation that there are too many illegal immigrants in this country but your arguments seem to stem from Fear or Bigotry, either way it's ignorance. :-(

JoaquiNation,
Your argument about the 'redistribution' of stolen/owed money perpetuates the spurious myth of inherited, racial guilt. You question the idea that 'all white British folk' are of the 'Anglo-Celtic' majority. I said that the majority, not all, of white, British people can be described by the umbrella term, 'Anglo-Celtic'. Let us not get involved in detailing the various pre-Celtic, Celtic, and Germanic tribal groupings. The majority of white Britons descend from two main, related Europid stocks- represented by the frequency of Y chromosome Haplogroup One in men of pre-Anglo Saxon origins [around 60%], and Haplogroup Two in men of 'Invader' origins associated with the Germanic tribes of Angles, Danish Vikings etc[almost 40%].

Re my views stemming from 'fear and bigotry'. You are right regarding the first word. I do look to the future of British race-relations with foreboding. What fool would not do so, given the appalling levels of racist violence throughout the country, and with an awareness of the levels of simmering resentment on the part of the majority about the effects of mass immigration , and the threat of more to come? I think you do me a great injustice by labelling me a 'bigot'. I have gained the respect of many posters of the left/liberal consensus on the forum, and they do not regard me as 'bigoted'. Have I spoken disparagingly about other ethnic groups or races? Do I use vulgar coloquial terms with which to insult them? Have I implied that they are in any way 'inferior'? I do not believe that I have. You should apologise for such uncalled for rudeness.

Originally posted by timo
JoaquiNation,
Your argument about the 'redistribution' of stolen/owed money perpetuates the spurious myth of inherited, racial guilt. You question the idea that 'all white British folk' are of the 'Anglo-Celtic' majority. I said that the majority, not all, of white, British people can be described by the umbrella term, 'Anglo-Celtic'. Let us not get involved in detailing the various pre-Celtic, Celtic, and Germanic tribal groupings. The majority of white Britons descend from two main, related Europid stocks- represented by the frequency of Y chromosome Haplogroup One in men of pre-Anglo Saxon origins [around 60%], and Haplogroup Two in men of 'Invader' origins associated with the Germanic tribes of Angles, Danish Vikings etc[almost 40%].

Re my views stemming from 'fear and bigotry'. You are right regarding the first word. I do look to the future of British race-relations with foreboding. What fool would not do so, given the appalling levels of racist violence throughout the country, and with an awareness of the levels of simmering resentment on the part of the majority about the effects of mass immigration , and the threat of more to come? I think you do me a great injustice by labelling me a 'bigot'. I have gained the respect of many posters of the left/liberal consensus on the forum, and they do not regard me as 'bigoted'. Have I spoken disparagingly about other ethnic groups or races? Do I use vulgar coloquial terms with which to insult them? Have I implied that they are in any way 'inferior'? I do not believe that I have. You should apologise for such uncalled for rudeness.


just for a change i have to agree with everything within the confines of this quote.

I'm not convinced that the majority of white people in this country really view illegal immigrants as a huge problem. I'll admit that the media (and certain z list papers such as the Daily Mail) seem to overhype the issue.

I suppose that there is not a huge problem in Sheffield (or certainly not within the areas I've lived or visit regularly) so I don't notice it as much. Other areas of the country may be slightly different.

I just don't believe for one second the 2 million figure quoted. I know the official figure and assume that the "real" figure is higher but I've never come across in my time in Immigration any indication that there are 2 millions.

I suppose that the number itself is pretty meaningless. It is like arguing about Holocaust death figures.

I just don't see that at present it poses any real risk to this country. I'd love to be able to discuss things in a lot more depth and detail but am wary because of my job

Originally posted by JoaquiNation
It's funny that you should ask why people want to come here. Britain and Ireland have been the biggest exporter of their own citizens in the history of civlisation(in relation to population size). As well as exporting people, they also did a very good job of exporting their culture to all these foreign shores, particularly during the Victorian era when it became the 'latest' thing to spread the christian word to these 'heathens' and show them how to live as 'civilised' people. This 'Christian Commonwealth link' has always been one reason for people migrating to the UK. Britain, as a result of it's Empire, also became very wealthy by exploiting the countries in the Commonwealth (as well as some that are no longer, or never were, part of it), so some would argue that perhaps this sapping of 'our wealth' is in fact redistribution of stolen/owed money, or at the very least that the empire was built using other peoples sweat and blood.



I completely agree with this. Britain has a filthy history in relation to the British empire, and one of the reasons it currently stands as the 4th richest country in the world is due to its abuse of other countries. This isn't just past deeds either - the recent G8 "aid" deal to Africa involved several conditions that the nationalised industries of those countries had to be privatised.

I've no problem with immigration because I believe in sharing the wealth. If citizens of other countries wish to come to this far richer country in search of a better life, I say good luck to them. In my view, trying to restrict immigration is analogous to kicking the ladder away. I can't help thinking that many indigenous British people don't know they're born......

Originally posted by Daley
I completely agree with this. Britain has a filthy history in relation to the British empire, and one of the reasons it currently stands as the 4th richest country in the world is due to its abuse of other countries. This isn't just past deeds either - the recent G8 "aid" deal to Africa involved several conditions that the nationalised industries of those countries had to be privatised.

I've no problem with immigration because I believe in sharing the wealth. If citizens of other countries wish to come to this far richer country in search of a better life, I say good luck to them. In my view, trying to restrict immigration is analogous to kicking the ladder away. I can't help thinking that many indigenous British people don't know they're born......

we do have a chequered history in the colonies but you can't spend the rest of history looking back that far.

I don't buy this race guilt rubbish. My ancestors were probably serfs on some rich lord's land or even his slaves. what difference does it make? How can I be held accountable for something that I have no living relatives that could have done something to stop it?

Conquering countries exploit the loser. Doesn't matter who wins they are all the same.

Originally posted by robbie
I just don't believe for one second the 2 million figure quoted. I know the official figure and assume that the "real" figure is higher but I've never come across in my time in Immigration any indication that there are 2 millions.

Too true. I haven't either.

I think some people go for a higher figure than the Home Office one due to the following by Migration Watch UK, which includes additional people that shouldnt be included

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/frameset.asp?menu=researchpapers&page=briefingpapers/migration_trends/illegal_migrant_pop_in_uk.asp

Originally posted by timo
Strix,
..... I am not interested in your pointless, negative views....
Well, you're entitled to your opinion - according to forum rules :roll:
And how exactly can you accuse me of holding negative views, given your stand point on this topic?

I am sick of a certain faction on this forum stirring up ill-informed racism on these pages.

Whilst your views may be 'informed', you know only too well that you are stirring up the rabble when you open a debate on this topic, setting Sheffielder against Sheffielder and causing rifts in this virtual community that had barely recovered from the last round of claptrap.

Originally posted by timo
to be honest, I have been accused of 'middle class snobbery' towards this socio-economic group a few times....Many Guardian writers [and not a few 'socialists' of the 'Champagne' variety, of my acquaintance] seem to despise the native, white working classes in particular, i.e Toynbee and Alibhai-Brown...

Can't think why....

Originally posted by timo
In certain in-bred enclaves of Liverpool [such as The St. John's Shopping Centre, named after the patron saint of Incapacity Benefit] the word 'work' is unofficially banned and rarely uttered at audible level. In local parlance, the whispered 'werk' is something to dread and avoid, especially if it interferes with 'me giro'. The latter phrase refers to state unemployment benefits. The shy traffickers involved in the ancient, local trade of 'floggin' knock-off gear' such as 'tracky bottoms' [selling stolen nylon sportswear] on Liverpool streets seek to avoid registered, taxed 'werk' at all cost. So great is their fear that they are known to cry 'ah eh, do one!' when the 'bizzies' [or local police constabulary] catch sight of them setting up 'shop' outside Liverpool's finest restaurants [I think they are called McDonalds].

Deary me, it seems that Strix, Phan and E-Woman Groovin' don't like me! Boo hoo! Where are the 'Quiet Life' tablets when one needs them?

Call me a 'Brownshirt', a 'snob', or whatever you like, dear hearts. Let's face it, not one of you could even hope to beat me in an argument. You know it, I know it, and so does the rest of the forum. LOL.

Blind conceit as well. Lordy. You pupport to be some kind of academic don't you? I hope that's not your attitude when writing a critique of another point of view.

I certainly don't hate you Timo. I'm just really fascinated by your personality.

I have to go along with Timo he will always win a debate with those three.
If he is correct in saying we have about 2 million it will take a mammoth task to remove all of them,assuming of course we can identify them.

Originally posted by timo

Before you dismiss this estimate as 'right wing scaremongering', recall that last year a Home Office official was forced to admit in court that immigration could be six times higher than official figures indicated. Remember also that every year over 12 million non-EU visitors arrive here; how many leave? Even if only 2% remain illegally, it would take only 8 years to reach the 2 million mark. This, dear hearts, is not taking into consideration all those entering illegally, or the hundreds of thousandas of bogus asylum seekers. One reflects that an estimate of 2 million may actually be an underestimate, but I wouldn't wish to be accused of trying to frighten people.

Oh so we get 12million tourists a year contributing to our econonmy. Big deal. You don't wish to be accused of frightening people. Huh!
I don't care how many people come to Britain as tourists, immigrants, or asylum seekers. It only makes our country better.

2 million illegal immigrants, really. Whats your source, whats your problem, where are these people hiding. What thats about 3% of the population, I'm sure we can cope. Big ****** Deal!

Originally posted by Grissom
Too true. I haven't either.

I think some people go for a higher figure than the Home Office one due to the following by Migration Watch UK, which includes additional people that shouldnt be included

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/frameset.asp?menu=researchpapers&page=briefingpapers/migration_trends/illegal_migrant_pop_in_uk.asp

Grissom, you could tell me which of the migration figures cited by Migrationwatch are over inflated? Migrationwatch has in fact been very careful not to exaggerate the scale of the problem by utilising dubious figures. Indeed, much of the statistical evidence it uses is based on Home Office figures and also on the published research of Professor David Coleman, Professor of Demography at Oxford university (who knows as much about migration and migration trends than anyone else in the UK).

It has been a standard response of those opposed to any informed discussion of mass migration to dismiss any figures cited by those questioning its desirability as 'inflated' or 'scaremongering'. This has been a consistent pattern since the time of the 'Windrush' discussion in the House of Commons in the early 1950s. In fact, the proponents of mass migration and also successive governments have consistently underestimated the scale of migration into the UK (usually through 'errors' of omission of one kind or another but also in some cases as a result of deceit). This has been compounded by consistent pattern of failure to assess or predict the consequences of absorption into British society of the migrant 'communities'. A study of the statistical projections about the scale of migration flows into the UK since the 1950s would clearly show that the higher figures have tended to be far more accurate than the lower figures - which is borne out also by the indisputable fact that we now have an ethnic minority population of several millions. Another consistent pattern in the cornucopia of self-delusion and downright deceit of the proponents of mass migration is to proffer reassurances that immigration has somehow peaked and will inevitably decline. This has proven to be false time and time gain.

But the most common response on this forum - by the usual crew of politically correct tramline thinkers. whose brains are so soaked in conventional wisdoms and received orthodoxies on the subjects of mass migration that they are incapable of any responses other than the ritual incantation of the robotic mantras of political correctness, spouting insults, engaging in verbal tantrums or sneering (even these however lack a scintilla of originality and positively reek of mediocrity). This is why the negative responses to Timo's erudite and lucid arguments on this subject by some posters have been so puerile. Timo's posts are not only thoughtful, but thought provoking. As I have said before on several occasions, Timo is in my opinon by far and way the forum's best poster (moreover he would be so even if he never contributed again to any of the political threads. The sparkling wit and humour with which he has graced the Entertainments threads would also qualify him for tihs title in my opinion). Long may our Magister Ludi continue to brighten up the Forum with his entertaining and provocative (but always well thought out, well researched and wonderfully expressed) opinions.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Grissom, you could tell me which of the migration figures cited by Migrationwatch are over inflated? Migrationwatch has in fact been very careful not to exaggerate the scale of the problem by utilising dubious figures. Indeed, much of the statistical evidence it uses is based on Home Office figures

In that case why does the Home Office state that Migration Watch UK's figures should be treated with "considerable caution"? From the way they count immigrants (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2173792.stm) I would be inclined to treat their figures not so much with a pinch of salt as a truckload of the stuff

It has been a standard response of those opposed to any informed discussion of mass migration to dismiss any figures cited by those questioning its desirability as 'inflated' or 'scaremongering'.

Or possibly because the entire 2 million number in the title is a very dubuious calculation based on dodgy premises and heavily slanted by political views?

Originally posted by timo
Deary me, it seems that...Phan...[doesn't] like me! Boo hoo! Where are the 'Quiet Life' tablets when one needs them?

Call me a 'Brownshirt', a 'snob', or whatever you like, dear hearts. Let's face it, not one of you could even hope to beat me in an argument. You know it, I know it, and so does the rest of the forum. LOL.

Apart from sounding a bit like Dougal from the Magic Roundabout ('Dear heart'), I'm not faulting you on anything. You wondered why anyone might accuse you of snobbishness, I merely reprised a post that might erroneously lead one to that conclusion.

As you can see above, (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=656262#post656262)it was posted by you 'in character'. These are usually quite amusing, dear heart.

Originally posted by evildrneil
In that case why does the Home Office state that Migration Watch UK's figures should be treated with "considerable caution"? From the way they count immigrants (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2173792.stm) I would be inclined to treat their figures not so much with a pinch of salt as a truckload of the stuff



Or possibly because the entire 2 million number in the title is a very dubuious calculation based on dodgy premises and heavily slanted by political views?

Not at all. The Home office has considerable 'form' with regard to the presentation of tendentious and misleading figures on immigration - moreover, this is hardly a recent phenomenon. The government obviously has a political interest in minimising the scale of the migration problem as a political issue and the Home Office presentations have tended to reflect this. A glaring example of this is the way the figures on asylum have been blatantly massaged over the years. Almost by definition, the scale of illegal immigration is more difficult to calculate and therefore involves speculation and assumptions of various kinds (this is as true of Home Office estimates as of other studies). Some of the best academic work on this issue - based on studies done in various European countries, including the UK - has been done by Coleman, not by Home Office hacks.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Not at all. The Home office has considerable 'form' with regard to the presentation of tendentious and misleading figures on immigration - moreover, this is hardly a recent phenomenon. The government obviously has a political interest in minimising the scale of the migration problem and the Home Office presentations have tended to reflect this. A glaring example of this is the way the figures on asylum have been blatantly massaed over the years. Almost by definition, the scale of illegal immigration is more difficult to calculate and therefore involves speculation and assumptions of various kinds (this is as true of Home Office estimates as of other studies). Some of the best academic work on this issue - based on studies done in various European countries, including the UK, has been done by Coleman, not by Home Office hacks.

The same is equally true of migrationwatch (which has been fairly well slated for it's dubious calculations and it's bias by numerous people). As I pointed out in a (much) earlier post we aren't going know the real number of immigrants so you just take the choice of estimation that most closely jibes with your political views. With all respect you, Timmo and various others come across as deeply conservative and not a little scaremongouring.

Personally I don't have a problem with immigration and in all honesty apart from the usual suspects on here haven't spoken with anyone who does have a problem with it, so it appears to me to have been spun into a tabloid scare story rather than actually being a major problem *shrug* your view depends on your perception of the world which is in turn informed(?) by your reading matter/media/people you spend time with etc.

Blimey, I've been dropping in on the forum for a year or so but have obviously missed previous rounds on this topic.

Let's start with a simple question... Why do people want to come to the UK? Answer: Because there is work here that pays enough to feed the family, because there is health care for all, because you don't get shot for speaking your mind, because your kids might get an education etc etc.

As the 4th richest country in the world we have a very high standard of living and not surpisingly this is attractive to people who live in the world's ghettos. But why are we rich? We don't manufacture the world's steel any more, we don't export much coal, our gas supplies are nearly gone, we don't proudly export millions of Minis / Rovers... The basic fact is that we are rich because we use our innovation, business acumen, and highly educated minority to make money from services and EXPLOIT THE "DEVELOPING" WORLD! The clothes you are sat in were cheap because they were made in sweatshops in Asia (with a healthy mark-up added by UK firms), many of the UK companies that pay us so well are viable because they have outsourced their menial work to wherever offered the cheapest labour, our economy benefits directly from the debt built up by developing countries trying to recover from destabilization that is often caused by our inteference and distortion of gloabl markets.

So, as a citizen in Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq etc, do you sit around thinking "oh well, the slave labour factory down the road has shut down because China do it cheaper, the Government has been overthrown by the Americans because it was not "friendly", I'll spend my last pennies on surviving another month" OR do you attempt a move to greener pastures?

As citizens in a wealthy country, should we shut down our borders and jealously guard the privileged position we have built by exploiting the very nations whose people are queuing up at our borders, or should we stop for a second and think globally? Unfortunately, many people choose not to think outside the box, all they see is people who don't "belong" here taking the jobs (oh, that nobody else wants).

If we actually used our position to make the world a fairer, more equal place, less people woud actually want to come here. However, if we decide that the worlds inequality is not our problem then perhaps we should shut our trade borders as well as our passport desks? If we don't want the worlds poor coming here exploiting our wealth, then surely we have to stop exploiting the worlds poor. Are you ready for the drop in quality of life that paying a premium for british goods and services would actually mean?

You see, this should not be an argument about the scale of the UK immigration "problem", it should be an argument about reducing the inequalities in the world. You don't put out a fire by trying to catch the smoke....

Originally posted by jfoe
Blimey, I've been dropping in on the forum for a year or so but have obviously missed previous rounds on this topic.

Let's start with a simple question... Why do people want to come to the UK? Answer: Because there is work here that pays enough to feed the family, because there is health care for all, because you don't get shot for speaking your mind, because your kids might get an education etc etc.

As the 4th richest country in the world we have a very high standard of living and not surpisingly this is attractive to people who live in the world's ghettos. But why are we rich? We don't manufacture the world's steel any more, we don't export much coal, our gas supplies are nearly gone, we don't proudly export millions of Minis / Rovers... The basic fact is that we are rich because we use our innovation, business acumen, and highly educated minority to make money from services and EXPLOIT THE "DEVELOPING" WORLD! The clothes you are sat in were cheap because they were made in sweatshops in Asia (with a healthy mark-up added by UK firms), many of the UK companies that pay us so well are viable because they have outsourced their menial work to wherever offered the cheapest labour, our economy benefits directly from the debt built up by developing countries trying to recover from destabilization that is often caused by our inteference and distortion of gloabl markets.

So, as a citizen in Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq etc, do you sit around thinking "oh well, the slave labour factory down the road has shut down because China do it cheaper, the Government has been overthrown by the Americans because it was not "friendly", I'll spend my last pennies on surviving another month" OR do you attempt a move to greener pastures?

As citizens in a wealthy country, should we shut down our borders and jealously guard the privileged position we have built by exploiting the very nations whose people are queuing up at our borders, or should we stop for a second and think globally? Unfortunately, many people choose not to think outside the box, all they see is people who don't "belong" here taking the jobs (oh, that nobody else wants).

If we actually used our position to make the world a fairer, more equal place, less people woud actually want to come here. However, if we decide that the worlds inequality is not our problem then perhaps we should shut our trade borders as well as our passport desks? If we don't want the worlds poor coming here exploiting our wealth, then surely we have to stop exploiting the worlds poor. Are you ready for the drop in quality of life that paying a premium for british goods and services would actually mean?

You see, this should not be an argument about the scale of the UK immigration "problem", it should be an argument about reducing the inequalities in the world. You don't put out a fire by trying to catch the smoke....

i fancy a new start i might move to australia im not going to work there ill just scounge off the system im sure the australian goverment will let me like the uk goverment do

left wing tree huggers i **** em :rolleyes:

Originally posted by jfoe
Blimey, I've been dropping in on the forum for a year or so but have obviously missed previous rounds on this topic.

Let's start with a simple question... Why do people want to come to the UK? Answer: Because there is work here that pays enough to feed the family, because there is health care for all, because you don't get shot for speaking your mind, because your kids might get an education etc etc.

As the 4th richest country in the world we have a very high standard of living and not surpisingly this is attractive to people who live in the world's ghettos. But why are we rich? We don't manufacture the world's steel any more, we don't export much coal, our gas supplies are nearly gone, we don't proudly export millions of Minis / Rovers... The basic fact is that we are rich because we use our innovation, business acumen, and highly educated minority to make money from services and EXPLOIT THE "DEVELOPING" WORLD! The clothes you are sat in were cheap because they were made in sweatshops in Asia (with a healthy mark-up added by UK firms), many of the UK companies that pay us so well are viable because they have outsourced their menial work to wherever offered the cheapest labour, our economy benefits directly from the debt built up by developing countries trying to recover from destabilization that is often caused by our inteference and distortion of gloabl markets.

So, as a citizen in Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq etc, do you sit around thinking "oh well, the slave labour factory down the road has shut down because China do it cheaper, the Government has been overthrown by the Americans because it was not "friendly", I'll spend my last pennies on surviving another month" OR do you attempt a move to greener pastures?

As citizens in a wealthy country, should we shut down our borders and jealously guard the privileged position we have built by exploiting the very nations whose people are queuing up at our borders, or should we stop for a second and think globally? Unfortunately, many people choose not to think outside the box, all they see is people who don't "belong" here taking the jobs (oh, that nobody else wants).

If we actually used our position to make the world a fairer, more equal place, less people woud actually want to come here. However, if we decide that the worlds inequality is not our problem then perhaps we should shut our trade borders as well as our passport desks? If we don't want the worlds poor coming here exploiting our wealth, then surely we have to stop exploiting the worlds poor. Are you ready for the drop in quality of life that paying a premium for british goods and services would actually mean?

You see, this should not be an argument about the scale of the UK immigration "problem", it should be an argument about reducing the inequalities in the world. You don't put out a fire by trying to catch the smoke....

The global interdependency to which you refer has little if anything to do with mass migration. For example, no one would dispute that Japan and South Korea are fully integrated into the global economy, but neither country has permitted large scale immigration (and by definition therefore are not dependent on it). Moreover, migration from the Third World is probably exacerbating the disparities between rich and poor countries, due to the reverse brain drain effect. Rather than encouraging the migration of professional and skilled people from developing countries, we ought to be encouraging them to stay home in order to contribute to the development of their own countries. No so long ago there was a report that there were more Zambian nurses in Birmingham than there were in Lusaka. Such situations are exacerbating the problems of global maldevelopment and are widening global disparities.

Originally posted by evildrneil
The same is equally true of migrationwatch (which has been fairly well slated for it's dubious calculations and it's bias by numerous people). As I pointed out in a (much) earlier post we aren't going know the real number of immigrants so you just take the choice of estimation that most closely jibes with your political views. With all respect you, Timmo and various others come across as deeply conservative and not a little scaremongouring.

Personally I don't have a problem with immigration and in all honesty apart from the usual suspects on here haven't spoken with anyone who does have a problem with it, so it appears to me to have been spun into a tabloid scare story rather than actually being a major problem *shrug* your view depends on your perception of the world which is in turn informed(?) by your reading matter/media/people you spend time with etc.

It is inevitable that Migrationwatch (or indeed any individual or group which raises the subject of migration) will be rotweilered by the pro immigration lobbies, which is why it is more careful than most when making claims or when putting forward statistical information and projections. Moreover, Migrationwatch recognises that illegal immigration is but one aspect of a multidimensional problem. For example, it is also concerned with immigration through asylum seeking and produces figures (based on Home office figures and statistical projections) accordingly.

I don't have a problem with migration either, providing it is small in scale and managed properly. The problem is that it is anything but small in scale and has also been repeatedly mismanaged. I think you are wrong if you think there is no gneral public ocncern about mass migration. Despite the efforts of the establishment to keep it off the political agenda, immigration is a source of concern to the general population. It would be an even bigger source of concern if they knew the scale of the problem, rather than being continually fobbed off with sophistry, evasion and deceit. .

Originally posted by timo
....Let's face it, not one of you could even hope to beat me in an argument. You know it, I know it, and so does the rest of the forum. LOL.
Ah, so you do actually admit that your motive for posting this thread is to start an argument?

Like I said - we've done this one before, we know everybodies' standpoint on it already, and you're just stirring again.

Change the record Timo. Or do you have a one track mind?

Originally posted by E-Man Groovin
Strix there have been times in the past when your posts have irritated me. But on this subject you're being a blooming star!
Damn! I must be losing my touch :rolleyes:

[MOD NOTE] Back on topic please without to-ing and fro-ing.

EDIT: I've removed several posts after this warning has been issued. Stick to topic or bans will follow.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
It is inevitable that Migrationwatch (or indeed any individual or group which raises the subject of migration) will be rotweilered by the pro immigration lobbies, which is why it is more careful than most when making claims or when putting forward statistical information and projections.

A pretty much identical argument could be put forward for any source of immigration data. All figures produced will have an opposing group (with their own set of figures) to shout it down.

The problem is that it is anything but small in scale and has also been repeatedly mismanaged.

That does seem to be a matter of perception. You feel that their is massive immigration personally I don't feel their is. We are never going to convince each other to change our points of view so I think the least we can do is admit they are points of view and not points of fact!

I think you are wrong if you think there is no gneral public ocncern about mass migration. Despite the efforts of the establishment to keep it off the political agenda, immigration is a source of concern to the general population. It would be an even bigger source of concern if they knew the scale of the problem, rather than being continually fobbed off with sophistry, evasion and deceit. .

If this is the case why do I never hear people worrying / complaining about it, apart from the half dozen or so "usual suspects" on here and the occasional frothing tabloid headline???

I have neither the time or inclinationation to dig about for facts tis morning but I do remember aspersions being cast over Immigration Watch's figures before the election. As I stated before, I'd be shocked if the level of illegal immigrants isn't higher than the official figures provided by the Home Office. But 2 million? Where are they all hiding? That is 1-30 people.

I also don't see where this white majority who are worried about the level of immigration are. I certainly don't know them (apart from a few posters on her and the occasional outraged Daily Mail reader on radio call-ins.)

The media overhypes anything to do with immigration to grab a story.

It seems the only peiopl;e worried about this are those who use it for their own agenda (BNP, right wing parties etc) and those who use immigration as a scapegoat for all this countries ills. It's easier to blame foreigners or non-whites for poverty, poor healthcare, housing etc etc than to face the real problems. The last Tory government did it all the time to deflect from their inadaquecies of their economic policies.

If you make the disenfranchised lower/under classes believe that blacks or immigrants are to blame for their problems it deflects them from challenging those who are to blame. The people who run this country and control the wealth.

One important aspect , in respect to the question of how many people in this country are worried or not about all types of immigration is -------how much importance you can place on Opinion Polls .
As far as I can recall , without having access to the figures , over the years there has been a pretty consistently high number of people who tell pollsters they ARE worried .
One reason they have perhaps lost the heart to raise their voices is that they feel that none of the 3 main political parties have ever really tackled their concerns. Yes , they've voted for 1 of the three parties but that's because when you vote , you have to vote for , ' a package ' , not for particular policies .
When a non-political organisation actually goes to the trouble of asking them , the majority generally say they are indeed concerned or worried or angry about immigration in general .
Similarly , consistently , over the years , about 80 % of people asked would like to see Capital and /or corporal punishment returned for certain crimes . Again , they have been brushed aside by the votes of M.P.'s who tend to lead protected lives .
They don't all write to the Daily Mail or post to S.F , to be sure . Is there any wonder ? Where would it get them , even if they took the trouble ?
Perhaps someone could supply us with a brief summary of the relevant polling statistics because I'm only quoting them from memory .

I have only come across strong opinions against immigration on this forum and the BNP element. Most people I know are not concerned about the level of immigration we have.

I'll say this, I've known several people who are illegal immigrants, and those who have genuinely seeked asylum. They all had jobs and were contributing to the economy, paying taxes and so on. They did not live a life of luxury. They often had many challenges to face.

I'd ask those with extreme views, have they actually sat down and had a cup of tea with these people they hate so much. They might actually realise their assumptions are wrong.

Sorry mate - but how does an 'illegal immigrant' actually contribute anything - don't pay tax do they? If so how?

Not saying they shouldn't be here - the government are saying that else they'd be legal surely?

They contribute to the economy everytime they spend their wages. And they do pay VAT. Council Tax. I wouldn't know about income tax, but surely thats up to the employer. But yeah you've got a point.

Originally posted by Zenmaster
They contribute to the economy everytime they spend their wages. And they do pay VAT. Council Tax. I wouldn't know about income tax, but surely thats up to the employer. But yeah you've got a point.


valid points.
and just as important they dont sponge off the state - like some of the white people who wished they weren't over here.

In recent posts the discussion seems to have shifted from the subject of estimates of the scale of migration to the subject of whether people in the UK are concerned about it. Thus evildrnei, Robbie and Zenmaster have all asserted that, generally speaking, they are not.

Conversely, Fareast offers a different perspective on this issue and makes a plea for evidence of some kind (which none of the aformentioned posters provide, apart from their own limited experience, which is filtered through their own conceptual and ideological lenses).

Well, there have been recent polls on the issues of immigration and asylum and these condradict the assertions above that these issues are of little concern to 'ordinary' citizens of this country. Indeed, in the YouGov poll taken in February of this year (see url below), Immigration and asylum seekers topped the list as the political issue deemed to be the most important for this country (at 49%, ahead for example of law and order (43%); health (43%);, education (29%); the economy (26%); or the war on terrorism (22%). Moreover, 78% of people polled thought that the present government was not tough enough on immigration and asylum. 69% of those polled disagreed with the argument that increased immigration was necessary because foreign workers are needed to perform jobs that Britons cannot or will not do.

Moreover, when it came to the question of people's opinions of how many immigrants should be allowed into the country each year, 21% said none at all and a further 31% said up to 10,000. Only 1% of those polled said 'up to 250,000', which is actually not far removed from the actual figures (as far as these can be determined). Furthermore, 60% of respondents supported the idea of withdrawing from the 1951 UN Refugee convention, so that the UK could legislate its own asyulm laws, and 50% would support a proposal th remocve asylum applicants to processing centres abroad. No less than 71% of those polled supported strict annual quotas on the number of refugees and economic migrants.

Other polls (as mentioned by Fareast) have produced very similar results. The evidence strongly suggests that, far from being sanguine and unconcerned about these issues, the general public are alarmed about the scale of immigration into this country and would favour much tighter controls on migration than we have at present. The evidence is all the more remarkable because of the strong pressures from the pro immigration lobbies to keep the issue of immigration off the political agenda (unfortunately, these pressures, resulting in a concordat between the three main parties to downplay the issue, or even not to mention it at all, have been all too successful since the 1960s). The reason why it is now being forced onto the political agenda - despite the earnest efforts of the pro immigration lobbies to prevent an open debate on the issue - is because the sheer scale of migration in recent years and the visible impact of this on our towns and cities. In other words, it is now to obvious to be ignored.

Perhaps the reason why posters referred to above (excluding Fareast) never hear any concerns expressed about immigration and asylum has something to do with the success of the PC lobbies in making any discussion of these issues beyond the moral pale. Anyone who raises these issues is likely to be subject to the kind of abuse, puerile point scoring and cheap name calling we have seen on this thread. When uninhibited by the constaints of the moral totalitarianism imposed on them by these lobbies, the majority are likely in my view to express opinions which are not far removed from those found in the YouGov poll. Contrary to the views of the PC tramline thinkers on this forum, those concerned about the scale of immigration into this country are not by definition jackbooted fascist hyenas.


http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/DBD050101001_1.pdf

bravo, just because you raise a concern doesn't make you a nazi, then again the PC Utopia set probably live in areas not blighted by these issues.

Why am I getting involved in this?

Why do people bother arguing about this? Seems to me there are two types of posters on this topic. Those who like people regardless of what race or background they come from, and those who restrict their liking of people to a delimited grouping.

I'm in the former grouping. It appears to me that others - and I'd like to include Timo, Lord Chaverly and others in this - seem to restrict their liking of people to a particular group. Taken to its logical conclusion you could end up liking only members of your own family, which would be a sad waste of a life.

Now both groups could identify problems with unmanaged immigration, but the former group can see positive benefits to imigration and can celebrate the immigrants and what they bring. Timo certainly believes in the intellectual (and possibly other) superiority of certain races over others. We once discussed the data that indicated racial differences in IQ. This makes you (and I do don't use this in a pejoritive sense, merely a descriptive one) a racist and I'm guessing informs your opinions on immigration and race.

I am open to correction however.

So all this use of data and statistics to back up each side of the argument is pointless. Data 'proved' newtonian physics, the psychological theory of behaviourism and many other flawed scientific theories. Social science is much softer than physics so get real.

Why not just state your position on this subject and leave it at that FFS.

kettle pot black...

Originally posted by LordChaverly
In recent posts the discussion seems to have shifted from the subject of estimates of the scale of migration to the subject of whether people in the UK are concerned about it. Thus evildrnei, Robbie and Zenmaster have all asserted that, generally speaking, they are not.

Conversely, Fareast offers a different perspective on this issue and makes a plea for evidence of some kind (which none of the aformentioned posters provide, apart from their own limited experience, which is filtered through their own conceptual and ideological lenses).

Well, there have been recent polls on the issues of immigration and asylum and these condradict the assertions above that these issues are of little concern to 'ordinary' citizens of this country. Indeed, in the YouGov poll taken in February of this year (see url below), Immigration and asylum seekers topped the list as the political issue deemed to be the most important for this country (at 49%, ahead for example of law and order (43%); health (43%);, education (29%); the economy (26%); or the war on terrorism (22%). Moreover, 78% of people polled thought that the present government was not tough enough on immigration and asylum. 69% of those polled disagreed with the argument that increased immigration was necessary because foreign workers are needed to perform jobs that Britons cannot or will not do.

Moreover, when it came to the question of people's opinions of how many immigrants should be allowed into the country each year, 21% said none at all and a further 31% said up to 10,000. Only 1% of those polled said 'up to 250,000', which is actually not far removed from the actual figures (as far as these can be determined). Furthermore, 60% of respondents supported the idea of withdrawing from the 1951 UN Refugee convention, so that the UK could legislate its own asyulm laws, and 50% would support a proposal th remocve asylum applicants to processing centres abroad. No less than 71% of those polled supported strict annual quotas on the number of refugees and economic migrants.

Other polls (as mentioned by Fareast) have produced very similar results. The evidence strongly suggests that, far from being sanguine and unconcerned about these issues, the general public are alarmed about the scale of immigration into this country and would favour much tighter controls on migration than we have at present. The evidence is all the more remarkable because of the strong pressures from the pro immigration lobbies to keep the issue of immigration off the political agenda (unfortunately, these pressures, resulting in a concordat between the three main parties to downplay the issue, or even not to mention it at all, have been all too successful since the 1960s). The reason why it is now being forced onto the political agenda - despite the earnest efforts of the pro immigration lobbies to prevent an open debate on the issue - is because the sheer scale of migration in recent years and the visible impact of this on our towns and cities. In other words, it is now to obvious to be ignored.

Perhaps the reason why posters referred to above (excluding Fareast) never hear any concerns expressed about immigration and asylum has something to do with the success of the PC lobbies in making any discussion of these issues beyond the moral pale. Anyone who raises these issues is likely to be subject to the kind of abuse, puerile point scoring and cheap name calling we have seen on this thread. When uninhibited by the constaints of the moral totalitarianism imposed on them by these lobbies, the majority are likely in my view to express opinions which are not far removed from those found in the YouGov poll. Contrary to the views of the PC tramline thinkers on this forum, those concerned about the scale of immigration into this country are not by definition jackbooted fascist hyenas.


http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/DBD050101001_1.pdf

fair point. However, if you asked the population in terms of priorities what they cared about 9health, money, education etc etc) I'm sure immigration would be right near the bottom of that list.

E-man Groovin,

I hesitate to speak on behalf of Timo , Lord Chaverly ....et..al... and so apologies if this is wrong but from what I can gather from their posts and certainly speaking for myself , I don't think we have any problem at all with having good , friendly relationships with people from all different backgrounds , from all over the world ; in fact from posts I can remember , exactly the opposite !
In my own case , I can remember , for example , in the '50's and '60's , in Sheffield when quite a few people from the West Indies , Hungary and the Yemen arrived in Sheffield and settled in . There was no outrcry or general disapproval or worries . Of course the odd parochial plonker would guffaw or make silly comments at a West Indian's big hat or colourful suit , a Hungarian 's accent or Yemeni dress but people were more curious and tolerant than aggressive or violent .Later , thousands of people of South Asian extraction arrived in Britain from Uganda and , again , the general reaction was one of sympathy rather than anything else .
Nowadays , it is rather different . I certainly don't think it's the Sun or Daily Mail who unduly influence people . People also watch T.V. , listen to the radio , read other newspapers and magazines , travel round the country , use their eyes and talk to friends and relatives in a dozen different ways . They form their opinions from a wide range of sources . The conclusion seems to be that they are , in the main worried , concerned or angry about immigration in general , notwithstanding what Robbie said about other worries too !
Society is a delicate fabric in many ways and if people sense that that fabric is being eroded or destroyed , then they get worried ------especially as no-one seems to listen to their concerns .It's the sheer numbers that worries people , not the simple fact of welcoming deserving refugees from wherever .
On a personal level , I've worked in many different countries and met , lived and worked with literally hundreds of people from all kinds of backgrounds [ and in the U.K. too] and got on with everyone , as leasty as well as I have with English or British people. A Saudi man of about 50 and a Chinese lady of 21 are two people I can think of who I would say have been practically saints , in my eyes .
But ......individuals are not the point ------it's the general situation that's the problem . People will often welcome a few strangers to their village or community but once the numbers reach a certain point , worries about the nature of the village start to , "kick in" . That's happening on a large scale in the U.K today in the view of many of us .

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Well, there have been recent polls on the issues of immigration and asylum and these condradict the assertions above that these issues are of little concern to 'ordinary' citizens of this country.

[Long list of figures from some opinion poll]

Perhaps the reason why posters referred to above (excluding Fareast) never hear any concerns expressed about immigration and asylum has something to do with the success of the PC lobbies in making any discussion of these issues beyond the moral pale. [/url]

Please.

Let's get it straight: there's a reason the man on the street doesn't want any non-white immigration. It's because they all get free cars, they all get NHS treatment ahead of old ladies, they all attempt to get pre-age of consent girls into bed, and they all want to blow us to smithereens.

There's an enormous wave of feeling against non-white immigration because of tall tales like these, which get passed around the streets, pubs, workplaces and bars across the land. Plus the fact that many people are very, very intolerant of other cultures.

However, I dare say the vast majority of those people who are vehemently opposed to any form of non-white immigration have not taken time to speak to such a person, nor would they come across them on anything like a day-to-day basis. For many, non-white immigration is far more important as an idea to rail against, a stick to beat a rootless Labour government with, than as a reality.

This hysteria will pass, of course, just as it did with single mothers and benefit scroungers. Funny how it's always the little guys who are under attack; still, at least it keeps those at the top out of the firing line.

Originally posted by Greenback
Please.

Let's get it straight: there's a reason the man on the street doesn't want any non-white immigration. It's because they all get free cars, they all get NHS treatment ahead of old ladies, they all attempt to get pre-age of consent girls into bed, and they all want to blow us to smithereens.

There's an enormous wave of feeling against non-white immigration because of tall tales like these, which get passed around the streets, pubs, workplaces and bars across the land. Plus the fact that many people are very, very intolerant of other cultures.

However, I dare say the vast majority of those people who are vehemently opposed to any form of non-white immigration have not taken time to speak to such a person, nor would they come across them on anything like a day-to-day basis. For many, non-white immigration is far more important as an idea to rail against, a stick to beat a rootless Labour government with, than as a reality.

This hysteria will pass, of course, just as it did with single mothers and benefit scroungers. Funny how it's always the little guys who are under attack; still, at least it keeps those at the top out of the firing line.

Greenback, I expect better from you than this. Although I disagree profoundly with almost everything you have written on the political threads on this forum, you usually make a good stab at a coherent and logical, and courteously expressed, argument (which is more than I can say for some posters who have contributed to this particular thread). However, your last post exhibits none of the above characteristics: it is devoid of any factual content and is merely a tendentious, sneering rant, full of the ignorant pub-level bluster which you claim to abhor.

It is interesting that you make no attempt to dispute the evidence provided by the YouGov poll (which I introduced to refute the claims of several posters on here that immigration and asylum issues were of little concern to ordinary people). It is, moreover, highly presumptuous of you to claim that those opposed to mass immigration can have had little contact with 'none white' people or that our motives spring from a desire to find a motive for attacking the Labour government (there are, surely, many other reasons for doing this).

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Greenback, I expect better from you than this. Although I disagree profoundly with almost everything you have written on the political threads on this forum, you usually make a good stab at a coherent and logical, and courteously expressed, argument (which is more than I can say for some posters who have contributed to this particular thread). However, your last post exhibits none of the above characteristics: it is devoid of any factual content and is merely a tendentious, sneering rant, full of the ignorant pub-level bluster which you claim to abhor.

To be perfectly honest my right honorable friend, I'm not interested in seeking your stamp of approval in terms of what I post. A few home truths needed to be aired, especially seeing as this issue is largely one of a politicised base emotion run amok.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
It is interesting that you make no attempt to dispute the evidence provided by the YouGov poll (which I introduced to refute the claims of several posters on here that immigration and asylum issues were of little concern to ordinary people). It is, moreover, highly presumptuous of you to claim that those opposed to mass immigration can have had little contact with 'none white' people or that our motives spring from a desire to find a motive for attacking the Labour government (there are, surely, many other reasons for doing this).

A YouGov poll is not of much use as "evidence". It's a representation of "opinion". And as far as I'm concerned many opinions on the issue of non-white immigration appear to be formed on the basis of wilfully inaccurate scare stories in the local and national press.

If you were to go out onto Sheffield's streets, today, and ask the average person what they think the average asylum seeker receives in benefits from this country, do you think the answer you get back would bear any relation to the reality?

The whole debate is incredibly over-inflated. Do you, personally, really believe that levels of immigration are of more importance to this nation's well-being than law and order, health and education? I personally believe, on the evidence of my own eyes, that such a belief is hysterical.

But then again, I'm also against capital punishment, and you'll struggle to find an opinion poll with a majority against that.

Originally posted by Greenback
To be perfectly honest my right honorable friend, I'm not interested in seeking your stamp of approval in terms of what I post. A few home truths needed to be aired, especially seeing as this issue is largely one of a politicised base emotion run amok.



A YouGov poll is not of much use as "evidence". It's a representation of "opinion". And as far as I'm concerned many opinions on the issue of non-white immigration appear to be formed on the basis of wilfully inaccurate scare stories in the local and national press.

If you were to go out onto Sheffield's streets, today, and ask the average person what they think the average asylum seeker receives in benefits from this country, do you think the answer you get back would bear any relation to the reality?

The whole debate is incredibly over-inflated. Do you, personally, really believe that levels of immigration are of more importance to this nation's well-being than law and order, health and education? I personally believe, on the evidence of my own eyes, that such a belief is hysterical.

But then again, I'm also against capital punishment, and you'll struggle to find an opinion poll with a majority against that.

You don't deserve anyone's stamp of approval for such patronising drivel as the above. Your post amounts to the ludicrous assumption that your 'reality' is the correct one and therefore that anyone with a different opinion must be in the grip of delusion and hysteria (I note you make no attempt whatsoever to refute the evidence provided in the Yougove poll I cited - why allow evidence to deflate your cocoon of self-delusion?).

Perhaps you are only interested in the opinions of ordinary people when they conform to your own puerile caricatures- as, perhaps not so coincidentally, was also the case with the person whose image you have chosen as your avatar (who also had a talent for getting everything wrong).

Originally posted by Greenback
[A YouGov poll is not of much use as "evidence". It's a representation of "opinion".



Well surely its people's opinions that count - you don't seem behind the door at posting your 'views' on the world - misguided as they are ?

Originally posted by Internetowl
Well surely its people's opinions that count - you don't seem behind the door at posting your 'views' on the world - misguided as they are ?



I may be misguided - hell, I'm not arrogant enough (like some on here) to believe I have all the answers. Of course people's opinions are important, whether I agree with them or not, but I happen to think the hysteria over immigration is predominantly a media construct and that the public have often been misled.

Your final comment marks you out as someone to watch out for on the comedy circuit, mind. I feel like I have been truly cut to the quick by one of the sharpest minds of this or any other generation – do you do Bahmitzvah's?

And Lord Chav, my avatar isn't a symbol of my character and more than you are a little version of Gollum bedecked in Burberry ;)

Itsh only a pichure

Originally posted by LordChaverly
You don't deserve anyone's stamp of approval for such patronising drivel as the above. Your post amounts to the ludicrous assumption that your 'reality' is the correct one and therefore that anyone with a different opinion must be in the grip of delusion and hysteria (I note you make no attempt whatsoever to refute the evidence provided in the Yougove poll I cited - why allow evidence to deflate your cocoon of self-delusion?).

I just tells it as I sees it... an opinion poll is an opinion poll, and if they ruled our world we'd be living in a very strange alter-reality indeed.

Heh, I like the idea of a cocoon of self-delusion though. Does it have a television in there? If so, I hope to watch England win the World Cup from its comfortable confines.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
You don't deserve anyone's stamp of approval for such patronising drivel as the above.

Greenback had a Lucky Escape.

Heck, if I got your stamp of approval, I would need to top myself.

Well timo I hope you're satisfied :roll:

Whoever said that 'people aren't allowed to discuss these things' has been proved obviously wrong.

Mod:

Sadly, I will be quite happy to close the thread down and hand out bans if people can't behave in a civilised manner while discussing this.

Manners please!

Originally posted by kathythebean
Well timo I hope you're satisfied :roll:


What does that mean? It sounds like you're implying that timo has been a naughty boy for daring to start this debate!

Immigrants, legal or illegal, come into Britain for a reason. They see a better life for themselves, often a safer life for themselves than that available in their own country.
How many of us have actually done anything to make this country what it is today?
Most of us have not been in the position of physically defending our country and have enjoyed the benefits of economic growth.
Would-be immigrants are no different from us. They want the same things as us: good education for their children, an affordable health service, freedom of speech, the opportunity to work.
They dream dreams and want a future they can believe in, just as we do.
By lucky accident we have been born in Britain.
We like living here, despite the constant complaints from many on the Forum about our political leaders, past and present, our local council, the state of transport, the state of the roads, buildings, pubs etc.
Do we really have exclusive rights to a decent life?

anyone read Steve Moxon's book? Interesting read...

Originally posted by kathythebean
Well timo I hope you're satisfied :roll:

Whoever said that 'people aren't allowed to discuss these things' has been proved obviously wrong.

I have to disgree with you on this, Kathythebean. Just because we are able on this Forum to discuss many issues in 'reasonable' fashion, does NOT mean the debate is going on in the wider world.

In fact, there is a distinct lack of discussion abut Immigration. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it are, and trying to remove the emotional loading from it, this is a massively important subject for all of us - it affects all our lives and futures, and is crying out to be properly addressed. The British public - all of us - have a right to have it taken seriously.

IF the 2 million figure is anywhere near the correct figure, this is potentially an enormous weight on our housing, transport and medical facilities. If nothing else, if there are vast numbers more people living in this country than official figures cater for, this has huge implications for the country's infrastructure, which needs to be tackled as a matter of urgency before it collapses.

It's no good shoving all this under the carpet, it needs to be tackled NOW.

StarSparkle

All I meant was that we've done this topic to death, and its not 'reasonable' discussion, its the same old boring timo LordChav fareast vs disco cat greenback etc.

You're supposed to search before you post topics aren't you?

And if you're trying to imply that immigration is never discussed in this country then sorry but you must be on a different planet from me!

Originally posted by StarSparkle
IF the 2 million figure is anywhere near the correct figure, this is potentially an enormous weight on our housing, transport and medical facilities.

Even if this figure is anywhere near the truth, which we may never know, how can it have any effect on housing, transport and medical facilities?

As far as I'm aware if people are here illegally they have no access to any of these things.

Originally posted by max
Even if this figure is anywhere near the truth, which we may never know, how can it have any effect on housing, transport and medical facilities?

As far as I'm aware if people are here illegally they have no access to any of these things.

Do you really believe that people entering this country illegally do not have access to housing, medication ,legal aid etc.
Fool

Hello dear hearts,
Your favourite Magister Ludi and rakehelly outlaw is back again, after another exciting 'temporary ban'. You didn't think that I had become shy all of a sudden , did you?
May I thank dear Lord Chaverly [such a very excellent person] for holding the fort so manfully in my enforced cyber-absence. It was a sad , but necessary, task of his Lordship to bloody Greenback a little. Greenback, whilst usually a most erudite and courteous poster whom I sincerely respect, was terribly rude and failed to identify any deficits within my learned friend's arguments around the Yougove poll. Phan too, has been less than gentlemanly in his dealings with Lord C. There is a complete absence of sustained, rigorous analysis in his 'postings, and he resorts to mocking his Lordship's 'approval. If Phan ever gained the approval of a first-rate intellectual, brilliant writer and kind, generous being like Lord C, he should count himself very fortunate indeed.

I do not take offence at Kathythebean's 'Are you satisfied?' posting. Frankly, I am not satisfied . There seems to be more libellous abuse hurled about ['racist' and 'brownshirt'] than in-depth debate conducted. Please can we conduct ourselves in a more dignified and civilised manner. The forum is a place for debate, and this issue is most certainly worthy of debate. Whether the left/liberal faction like it or not, there is a swelling resentment towards the idea of further mass immigration, and a realisation that the 'multicultural experiment' has failed. It has never been a part of my case to suggest repatriation [voluntary or otherwise] as a solution, nor do I sympathise with fascist politics. The 'nazi' jibes are risible and potentially libellous. They seem all the more ridiculous when one reflects that, if anything, I am not a 'collectivist'. Hitler, arguably the 'nazi par excellence' was the ultimate collectivist. Far from being a figure of the right, one might bracket the Austrian dictator with the extreme left! Additionally, I might recognise that there are geographical variations in IQ test scores, [the mere acknowledgement is regarded as 'racist', and myself by implication, by E Man Groovin'], but I have never suggested that a human being can be judged in terms of 'worth' by these means, nor have I ever suggested that one 'race' or ethnic group is 'superior' to another in respect of all characters.

To borrow a phrase from that most delightful, sensible and humane poster, Starsparkle, let's try to debate the issue of immigration without 'the emotional loading'. Contrary to Strix's view, I did not start the thread with the malevolent intention of 'setting Sheffielder against Sheffielder'. I certainly started an argument, but as long as the argument is conducted courteously, there is no harm in that. There is no Goebbels-like intention to stir up racial enmity on my part. Far from it. The political architects of mass immigration and 'multiculturalism' have done a thorough enough job of that.

Regards to everybody,

Timo

So you're not a nazi or a scouser, thats cleared up then :)

There is libellous abuse on both sides here, my dear.

Nonetheless you should've searched before you posted. You would have found many many pages of the same old that you could have added your comments to :nono:

Originally posted by max
Even if this figure is anywhere near the truth, which we may never know, how can it have any effect on housing, transport and medical facilities?

As far as I'm aware if people are here illegally they have no access to any of these things.

Don't be silly, Max :rolleyes:

There aren't 2 million (or however many there are) people sleeping on the streets, so of course they're living somewhere.

And even if they don't immediately utilise medical care, if they're here any length of time they're going to have children who will need access to health care, and sooner or later education.

If the government doesn't know how many illegal immigrants there are (which David Blunkett has actually admitted) or where they are, how can they possibly make reasonable provisions for catering for their needs in the future? 2 million (or whatever) people have a lot of needs to cater for.

And Kathythebean - I'm sure I watch the news as carefully as you do, and there has been no major discussion in this country on immigration. Politicians of all parties (except the far right) have studiously been avoiding talking about it. The Tories have tried occasionally, but the media then accuses them of being racist. (I'm no Tory, by the way). Any serious attempt to discuss the subject is continually beaten down by the politically-correct crowd, so a subject that is very important to all of us and our futures is simply not being discussed properly.

I don't think this is very healthy for democracy. How can we claim to have free speech in this country if certain topics are considered taboo?

StarSparkle

Originally posted by dragonsoup
Do you really believe that people entering this country illegally do not have access to housing, medication ,legal aid etc.
Fool

Apart from the insult, which is not really warranted, how are people who are here illegally able to access any of these services? I'm intrigued how you get medical attention, for instance, without any form of identification such as national insurance number.

Mod: Thread pruned. If this thread falls into nastiness and name calling again more bans will be given.

Originally posted by timo
It was a sad , but necessary, task of his Lordship to bloody Greenback a little. Greenback, whilst usually a most erudite and courteous poster whom I sincerely respect, was terribly rude and failed to identify any deficits within my learned friend's arguments around the Yougove poll. Phan too, has been less than gentlemanly in his dealings with Lord C. There is a complete absence of sustained, rigorous analysis in his 'postings, and he resorts to mocking his Lordship's 'approval. If Phan ever gained the approval of a first-rate intellectual, brilliant writer and kind, generous being like Lord C, he should count himself very fortunate indeed.

The YouGov poll, as has been pointed out, is based on public opinion. I don't agree that, necessarily, an opinion poll automatically reflects the reality of any issue, let alone immigration, especially when there are so many half-truths and downright lies flying around which, in the absence of empirical evidence, soon become accepted as fact.

If anyone finds this an unpalletable position - to the extent that they feel the urge to resort to highly imaginative schoolyard insults - feel free to argue against it rationally.

I've yet to see Lord Chaverly respond to the questions I raised earlier, and I'd be interested to hear his answers.

Immigration is a hugely over-hyped issue.

Originally posted by Fareast
E-man Groovin,

I hesitate to speak on behalf of Timo , Lord Chaverly ....et..al... and so apologies if this is wrong but from what I can gather from their posts and certainly speaking for myself , I don't think we have any problem at all with having good , friendly relationships with people from all different backgrounds , from all over the world ; in fact from posts I can remember , exactly the opposite !



Except in Timo's case those relationships are underscored by his belief in his race's intellectual superiority over some of those other other people.

Also


In my own case , I can remember , for example , in the '50's and '60's , in Sheffield when quite a few people from the West Indies , Hungary and the Yemen arrived in Sheffield and settled in . There was no outrcry or general disapproval or worries . Of course the odd parochial plonker would guffaw or make silly comments at a West Indian's big hat or colourful suit , a Hungarian 's accent or Yemeni dress but people were more curious and tolerant than aggressive or violent .Later , thousands of people of South Asian extraction arrived in Britain from Uganda and , again , the general reaction was one of sympathy rather than anything else .


I grew up in the 60s and 70s and while being chased across dark parks by gangs of skinheads, or hiding on the upstairs of a bus watching NF thugs marauding and seriously damaging anyone with any slight pigmentation on the streets of Euston. I wasn't thinking 'parochial plonker' believe me!

But it was cool we lived with it as an exhilarating hazard of inner-city 1970s existence.


But ......individuals are not the point ------it's the general situation that's the problem . People will often welcome a few strangers to their village or community but once the numbers reach a certain point , worries about the nature of the village start to , "kick in" . That's happening on a large scale in the U.K today in the view of many of us . [/B]

But I still don't get you. What is it about the quality of life that's changing? Are you not getting wealthier and healthier. Would you rather be living now or in the lilly-white 18th century? Or in the 1920s for that matter. You have a standard of living that was way beyond the average Joe in the 1960s and 70s. So what is it about the darkies that's making your life worse.

Could it just be that you just don't like them? Don't like their languages or their culture and don't want them around you.

I would rather be a little poorer and have my country as it was before half the world came here.
And thats the problem we have here ,the people are far too comfortable to rock the boat on immigration,they are only intersted in themselves its the im alright jack attitude and sod the rest.
I think the people ought to think what this country will be like in say 20 or 30 yrs when their children or grandchildren will be around to see their country become a big multi racial slum which is the way its heading right now.
I sometimes think the people deserve all they get,they moan in the pub about immigration but then they go out and vote for the political parties which encourage it and then moan about it again.:loopy:
We have to make them realize the connection with the way they vote with how this country will look.
But I think the penny is finally beginning to drop and hopefully the backlash will not be far away.
:thumbsup:

Originally posted by royjames
I would rather be a little poorer and have my country as it was before half the world came here.
And thats the problem we have here ,the people are far too comfortable to rock the boat on immigration,they are only intersted in themselves its the im alright jack attitude and sod the rest.
I think the people ought to think what this country will be like in say 20 or 30 yrs when their children or grandchildren will be around to see their country become a big multi racial slum which is the way its heading right now.
I sometimes think the people deserve all they get,they moan in the pub about immigration but then they go out and vote for the political parties which encourage it and then moan about it again.:loopy:
We have to make them realize the connection with the way they vote with how this country will look.
But I think the penny is finally beginning to drop and hopefully the backlash will not be far away.
:thumbsup:

Roy, Roy you make these hysteria-inducing predictions which have no basis in fact. In that you are just like your hero Enoch who falsley predicted 'rivers of blood'. Despite you and your ilk's best efforts it hasn't quite happened has it?

Is it the multi-races that would make a slum undesireable - or is it just the fact that it's a slum? Answer me this: if you could could live in a clean affluent area surrounded by lawyers, doctors and other professionals of all colours and races or a pure white suburb packed with rough, uncouth, criminal types what would you choose?

Originally posted by royjames
I would rather be a little poorer and have my country as it was before half the world came here.
And thats the problem we have here ,the people are far too comfortable to rock the boat on immigration,they are only intersted in themselves its the im alright jack attitude and sod the rest.
I think the people ought to think what this country will be like in say 20 or 30 yrs when their children or grandchildren will be around to see their country become a big multi racial slum which is the way its heading right now.
I sometimes think the people deserve all they get,they moan in the pub about immigration but then they go out and vote for the political parties which encourage it and then moan about it again.:loopy:
We have to make them realize the connection with the way they vote with how this country will look.
But I think the penny is finally beginning to drop and hopefully the backlash will not be far away.
:thumbsup:

I haven't read all the posts in this, but Roy i enjoy yours, you don't waste any words, and say just what you think.

Originally posted by royjames

We have to make them realize the connection with the way they vote with how this country will look.

Look?

Further evidence that your problem is not immigration per se, but non-whites. I find it really, really sad, and it's just completely off my radar that any grown man or woman with all their mental faculties would think like that.

Originally posted by poppins
I haven't read all the posts in this, but Roy i enjoy yours, you don't waste any words, and say just what you think.

If he really said what he thought he'd say "I don't like the darkies" instead of trying to make his message palatable using this pseudo-political and economic smokescreen...

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Greenback had a Lucky Escape.

Heck, if I got your stamp of approval, I would need to top myself.

Well, in this case I am prepared to turn both reason and considered judgement on their heads and grant you an emphatic stamp of approval.

Originally posted by Greenback
The YouGov poll, as has been pointed out, is based on public opinion. I don't agree that, necessarily, an opinion poll automatically reflects the reality of any issue, let alone immigration, especially when there are so many half-truths and downright lies flying around which, in the absence of empirical evidence, soon become accepted as fact.

If anyone finds this an unpalletable position - to the extent that they feel the urge to resort to highly imaginative schoolyard insults - feel free to argue against it rationally.

I've yet to see Lord Chaverly respond to the questions I raised earlier, and I'd be interested to hear his answers.

Immigration is a hugely over-hyped issue.

What questions were these?

I have trawled back through your posts on this thread and all I have found are lazy and stupid assertions unsupported by any evidence other than your own solipsistic prejudices and delusions about what other people should think.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
What questions were these?

I have trawled back through your posts on this thread and all I have found are lazy and stupid assertions unsupported by any evidence other than your own solipsistic prejudices and delusions about what other people should think.

These two (not particularly difficult to spot for those who don't possess tunnel vision):

If you were to go out onto Sheffield's streets, today, and ask the average person what they think the average asylum seeker receives in benefits from this country, do you think the answer you get back would bear any relation to the reality?

Do you, personally, really believe that levels of immigration are of more importance to this nation's well-being than law and order, health and education?

But hey, knock yourself out 'proving' a point using opinion polls. And keep the personal abuse flowing, it's continually impressive stuff from one as obviously capable of hitherto unimaginable levels of pomposity as your good self.

The views of people such as RoyJames annoy the hell out of me, because there are some very real concerns WRT large scale immigration/ghettoisation, that get brushed under the carpet when they make 'racism' higher on the agenda.

The problem of educating a class of 30 5 year olds, 20 of whom are not speaking English on a daily basis, some of whom are not familiar with English at all, means that the whole class has their education put on hold whilst the teacher makes some attempt to get the whole class to a managable degree of the same level. I'd be very concerned if children of mine were not receiving an education of a suitable level because they 'had a head start' in being able to speak the language the class (would be) taught in.

However....... this has nothing to do with illegal immigration :suspect:
so I won't go on further :roll:

Originally posted by Greenback
These two (not particularly difficult to spot for those who don't possess tunnel vision):

If you were to go out onto Sheffield's streets, today, and ask the average person what they think the average asylum seeker receives in benefits from this country, do you think the answer you get back would bear any relation to the reality?

Do you, personally, really believe that levels of immigration are of more importance to this nation's well-being than law and order, health and education?

But hey, knock yourself out 'proving' a point using opinion polls. And keep the personal abuse flowing, it's continually impressive stuff from one as obviously capable of hitherto unimaginable levels of pomposity as your good self.

Well, perhaps i did not spot them because it would be most unusual for a mind as closed as yours to seek answers to questions when there was even the remotest possibility that these answers would not conform to your own puerile prejudices. However, I am always pleased to oblige an inquiring mind.

With regard to the first question, the 'reality' of the benefits accruing to asylum seekers is open to question because they are likely to receive monetary and non-monetary benefits from various quarters. Since most of them arrive in this country with little more than they stand up in, it is reasonable to suppose that they will be allocated various forms of assistance based on their needs. So it will probably be as difficult for the average Sheffielder to make a decent guess at this 'reality' as anyone else. The difficulty here is compounded by the fact that, for both good reasons and bad, public authorities and NGOs probably have a bias towards minimising adverse publicity surrounding asylum seeker benefits and therefore are likely to favour lower rather than higher estimates of the benefits accruing to asylum seekers.

But you know what? I am not all that interested in whether the figures for benefits are high or low. What i am interested in is the sheer size of migration into the UK via the asylum seeking route in recent years. I know you are not very interested in statistical evidence of any kind (preferring the 'evidence of your own eyes') but I wil provide some anyway. The latest UNHCR report on aslyum levels and trends in industrialised countries in 2004 (published in March 2005) showed that between 2000 and 2004 the UK received more asylum seekers than any other European country. In this period, it received no less than 393,830 applications, compared with 324,150 for Germany (the next highest) and 279,190 for France (the third highest). Given that England (the principal destination for asylum seekers) has a much higher population density than either Germany or France, it is no wonder that even a UN official publicly stated that the UK was bearing a disproportionate share of asylum seekers choosing Europe as their destination. Moreover, in the early 2000s, the situation was even more ludicrous. Thus in 2002, the UK was the main destination country amongst developed countries, even taking in more asylum seekers than the US (even though England has a population density twelve times that of the US). Even though we have recently been overtaken by France as the top destination country in Europe, we have never been far from being near top of the league table (if you don't believe me, look at either recent UNHCR reports are alternatively at the most recent Economist Statistical Yearbooks for 2003 and 2004).

With regard to your second point, I do indeed believe that an effective immigration conrtrol is of vital importance to a nation's well being. As to its priority in relation to the other issues you mention, well, all are obviously important, so it is not a matter of 'either or'. Moreover, mass immigration (which, once it has taken place, is irreversible) is likely to have some impact on each of the issues you mention. I believe therefore that you are profoundly mistaken in your view that the issue of immigration has been 'over-hyped'. Quite the reverse.

Originally posted by Greenback
Do you, personally, really believe that levels of immigration are of more importance to this nation's well-being than law and order, health and education?


Greenback - on many threads I agree totally with what you say, but I don't think you're being open-minded on this thread :(

Levels of immigration are of intrinsic importance to such subjects as law and order, health and education. How CAN a government realistically be said to be on top of law and order when there are up to 2 million people in this country whom they know nothing about, not even that they're here? How can they plan properly for future health and education requirements?

Bring concerned about the (long-term) effects of mass illegal immigration does NOT equate to racism.

StarSparkle

So, what do Forum members see as a realistic answer to the immigration issue? What should the government of the day be doing?

Presumably it's more open-minded to pounce on scaremongering figures from overtly political websites such as the ludicrous Migrationwatch – who, incidentally, were claiming as recently as April 2005 that the number of illegal immigrants in the country stood at 250,000?

In the absence of anything even closely resembling reliable evidence on illegal immigration – how could any possibly exist? – I'll move onto immigration in general. It is true to state that immigration on these shores has risen over the last decade.

However, the positives outweigh the negatives.

Immigrants are needed to fill the gaps caused by a declining birth rate and an ageing population, and the skill rate is high: a fifth of 2004's immigrant population possessed degrees - hardly surprising when the top five 'providing' countries, making up 30% of the overall immigrant influx, were the US, Australia, Poland, South Africa and India.

Most economists concur that immigration is a sign of a healthy economy, and that it provides a net benefit to the economy of around 10%. With the average immigrant of a younger working age than the average Briton, immigrants do not contribute to the pensions crisis, and in terms of the NHS anyone who has been into a hospital over the last few years will have seen the huge benefits provided to our health service by workers born overseas.

We keep being told that immigration is a mess and totally out of control. So, are we being 'swamped' in comparison to the rest of Europe? Well, not quite. As it stands, 8.5% of the UK population was born abroad, compared to 12.5% in Germany, and 10% in France.

[Figures provided by the London School of Economics' Centre for Economic Performance]

As for begging-bowl bearing asylum seekers queueing up in droves to wade over the border, it's interesting to note that the actual number entering the country at Dover stands at five a day. Applications for asylum are decreasing dramatically, and the number fell by 33% in 2004.

I think that people have got the wrong idea about what an illegal immigrant actually is and this is apparent in this discussion.There are 2 different types of illegal immigrants
1.someone who enters the country by dodging port controls
2. someone who entered the country in the right way and with a legitimate reason, who's visa has now run out and has not gone back to their country of origin.
If we are talking about illegal immigrants type 1 we are only talking about a very small number of illegal immigrants but if we are talking about illegal immigrants type 2 we are talking in millions.
I work in the Home Office in the Immigration department and believe that not enough is being done to sort out the problem of illegal immigration. People who are living in this country illegally are supposed to be removed and deported back to their own countries (in theory) but in practice this is more difficullt as illegal immigrants are almost invisible as they do not have any status. This means that they can do as they please since they have no status. Illegal immigrants only get caught out when they apply for further leave and even this is difficult because there is only one removals team in the whole of the UK. To sort out the problem of illegal immoigrants I think that the government should redefine what an illegal immigrant actually is. Secondly the government should be more open about the immigration system and not keep people in the dark about how people are getting into the country because hopefully by doing this the government can show that illegal immigrants are not all bad.

Originally posted by Floe
So, what do Forum members see as a realistic answer to the immigration issue? What should the government of the day be doing?

Approaching immigration as a resource would be a start. As someone has already mentioned immigrants can fill gaps in the skills market. So instead of the negative "scrub Merrie England back to whiteness" outlook of our comedy racist Roy, how about we adopt a proactive and positive view of immigrants? Australia regulates immigration by giving priority to those whose skills it requires. Admittedly this does tend to deplete source countries of skills but a market economy is operating here. But many countries already view their populations as a commodity. The Philippines for instance, trains far more medical workers than it can use itself, knowing that many will wander off to the USA, Europe and Middle East to work. The money they send back home props up the GDP of the place admirably. In fact when a proposal was made recently to tax it the idea was laughed out of court, because somebody realised the danger of making this black market dosh flow less attractive to overseas-based nationals.

And by the by, I nearly needed a medical practitioner myself after reading Roy's "I would rather be a little poorer and have my country as it was before half the world came here" declaration. Split me sides, I did. This is a nation built upon successive waves of immigration. Sure, it has accellerated recently, but there are commensurately more Brit passport holders involved in diaspora away from here now, too.

There was nobody here in the beginning, Roy. Quite how you have come up with a history that involves a genuine, indigenous population is a mystery to me. The people of Britain are a shifting, changing bunch and at no point has 'Britishness' ever been definable. Furthermore, at no point have we ever been a particularly white nation. In varying numbers people of many hues and heritages have trod this green and pleasant land throughout its history, and it is thanks to their genes that we are the rich and vibrant tapestry that we are today. I'd like to encourage you to give up your misguided rantings, but I confess that the sight of you lumbering about in the background like Mr Punch, waving your BNP 'ditch the darkies' flag and roaring inarticulately ads a comic element that helps this Forum to be the rich and vibrant tapestry it is. Hurrah for Roy, the mad-as-a-badger delusionist.

2 Million and the rest, they are everywhere. Sponging on benefits

Chuck em all out, the country was f**ked up before they came, nevermind paying for 2 million people ontop of that.

Be like Australia and just lob em out, we need a system that will stop us looking like the easy option!

People come here scrounge money to live, get free houses, healthcare, food everything. Whilst you have people working 40 hour weeks and not having as much to show for it as the people who have contributed nothing to our country!!!

The whole system is messed up! In the end many people will say whats the point in working, i would get more if i got preggers and let the state pay my way (more than some people already do)

If people werent given so much when they get here i.e free houses, clothes, food, cars, money, mobiles etc etc then they wouldnt come SIMPLE AS!!!!! If they were really "claiming asylum" then they would still come, then you would know who was genuinely claiming it!

I have to agree and disagree with a few of you here.
It is true every country suffers from illegal immigrants especially UK.
Coming from Greece with a population of 13.5 million we have for example 3.5 million illegal immigrants. Statistically we are in a much worse situation that UK. Anyhow since I am student and I have seen what Universities are trying to do I can assure you that most poeple who migrate here are either indians or chinese. Even though all of them hold degrees and struggle to get Jobs here since the work permit is the issue in th elong run the economy slowy declines. The main reason is because they simply milk your the goverments money not trough wellfair. Is far more complicated than that. They do actually work very hard and save all their money BUT they send everything back to their country since if the work here for 3 years for example they can buy a mansion in Pakistan , Malaysia whatever you want to call it. I have reasons to believe that you cause this problem yourselves like we did ourselves in Greece. They are good immigrants and bad immigrants but never forget that they cannot be branded as illegal since you know is impossible to just come here and sneak in through the borders. Asyllum seekers is a whole different story. The trust is that there are huge problems in your system like any other system in the world. When you go to university you will realise you brought this upon yourselves. In my class only was one greek one british 50 chinese and 40 indians, pakistanis whatever. And that does not happen only in my class. Immigrants are good people most of the times and they deserve a better future if and only if they have something to offer to the country they migrate to. Without wanting though to pick on any ethnic groups i ve seen first hand that asylum seekers get houses for free and they rent them to students for very high prices. THEY SHOULD JUST GET THEIR ASSES UP AND WORK AND CONTRIBUTE IS MY MESSAGE. Other than that goverments have always been like that in situations like these. They just turn the blind eye as long as they can live happy lives for themselves.

I hope I do not get any flaming for this as I do come from a different country but I am here for a different reason. That is just my opinion

Originally posted by Thanatos
THEY SHOULD JUST GET THEIR ASSES UP AND WORK AND CONTRIBUTE IS MY MESSAGE.

Exactly in an ideal world they would do!

But as it stands some wont even learn to speak english nevermind get a job.

Thanatos, Your post was very interesting, and your'e so right, monies are sent back to their own countries, along with the free medicines too, medicines that are very hard to get in some countries, so the money they earn does NOT go back into the country their living in.

Hold on, where do medicines come into it? Besides Poppins, you come from the USA. I didn't think there was any such thing as free medicine there.

Originally posted by joyphil
Hold on, where do medicines come into it? Besides Poppins, you come from the USA. I didn't think there was any such thing as free medicine there.

Your NHS.

Immigrants whether legal or illegal do invest their money in their home countries. Otherwise there is no point for the to stay here. For My good malaysian friend for example Graduated as an elecrtical engineer. Got employed by BP undertook a free training that costed to the company 100,000K Since they train their new employees. Worked for 3 years broke his contract and flew off to malaysian and bought a house. A very big nice house. That means the company lost money which is your money in a way and of course they exported their capita in another country which makes in our case Malaysia richer and UK poorer if you look at things at a greater extent. Now as about Medicine that is something I have no idea about.

Originally posted by poppins
Your NHS.

So how does this scam work exactly? Do they approach unscrupulous doctors to write lengthy prescriptions for non-existent medical conditions, and then send the treatments back to their home countries?

Originally posted by Thanatos
Immigrants whether legal or illegal do invest their money in their home countries. Otherwise there is no point for the to stay here. For My good malaysian friend for example Graduated as an elecrtical engineer. Got employed by BP undertook a free training that costed to the company 100,000K Since they train their new employees. Worked for 3 years broke his contract and flew off to malaysian and bought a house. A very big nice house. That means the company lost money which is your money in a way and of course they exported their capita in another country which makes in our case Malaysia richer and UK poorer if you look at things at a greater extent. Now as about Medicine that is something I have no idea about.

Surely it is BP that have lost out in that case then? I'm sure that while someone is living and working here, then they are paying tax on everything that they earn, buy, use etc. Which goes straight into our economy.

Originally posted by Greenback
So how does this scam work exactly? Do they approach unscrupulous doctors to write lengthy prescriptions for non-existent medical conditions, and then send the treatments back to their home countries?

Either way, you know it's done all the time, how can you not know ?

Originally posted by poppins
Either way, you know it's done all the time, how can you not know ?

I don't know how I don't know, but I don't know. Do you know?

Originally posted by joyphil
racist Roy,.


. Hurrah for Roy, the mad-as-a-badger delusions.

First of all you simply should not go around calling someone racist because they hold a different view to you and secondly I ain't the one with delusions I leave that to others on here.;)
Whether you like it or not I know I speek for a seizable percentage of the voters so read it and weep old lad.

Ah, 'tis not because your views don't concur with mine that I brand you racist, old chap. 'Tis because you are a racist, albeit of a round, jolly, cartoonish kind. I don't care particularly if you do speak for a sizeable population really - your constituents are as wrong as you.

But instead of chucking bluster at me, why don't you give us all an idea of how Britain was like before foreigners blighted its shores? I'd be interested to hear an alternative history to the one I know. The nights are drawing in, and we all like to gather round the fire to hear a good yarn.

Originally posted by Greenback
I don't know how I don't know, but I don't know. Do you know?

I don't know all that much, but one thing I do know is that I don't know either. Do you know, Poppins? My Filipina wife (a nurse by profession) has just gone off to see her mum. Did she fly over with a Wonderbra stuffed full of Alzheimer's cures? I think we should be told.

Originally posted by joyphil
Ah, 'tis not because your views don't concur with mine that I brand you racist, old chap. 'Tis because you are a racist, albeit of a round, jolly, cartoonish kind. I don't care particularly if you do speak for a sizable population really - your constituents are as wrong as you.

But instead of chucking bluster at me, why don't you give us all an idea of how Britain was like before foreigners blighted its shores? I'd be interested to hear an alternative history to the one I know. The nights are drawing in, and we all like to gather round the fire to hear a good yarn.

Thats what I like about you, your never wrong are you and like You SAID ALL THOSE WHO VOTE FOR US ARE ALSO WRONG AINT THEY.:loopy:
As to what the country was like try looking at old film of major events pre 1950 you wont see many coloreds will you old lad.
As to our history We are descendants of Germanic and north European people, we are Anglo Saxon and white.
Its not rocket science to realize we have been a almost exclusively white anglo saxon country for a thousand years and now we are under threat from a foreign culture and alien identity which is NOT and never will be from the same pool of genes that white people are from.

Originally posted by royjames
Thats what I like about you, your never wrong are you and like You SAID ALL THOSE WHO VOTE FOR US ARE ALSO WRONG AINT THEY.:loopy:
As to what the country was like try looking at old film of major events pre 1950 you wont see many coloreds will you old lad.
As to our history We are descendants of Germanic and north European people, we are Anglo Saxon and white.
Its not rocket science to realize we have been a almost exclusively white anglo saxon country for a thousand years and now we are under threat from a foreign culture and alien identity which is NOT and never will be from the same pool of genes that white people are from.

I thought it was pretty basic genetic knowledge that for a species to strengthen, the genes need to come from a wide gene pool. If you restrict the gene pool you end up with a weaker species. Essentially it de-evolves. Look a pedigree pets for example. We limit their gene pool so they look pleasing to our eye. However they are physically weak and suffer limited intelligence.

I'm sure there's some anthropologists here who could argue the case that the white race you speak of is a descendant of the original black African race. I suppose it depends on how far you want to go back. What about immigration to this country due to the slave trade?

roy, in future can you make your standpoint a bit more clear. When you bang on about immigration into this country, make sure you let us know that it's just 'non-white' immigration that you mean. You forget to mention that fact in a lot of your posts, and it's really quite a big detail.

Ah Roy, old lad, isn't the Internet a wonderful thing? Five minutes and a Google search yielded plenty to counter your argument. Here are a few samples:

"It is generally accepted that the earliest evidence of anatomically modern man come from the African continent. These migrants soon spread out across the Earth. It is not until around 60,000 years ago that some of these inhabitants begin undergoing drastic phenotypic change thus branching off into the many different physical "racial types" we see today. The first homo sapiens sapiens enter Europe around 40,000BC replacing existing Homo neanderthalis types by 28,000BC. (Photo and Information courtesy of Europe in Prehistoryand Nature Magazine

"Contrary to popular notions, the first encounter of Africans and Europeans spans centuries before the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade. Africans and Europeans have shared the same continent since the most ancient times. Africans have been portrayed in European art as monsters and gods, slaves and conquerors, servants and kings, sorcerers and saints. They have been seen in prehistoric France, early Britain, ancient Greece, Rome, Islamic Spain and more."

"Early Migrations

In Roman times, Black troops were sent to the remote and barbaric province of Britannia, and some of them stayed when the Roman legions left Britain. Later on, in the Middle Ages, Moors arrived in Britain. They probably came, directly or indirectly, from Spain, which had been conquered by Muslims from North and Northwest Africa in the 8th century."

"Patterns of Migration
By the third quarter of the seventeenth century the British slave trade had become fully established, forcibly transporting black Africans to the recently established colonies of the West Indies and North America. In the process huge fortunes were amassed by both traders and plantation owners. By the beginning of the eighteenth century, many wealthy and successful plantation owners had begun to return to London with their fortunes and frequently with their personal slaves. Young and 'exotic' black servants dressed in a metal collar and extravagant Oriental costume became an almost necessary fashion accessory for London's powerful elites. As a result, by mid-century black men and women had become a relatively familiar sight on the streets of London."

I don't claim never to be wrong, but I do research before I bluster. And yes, all those who vote for the fantasy of a pure white Britain to which we could return as though the gates of Eden had been flung open again, are wrong.

Originally posted by royjames
Thats what I like about you, your never wrong are you and like You SAID ALL THOSE WHO VOTE FOR US ARE ALSO WRONG AINT THEY.:loopy:
As to what the country was like try looking at old film of major events pre 1950 you wont see many coloreds will you old lad.
As to our history We are descendants of Germanic and north European people, we are Anglo Saxon and white.
Its not rocket science to realize we have been a almost exclusively white anglo saxon country for a thousand years and now we are under threat from a foreign culture and alien identity which is NOT and never will be from the same pool of genes that white people are from.

I love your posts Roy. They both reinforce and confirm how completely pathetic and ill informed you and your party are.

Keep them coming though, they are pretty damn hilarious.

All hail Roy, doing more than any of us could to show the BNP as the ignorant fools they are.

P.S. Also, "We are descendants of Germanic and north European people"

Of course we are, for the period of history you choose to look at.

E-Man Groovin,

Originally posted by E-Man Groovin
Except in Timo's case those relationships are underscored by his belief in his race's intellectual superiority over some of those other other people.



I'm not sure that Timo's expressed this view on his postings. Please stop the little digs.

Thanks,

Joe

That delightful poster known as 'E Man Groovin'', who has made three libellous accusations about me on this thread alone, claims that I believe in the 'superiority' of my 'race'. If he cares to read my postings pertaining to geographical variations in IQ test scores properly, he will see that I simply refer to the findings of Richard Lynn, J.P.Rushton et al. The results show that Ashkenazi Jews, followed by East Asians [Japanese, Chinese etc] have the highest average IQs. The conclusions drawn by the respective academics are not necessarily mine. I have doubts that IQ tests are absolutely, intrinsically valid tools of measurement, even those which have no obvious cultural bias, such as tests of visio-spatial acuity. Even if they were accurate, I would never base an individual human being's 'worth' on their intelligence level. I also acknowledge 'overlap' in IQ tests. Does this make me a 'white supremacist'? Only the deliberately mischevious, the malicious or the insane would say so.

'E Man Groovin'' wonders 'why he bothers' to contribute to this thread. So do many of us. He has not provided a single shred of evidence [and nor has Greenback, Phan etc] to disprove my original estimate pertaining to the vast scale of illegal immigration. Attempts to pathologise, insult and vilify educated, informed posters such as my good self and dear Lord Chaverly are utterly pointless. They are classic techniques employed by the emotional and political forces which have conspired to stifle debate on immigration for nearly half a century. The days of evasion and pretence about the 'true' nature of 'multicultural' Britain are over, and to paraphrase Yeats, a terrible dread is born about the future of race relations in Britain. As someone once said [circa 1968], it is a question of numbers. One does not have to be a Professor of Hard Sums to work that one out.

"As someone once said [circa 1968], it is a question of numbers. One does not have to be a Professor of Hard Sums to work that one out."


I agree, so what is your argument?

Originally posted by timo
Strix,
There is no need whatsover to be so rude. I don't like your use of the phrase, 'people like you' in relation to myself, nor do I appreciate being accused of 'stirring'. As for your claim that ' provoking hysteria is just a way of life', comment would be superfluous. Please respect the right of your fellow posters to their opinions.

Timo, you're a terribly sensitive person. Every time someone associates you with distinctly right-wing opinions you get all defensive. You even went so far once as to PM me when you reckoned I had included you in a comment about "you brownshirts". But why then do you begin threads with questions? Questions invite responses, and where questions about immigration are involved responses reveal some rather polarised opinions. At which point you're bound to get pushed to the rightward side of the house in peoples' minds.

I guess what intrigues me is, why do you need to know whether people think there are 2 million illegal immigrants in the UK if you have no position on the implications of it? You don't, your initial post states, wish to scaremonger by positing this number. Which implies that you view the possibility of all these unregistered brown people as, well, scary. What's your shtick? This isn't the first time you have waded into the immigration debate. Your approach and motivations fox me, I admit.

Originally posted by timo
...has not provided a single shred of evidence [and nor ...Phan etc] to disprove my original estimate pertaining to the vast scale of illegal immigration.

I haven't disputed it, dear heart. It's your estimate after all, no-one could dispute that.

Just a quick reminder to keep it civilised on this thread..... :)

Originally posted by timo
'E Man Groovin'' wonders 'why he bothers' to contribute to this thread. So do many of us. He has not provided a single shred of evidence [and nor has Greenback, Phan etc] to disprove my original estimate pertaining to the vast scale of illegal immigration.

But where is the evidence to prove your estimate? Why does it cause you so much concern? Are you, like Roy, hankering for a return to our "Germanic and North European" roots? What are the motivations behind your question "Two Million Illegal Immigrants in Britain"?

Originally posted by royjames
First of all you simply should not go around calling someone racist because they hold a different view to you

Roy, are you denying that you're a racist?

Originally posted by joyphil
Timo, you're a terribly sensitive person. Every time someone associates you with distinctly right-wing opinions you get all defensive. You even went so far once as to PM me when you reckoned I had included you in a comment about "you brownshirts". But why then do you begin threads with questions? Questions invite responses, and where questions about immigration are involved responses reveal some rather polarised opinions. At which point you're bound to get pushed to the rightward side of the house in peoples' minds.

I guess what intrigues me is, why do you need to know whether people think there are 2 million illegal immigrants in the UK if you have no position on the implications of it? You don't, your initial post states, wish to scaremonger by positing this number. Which implies that you view the possibility of all these unregistered brown people as, well, scary. What's your shtick? This isn't the first time you have waded into the immigration debate. Your approach and motivations fox me, I admit.

Timo has made his position on the implications of mass migration and the concomitant doctrines of multiculturalism very clear (in his typically cogent and trenchant style) on various threads. Moreover, if you read his contributions to debates on these subjects, I think you will find that he welcomes serious, informed and civilised discussion on these issues. What he no doubt finds annoying, and rightly so in my opinion, are the cheap insults and slurs resorted to by some posters (none of whom, incidentally, are in the same league as him intellectually) as a means of inhibiting or debasing the discussion of these important topics.

Originally posted by boyface
I love your posts Roy. They both reinforce and confirm how completely pathetic and ill informed you and your party are.

Keep them coming though, they are pretty damn hilarious.

All hail Roy, doing more than any of us could to show the BNP as the ignorant fools they are.

P.S. Also, "We are descendants of Germanic and north European people"

Of course we are, for the period of history you choose to look at.


Hey i've said it before and i'll say it again. Roy does for liberal politics what Dr Paisley does for Irish republicism. Every time he post his views, people people turn away from his parties ideas.

I know more than a few people who where tempted to vote BNP or UKIP, but when they read Roys posts they realised how thoughtless his parties views were.

So keep up the good work Roy!

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Timo has made his position on the implications of mass migration and the concomitant doctrines of multiculturalism very clear (in his typically cogent and trenchant style) on various threads. Moreover, if you read his contributions to debates on these subjects, I think you will find that he welcomes serious, informed and civilised discussion on these issues. What he no doubt finds annoying, and rightly so in my opinion, are the cheap insults and slurs resorted to by some posters (none of whom, incidentally, are in the same league as him intellectually) as a means of inhibiting or debasing the discussion of these important topics.

Which is all tickety-boo and jolly good, but as myself and several other posters have pointed out, none of us have a clue what his position is on this particular thread. And after a quick re-imbibation of his cogency and erudition in other threads I am still none the wiser. But that's intellectual inferiority for you...

Originally posted by JFKvsNixon
Hey i've said it before and i'll say it again. Roy does for liberal politics what Dr Paisley does for Irish republicism. Every time he post his views, people people turn away from his parties ideas.

I know more than a few people who where tempted to vote BNP or UKIP, but when they read Roys posts they realised how thoughtless his parties views were.

So keep up the good work Roy! cant agree,i think roy,s post point out some of the things that are lacking or bieng ignored by other parties, wasnt emily pankhurst put down by the politicians, at the time she tried to alter british politics by demanding votes for women?

politics have to evolve,the only way to achieve this is by people bieng able to question those in power,and in so doing effect change if the people want it.

if the government refuse to acknowledge a change,then parties such as the bnp must be created to oppose the established views of the politicians who are running the country.

the rest is up to the voting public

Is there any actual proof that illegal immigration is a drain on society (e.g. do they take up jobs, hospital beds, housing etc). In addition, have any of you been personally affected by illegal immigration?

Of course illegal immigration is a bad thing and should be stopped, but so many of you are so passionate about the topic... why?

There are worse things going on in our society which are far more important (pensions crisis, NHS crisis, inflation, unemployment etc)... most of these problems will directly affect all of us at some point. Why are you making such an issue about something (illegal immigration) that barely has any effect upon you?

The problem with the BNP is that they only have one agenda.

If all you are concerned about is keeping Britain British (which is impossible by the way, seeing as we are part of a global economy and have to trade with foreign countries for our survival)- then they are the party for you.

For those concerned about the economy, the environment, healthcare, employment etc... what exactly does the BNP have to offer?

N_O_T_H_I_N_G

Absolutely Nothing

Originally posted by Lib1
Is there any actual proof that illegal immigration is a drain on society (e.g. do they take up jobs, hospital beds, housing etc). In addition, have any of you been personally affected by illegal immigration?

Of course illegal immigration is a bad thing and should be stopped, but so many of you are so passionate about the topic... why?

There are worse things going on in our society which are far more important (pensions crisis, NHS crisis, inflation, unemployment etc)... most of these problems will directly affect all of us at some point. Why are you making such an issue about something (illegal immigration) that barely has any effect upon you?

If you think the presence in the UK of 2 million (or anything like that number) extra people than are catered for by official figures is NOT having or going to have a potentially enormous effect on everyone else, then you leave me very puzzled.

Housing, employment, healthcare, law and order, transport - don't you think 2 million people are going to affect all these areas? 2 million is a heck of a lot of people, you know.

It is simple common sense that those sort of numbers are going to have a knock-on effect.

It doesn't matter whether illegal immigrants are American, South African, Polish, Indian, Chinese, black, white, green, whatever - it's not a question of race, it's a question of numbers and resources.

If people took the emotional loading out of this question and looked at it with some degree of sense and reality, that would be useful.

StarSparkle

Originally posted by StarSparkle
If people took the emotional loading out of this question and looked at it with some degree of sense and reality, that would be useful.

That's true. But the fact that even Migrationwatch, with all their projections, don't believe that there are 2,000,000 illegal immigrants in this country, should serve to illustrate on which side the emotional loading lies with this issue.

It's a nonsense figure.

Originally posted by StarSparkle
If you think the presence in the UK of 2 million (or anything like that number) extra people than are catered for by official figures is NOT having or going to have a potentially enormous effect on everyone else, then you leave me very puzzled.

Housing, employment, healthcare, law and order, transport - don't you think 2 million people are going to affect all these areas? 2 million is a heck of a lot of people, you know.

It is simple common sense that those sort of numbers are going to have a knock-on effect.

It doesn't matter whether illegal immigrants are American, South African, Polish, Indian, Chinese, black, white, green, whatever - it's not a question of race, it's a question of numbers and resources.

If people took the emotional loading out of this question and looked at it with some degree of sense and reality, that would be useful.

StarSparkle


You're absolutely right- 2 million people is a heck of a lot. But would the problems of our healthcare, education, housing etc. magically disappear if these people were not here? 2 million is a lot of people- but where are they? How can so many people illegally access benefits and housing etc. How have they ever affected you personally?

It's not a matter of 'emotional loading'- it's a matter of there are far more important things to worry about.

Originally posted by Lib1
The problem with the BNP is that they only have one agenda.

If all you are concerned about is keeping Britain British (which is impossible by the way, seeing as we are part of a global economy and have to trade with foreign countries for our survival)- then they are the party for you.

For those concerned about the economy, the environment, healthcare, employment etc... what exactly does the BNP have to offer?

I sugest you look on our web site and look at our policies before you rush to condem us,we are certainly not a one issue party its just that our enemies like to potray us as one.
Have a close look and then come back and tell us what you think.:thumbsup:
But I dont want this to turn into a BNP thread which it is not meant to be .

Thanks for the invitation to go to the BNP site... but no thanks. I don't want to increase the number of 'hits' that the site gets.

Want to give me an example of how the party would improve the NHS... a v. proportion of NHS staff (from cleaners to consultants) are non white and or/foreign nationals. How would the party 1. replace these staff members and 2. improve the NHS by doing so?

Originally posted by Lib1
Thanks for the invitation to go to the BNP site... but no thanks. I don't want to increase the number of 'hits' that the site gets.

Well you have showed your not open to ideas ,shame you make comments without looking at the policies first.:loopy:
Its your choice but dont say we are a one issue party when you aint even botherd to check us out.

RoyJames- I just made an addition to my post above.

Like I said check out all our policies and then we will discuss them in detail,I am not avoiding this but I have done this many times on this forum and to be honest its better and easier to do it the way I suggest.

Joyphil,
I dispute your claim that I am a 'very sensitive person'. I assume you really mean overly-sensitive? I am not regarded as such, and as one of the most ferociously vituperative posters on the forum, I have the broad shoulders to take a joke as well as make one. However, the 'humour' of being libelled a 'Brownshirt' [or 'Nazi'] frankly eludes me. One can be concerned about the ill effects of mass immigration and the failure of the 'multicultural' experiment , and filled with foreboding about the future of 'race-relations' in a country where there are far more illegal immigrants than our government wish us to know about, without being a supporter of National Socialism or any other fascist politics. As you well know, or should do if you have read this and related threads, I am a traditional, 'reluctant collectivist,' Burkean Tory, sceptical about international idealism and utopian panaceas. I consider a government's immigration policy to be the most fundamental and consequential of all its policies. Other policies are important, but immigration policy holds the possibility either of preserving or altering permanently the character of the people who make up the nation. A country or a civilisation's unique character is at least partly due to the unique qualities of the people who have created it, and its values cannot be extended or diluted indefinately in all directions. It is obviously of great importance for a government that rules ostensibly in the national interest to know, first, who 'we' are and, secondly, to seek to preserve that character for posterity.

I accept that the mass immigration of the last few decades is irreversible. We need to halt, or attempt to halt, further mass immigration, to take urgent action to preserve the British modus vivendi. I am not advocating repatriation here. I would like to retain that tolerance, that freedom of speech and that respect for the individual that made Britain so attractive to the waves of people from India, Pakistan and the West Indies in the first place. To be able to do that, Britons must feel comfortable and secure in their own ancestral domain. Post-war immigrants, and the descendants of post-war immigrants should be able to understand this basic human need and imprescriptible human right on behalf of the indigenous majority [96%] of the population.

To listen to the shrill and vulgar voices of some of my infantile, fatuous opponents, one would think that I was in favour of mass sterilisation and death camps. Mine is the voice of the majority. The good news is that there is mounting recognition of the problems we all face. There has been, as Rod Liddle noted in a recent issue of The Spectator, a 'paradigm shift' on race and immigration. A few years ago, nobody talked about immigration- except to say how very wonderful it all was, and that we should have much more of it. The terrible events of 11 September 2001 drove home to millions the necessity of watching borders, and keeping checks on 'aliens' [cue predictable, tedious ET jokes] living within one's borders- not to mention the essential incompatibility of Islam and the Occident.

Even left-leaning thinkers such as Bob Rowthorn and David Goodhart, at one time chief supporters of mass immigration, have come to realise that it can mean importing poverty and disease, driving down the minimum wage and weakening social bonds. Their articles criticising mass immigration in Prospect magazine, initially greeted with spittle-flecked abuse and vitriol, have now been co-opted into the mainstream of political discourse. Dreary Leftist motormouths [and the parallel on the forum escapes me...] such as Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Trevor Phillips have said that multiculturalism is a dead letter, acknowledging what Tories like myself have always maintained; nations need shared experiences and customs to cohere. This relative open-mindedness has trickled down the metapolitical scale to Labour MPs. David Blunkett has argued for compulsory Ehglish tuition for all and introduced citizenship ceremonies. Jack Straw has said that Britain should resile from the UN Convention on Refugees. In September of last year, Tony Blair himself said that it was 'neither racist nor extremist' to raise 'genuine concerns' about what he admitted were many thousands of bogus asylum applications. The 'paradigm' has indeed shifted greatly. What a pity it is then, that my opponents on this thread are not more in touch with the 'spirit of the age'. It is they who delude themselves that only the lederhosen-wearing fascists and Blimpish Monday Club types who are concerned with levels of illegal immigration, and the prospect of further mass immigration.

To make my position even clearer to all concerned, I think that the 'paradigm' should shift even further. We need, first, to enforce existing laws on immigration. We need to urgently deport all illegal immigrants [I realise, as Greenback has pointed out, that this is not 100% achievable as by definition they live 'beyond' the law], whose continued presence in the country brings the legal system into contempt, and signals to the millions of others who wish to come to Britain that they can get away with it. There should be no blind eyes turned, no amnesties, no appeals and no remittance ever for those who have once been detected trying to enter illegally. We need to scrap decades of ill-informed sentiment about race, and to drive home to flabby minds [are you listening, E Man Groovin' ?] certain non-negotiable, if discomfiting truths. Multiculturalism means non-culturalism. Nations require a shared language and shared customs- or else they simply are not nations. Diversity is not a strength, but a great weakness. Human beings are not interchangeable economic units, but members of discrete racial groups, with innate [but not 'superior' or 'inferior'] characteristics that cannot be wished away.

Hopefully, Joyphil and anyone else unsure of my 'position' on this thread will now be clearer as to my motives. They are simply to shore up interesting debate on a pressing issue, concern over which is acknowledged to be legitimate and not 'racist' or 'extremist' by our Prime Minister, Tony Blair. I welcome further, genuine debate from fellow posters. I reiterate that I do not consider my estimate re illegal immigrants, based upon the Spanish example, to be either inaccurate or a case of deliberate 'scaremongering'.

Originally posted by Lib1
You're absolutely right- 2 million people is a heck of a lot. But would the problems of our healthcare, education, housing etc. magically disappear if these people were not here? 2 million is a lot of people- but where are they? How can so many people illegally access benefits and housing etc. How have they ever affected you personally?

It's not a matter of 'emotional loading'- it's a matter of there are far more important things to worry about.

I try to look at issues as they are and with a degree of common sense and impartiality, not as they affect me personally.

There is far too much emotiveness on this subject as it is, from all sides.

I totally disagree with you that there are 'far more important things to worry about' - there is nothing more important than all our futures. And all these issues are intrinsically linked, and you are living in fairyland if you don't understand this.

ALL our futures are at stake here.

StarSparkle

PS You're not a journalist, by any chance, are you Lib1? You seem very keen on getting stories from people.....

Originally posted by timo
I accept that the mass immigration of the last few decades is irreversible. We need to halt, or attempt to halt, further mass immigration, to take urgent action to preserve the British modus vivendi. I am not advocating repatriation here. I would like to retain that tolerance, that freedom of speech and that respect for the individual that made Britain so attractive to the waves of people from India, Pakistan and the West Indies in the first place. To be able to do that, Britons must feel comfortable and secure in their own ancestral domain. Post-war immigrants, and the descendants of post-war immigrants should be able to understand this basic human need and imprescriptible human right on behalf of the indigenous majority [96%] of the population.


Thanks for making that clear, Timo. Funnily enough it turns out that we share a few trains of thought. For once the dreadful Blair was right when he pointed out that illegal immigration was indeed a cause for fundamental concern. Personally I'm not as worried by mass immigration as you. I think that rather than urgent action to halt it we would be better to think harder about managing it. A degree of immigration is pretty much essential to keep this country going, given the demographic trends of ageing populations. In short, someone is going to have to staff the hospitals and care homes, clean the bogs and drive the buses, and there aren't enough of us being born to do that from home-grown stock. It would be helpful if we began to view immigrants as a resource and concentrate more on what they can offer the nation than on how they drain it of resource. This would be a shift towards regulation for sure, but it would create immigration that works for both immigrant and host country.

I also find myself at odds with your fear that the British modus vivendi is under threat. The nature of Britishness has been in constant flux from the word go, and is an accretion of influences largely brought here by, well, immigration. Continuing to allow foreigners to live here isn't going to eradicate Britishness. Newcomers themselves change and meld themselves to the British way of life, and that way of life melds a little as foreign influences are brought to bear on it. Look for instance at cuisine in this country. It is far richer, tastier and more vibrant now than a century ago, but in addition to Shish kebabs, couscous and chicken Methi we still eat beef, yorkshire pud and gravy and drink milky tea, just as we have since the ingredients were brought here from overseas.

So I don't think the brown tide is as great a menace as many people think. Agreed, the degree of illegal immigration is problematic, but with a bit of positive thinking on the part of government Britain can continue to grow and prosper with a little help from its foreign friends.

Originally posted by royjames
Well you have showed your not open to ideas ,shame you make comments without looking at the policies first.:loopy:
Its your choice but dont say we are a one issue party when you aint even botherd to check us out.

Lib1, I heartily recommend that you do visit Roy's beloved site. It's quite a life-affirming place, if only because it'll provide you with the biggest laugh you've had in years. I literally cried with laughter when I got to the "your say" section, which features messages allegedly sent in by Joe Public. By the by, as a magazine journalist I can tell you that many publications make up their letters pages, as the real letters they get are too rubbish to print. One of my regular gigs is creating the technical queries section of a well-known car magazine. Anyway, back to subject. Let me give you a sample:

France for the French
Ivor Robinson's comments struck a chord with me (Leaving for France 10/10). Just over a week ago I spent several days in Nice - not unfortunately on holiday. One of the first things that struck me was that all the airport staff were French Natives.

As was the driver who took me to the hotel, all but one of the hotel staff I saw and all the waiters, shop staff etc I encountered in the city.

The only non-Europeans I saw engaged in work were road gangs and construction site labourers.The public areas and streets were spotless, because they were cleaned at night (possibly by non European labour?)

When one considers that France has a very similar population size to the UK, a similar colonial history and I believe significant third world immigration one has to admire the individual French peoples refusal to adopt globalist values, despite the same type of sell out politicians.

Maybe that is why Murdoch and his news media cronies are always trying to stir up hatred against the French here.They are trying to prevent us readopting the same independent nature and seeming ability to keep their political hacks from enforcing the dangerous social engineering and big corporate business structures we endure.

Not that the answer is to move to France or become pale Anglo-Frenchman/woman. No, all we have to do is stand up and be British in the true and historical sense, when enough say enough, then things can and will change.

If anyone doubts how low this country has been brought they only need to compare the experience of Nice Airport with Heathrowabad.
I defy any sane Britain to say that we have been enriched in comparison!

Mark C., Bristol


Good, innit? I suggest that anyone feeling a little down should visit www.bnp.org.uk as it'll cheer them up no end. It's both cheaper and better than the Daily Mail. All rise for the Queen...

Brilliant post Timo. I do not think any reasonable person reading your last post could fail to understand your position on the issue you raise (I actually thought your position was very clear beforehand, but evidently not). I agree absolutely Starsparkle that there is far too much emotiveness on this topic. Much of it is generated in my view by those who wish to avoid serious discussion of the issues involved.

Joyphil, in my view a fundamental flaw in your reasoning (shown both in your last and in a previous post) is you appear to assume that there is nothing essentially, or qualitatively different, about current levels of migration in comparison with migration in previous eras. Yes of course we have had inflows before, but as Professor Coleman (Professor of Demography at Oxford University) has pointed out, we have had a largely settled population on these shores for about a thousand years (until the advent of large scale immigration from the Commonwealth from the 1950s). Previous migrant groups, such as the Huguenots and Jews, were relatively small in number and assimilated quickly (and indeed with enthusiasm). I am surprised also that you introduce the argument that we need immigrants in order to fill vacancies in the labour market. What this argument fails to take into account is that immigrants add to demand (for housing, transport etc and also exacerbate existing problems such as those of congestion and pollution). Its a crazy argument if it is used to support a policy of mass immigration. As for numbers, if you or others think that the figures produced by Migrationwatch are inflated, I suggest you look at the urls below, which show that inward migration is runnig at record levels (and this does not even take into account illegal migration, overstayers and also failed asylum seekers still resident in this country).

Timo, thank you for pointing out Liddle's reference to a paradigm shift on this issue. Indeed there is, and not just in this country (as shifts in public attitudes and in government policy in Denmark, the Netherlands and France clearly demonstrate) I think that in certain quarters unfortunately there is a paradigm lag - i.e. some earnest souls prefer to cling to comforting fallacies, conventional wisdoms and received orthodoxies even when each of these is on a collision course with reality.


http://news.viewlondon.co.uk/Population_to_rise_with_migration_15070980.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4359756.stm

after reading the many posts on this issue may I congratulate you Timo on a very well thought out and realistic slant on the whole debate,instead of the rantings of may i say extreme or maybe naive views of some posts.

Originally posted by Little_Alex
after reading the many posts on this issue may I congratulate you Timo on a very well thought out and realistic slant on the whole debate,instead of the rantings of may i say extreme or maybe naive views of some posts.

Totally agree 100%. Great post timo!

Originally posted by LordChaverly
[B]Joyphil, in my view a fundamental flaw in your reasoning (shown both in your last and in a previous post) is that there is nothing essentially, or qualitatively different, about current levels of migration in comparison with migration in previous eras. Yes of course we have had inflows before, but as Professor Coleman (Professor of Demography at Oxford University) has pointed out, we have had a largely settled population on these shores for about a thousand years (until the advent of large scale immigration from the Commonwealth from the 1950s).

Which would suggest that there is something qualitatively different about late C20th immigration. You're not making complete sense here, dear.

[/QUOTE]I am surprised also that you introduce the argument that we need immigrants in order to fill vacancies in the labour market. What this argument fails to take into account is that immigrants add to demand (for housing, transport etc and also exacerbate existing problems such as those of congestion and pollution). Its a crazy argument if it is used to support a policy of mass immigration.[/QUOTE]

Which, I think you'll find if you actually re-read my last-but-one post, is why my stance is to advocate a considered, regulatory approach to immigration. I'm no more supporting a policy of mass immigration than you. I feel that in your rush to grovel before Timo's erudite might you fail to stop and read what I actually said.


[/QUOTE] As for numbers, if you or others think that the figures produced by Migrationwatch are inflated, I suggest you look at the urls below, which show that inward migration is runnig at record levels
[/QUOTE]

Erm, I personally don't think Migwatch's figures are inflated. I'm simply not thrown into a tizz by them and regard immigration as a force for good as well as a negative. You can write, Lord Chav, but you need to read more carefully. I'm not in opposition to Timo, but simply tread a more positive path.

So to sum up Joyphil your pro immigration as long as its managed is this correct?

Originally posted by royjames
So to sum up Joyphil your pro immigration as long as its managed is this correct?

To sum up, I am unafraid of immigration, but aware that it can only be a force for good if managed. Hope that helps.

Joyphil,

In my last post I meant to say that you appear to assume that there is nothing qualitiatively different about late 20th century/early 21st century immigration (in my eagerness to post I missed out the assumption qualification, which I have now added to this post). I base my judgement on some of the quotes you posted earlier relating to previous patterns of migration. I strongly believe that it is qualitatively different. I am still not quite sure what your position is on this (as unless I have indeed read your posts incorrectly or my powers of comprehension are deserting me) there is some inconsistency here. I am not 'grovelling' as you so indelicately put it before Timo's erudition. I am simply giving credit where it is due - he is simply the finest poster on the forum bar none, as his previous post so clearly demonstrates.

Well, my position is: I suspect that the mass immigration is different to previous arrivals, but only in one single respect - that of volume. The immigration from the 1950s onwards has simply involved more people than before. The fact that population-wise this country is under pressure, plus the presence of mass media to broadcast people's reactions to it, results in immigration having an impact it couldn't have back in, say, the times of Roman invasion. But having said that, modern immigration rarely involves raping, pillaging and general taking over of power. In some ways one could easily say that the brown tide of the C20th is as peaceful a bunch of immigrants as the impoverished Huguenots. Fundamentally, immigration is simply immigration. As the numbers involved place pressure upon resources nowadays I advocate a reasoned approach of managing immigration, so that it can bring benefits while minimising negative effects.

I don't think there is inconsistency in my posting. At least I hope not. My political stance is the product of much thought, married to a sense of humour. Where immigration is concerned I am fortunate enough to have experienced the positive side of foreigners migrating here for economic gain, in that I would never have met my wonderful wife had she not come here from the Philippines to work as a nurse. I live daily with this good fortune. Anyone who happens to get dragged to the Hallamshire in an ambulance has a good chance of sharing it, in that it could well be her who rescuscitates them after a cardiac arrest or just treats them well as they suffer their illness.

Good on you Lord Chaverly for giving credit where due. But I would comment that wherever Timo goes you tend to follow him like some kind of applause monkey, which smacks strangely of sychophancy. Odd in someone whose own highly-developed ability to think for himself is so very much in evidence. There are indeed some very fine posters on this forum, among which I number yourself and Timo. He and I correspond upon occasion, and although politically I feel we differ, we often agree on fundamentals because we both recognise solid common sense when we see it. Anyhow, I hope the above helps you see what I see, although it is entirely up to you whether or not you actually agree with me. Just please don't try to go 'bloodying' me as you claimed to do with Greenback. You won't get far.

Originally posted by timo
Mine is the voice of the majority.

:help:

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
:help:

I know it's unworthy of me, but I piddled meself with laughter at that. After all those words we have written, you bang on in with that and steal the show. Maybe these avatar thingies are worth using after all...

Anyhow good people, whatever your politics, Joyphil is to bed. Sweet dreams, all of you.

LOL. I appreciate a 'p***-take', if it is a good one, and 1Man's effort made me laugh too. God knows I have taken the mickey out of countless posters [and moderators] in my time. It is just the 'nazi' insults that tend to offend...

Joyphil,
I am glad that we can agree on a few things regarding immigration, and that you realise I have no plans to turn Timo Towers into an SS Order Castle. Regarding your criticisms of Lord Chaverly's 'sycophancy' towards me, I think you mistake genuine mutual admiration between kindred spirits and representatives of 'the beautiful people' for dewy-eyed, lick-spittle 'grovelling'. Lord C and I are good pals, in the unusual position of reaching consensus on practically everything, so it is perfectly natural that we should enjoy each other's convivial company and staunchly support each other in debate. I like to think of our alliance as genes talking to genes.
Incidentally, it was I who described Lord C as having [sadly but necessarily] 'bloodied' Greenback in debate. Considering Greenback's formidable ability in an argument, that is no mean feat.

Little Alex and youwhatref,
Thankyou, dear hearts, for the kind words. It is heartening to see that some posters realise that mine is not an 'extreme' position at all with regard to immigration, and particularly with regard to genuine concerns about the levels of illegal immigration. I referred to Rod Liddle's claim that there has been a 'paradigm shift' on race and immigration, and Lord Chaverly went on to cogently suggest that there is a 'paradigm lag' in certain quarters on the issue. I think this is genuinely the case with many posters of the left/liberal consensus on the forum. Far from being 'out of touch', I am convinced [through day to day experience] that Lord Chaverly and I are very much 'in touch' with political realities in contemporary Britain. After the usual blizzard of 'nazi' jibes and predictably amateurish attempts to pathologise a serene Philosopher King like my good self, it appears to be the case that my message is getting through to some. Immigration is out of control, particularly illegal immigration, and we are right to be concerned about it.

Originally posted by timo
Incidentally, it was I who described Lord C as having [sadly but necessarily] 'bloodied' Greenback in debate. Considering Greenback's formidable ability in an argument, that is no mean feat.

'Bloodied'? Pah. Was nothing more than a paper cut sustained while flicking through my copy of "Forum Bait Weekly". Typical right-winger, exaggerating again ;)

Greenback,
LOL. You are a damned good stick, 'Greeny'. What a great pity it is that you are on 'the other side'. Long may you post on the forum!

Originally posted by timo
LOL. I appreciate a 'p***-take', if it is a good one, and 1Man's effort made me laugh too. God knows I have taken the mickey out of countless posters [and moderators] in my time. It is just the 'nazi' insults that tend to offend...

Joyphil,
I am glad that we can agree on a few things regarding immigration, and that you realise I have no plans to turn Timo Towers into an SS Order Castle. Regarding your criticisms of Lord Chaverly's 'sycophancy' towards me, I think you mistake genuine mutual admiration between kindred spirits and representatives of 'the beautiful people' for dewy-eyed, lick-spittle 'grovelling'. Lord C and I are good pals, in the unusual position of reaching consensus on practically everything, so it is perfectly natural that we should enjoy each other's convivial company and staunchly support each other in debate. I like to think of our alliance as genes talking to genes.
Incidentally, it was I who described Lord C as having [sadly but necessarily] 'bloodied' Greenback in debate. Considering Greenback's formidable ability in an argument, that is no mean feat.

Little Alex and youwhatref,
Thankyou, dear hearts, for the kind words. It is heartening to see that some posters realise that mine is not an 'extreme' position at all with regard to immigration, and particularly with regard to genuine concerns about the levels of illegal immigration. I referred to Rod Liddle's claim that there has been a 'paradigm shift' on race and immigration, and Lord Chaverly went on to cogently suggest that there is a 'paradigm lag' in certain quarters on the issue. I think this is genuinely the case with many posters of the left/liberal consensus on the forum. Far from being 'out of touch', I am convinced [through day to day experience] that Lord Chaverly and I are very much 'in touch' with political realities in contemporary Britain. After the usual blizzard of 'nazi' jibes and predictably amateurish attempts to pathologise a serene Philosopher King like my good self, it appears to be the case that my message is getting through to some. Immigration is out of control, particularly illegal immigration, and we are right to be concerned about it.

Verging towards the pompous on occasion, my dear Timo, but well said, on the whole ;) :thumbsup:

StarSparkle

Starsparkle,
'Pompous, moi?!' Are you losing your famous sense of humour, gorgeous creature? xx

Originally posted by MarkB
Kick em out............................................
no...
shoot them :D
too many of them

Originally posted by joyphil
Well, my position is: I suspect that the mass immigration is different to previous arrivals, but only in one single respect - that of volume. The immigration from the 1950s onwards has simply involved more people than before. The fact that population-wise this country is under pressure, plus the presence of mass media to broadcast people's reactions to it, results in immigration having an impact it couldn't have back in, say, the times of Roman invasion. But having said that, modern immigration rarely involves raping, pillaging and general taking over of power. In some ways one could easily say that the brown tide of the C20th is as peaceful a bunch of immigrants as the impoverished Huguenots. Fundamentally, immigration is simply immigration. As the numbers involved place pressure upon resources nowadays I advocate a reasoned approach of managing immigration, so that it can bring benefits while minimising negative effects.

I don't think there is inconsistency in my posting. At least I hope not. My political stance is the product of much thought, married to a sense of humour. Where immigration is concerned I am fortunate enough to have experienced the positive side of foreigners migrating here for economic gain, in that I would never have met my wonderful wife had she not come here from the Philippines to work as a nurse. I live daily with this good fortune. Anyone who happens to get dragged to the Hallamshire in an ambulance has a good chance of sharing it, in that it could well be her who rescuscitates them after a cardiac arrest or just treats them well as they suffer their illness.

Good on you Lord Chaverly for giving credit where due. But I would comment that wherever Timo goes you tend to follow him like some kind of applause monkey, which smacks strangely of sychophancy. Odd in someone whose own highly-developed ability to think for himself is so very much in evidence. There are indeed some very fine posters on this forum, among which I number yourself and Timo. He and I correspond upon occasion, and although politically I feel we differ, we often agree on fundamentals because we both recognise solid common sense when we see it. Anyhow, I hope the above helps you see what I see, although it is entirely up to you whether or not you actually agree with me. Just please don't try to go 'bloodying' me as you claimed to do with Greenback. You won't get far.

Thank you Joyphil for these kind words, which are much appreciated. Even the verbal barbs you introduce towards the end of your post are velveted with the courtesy and consideration one would expect from the civilized and decent man which I believe you to be. I am naturally pleased to respond in kind and will address the points you raise in turn.

Firstly, you acknowledge that mass immigration is different from previous arrivals in one respect (and one respect only) – i.e. volume. But volume (scale, numbers, size – whatever term you wish to use) is what the problem is very largely about. At some point – and in my view we passed this point long ago – a quantitative change becomes qualitative . The sheer scale of post-war immigration is unprecedented in our history. It is not a minor difference from previous migration flows – it is fundamentally different in scale and also in its likely consequences. Immigration is not 'simply immigration', because scale is not a minor, inconsequential variable, nor, for that matter, are cultural and ethnic diversities. . Moreover, unlike previous waves of immigrants to these shores, who were soon assimilated (within a generation) to British cultural norms and values, the scale of migration militates against assimilation, by enabling migrants to develop and sustain 'communities', which are geographically concentrated and largely self-contained, bolstered, nurtured and legitimised by the socially divisive, indeed pernicious, doctrines of 'multiculturalism'. Moreover, these communities provide powerful networks and conduits for further migration flows through both legal and illegal immigration,, by means of the links maintained with their original homelands. As with all cost-benefit analyses, estimates of the costs and benefits of migration flows are difficult to make, because of the sheer number of variables involved and also because of the intangibility and unquantifiable nature of many of the effects of migration. However, it is clear to me that the volume of migration is a key variable, and a primary causal factor of many of the negative externalities associated with current migration flows, such as the impact on congestion, housing and social cohesion.

With regard to the inconsistency I detected in your posting, well I agree it may stem from misinterpretation of what you wrote, but I think I might (taking the liberty of being charitable to myself for a moment) be forgiven for this error because I do detect more than a note of ambivalence in your posts towards current migration flows. I say this because although you concede that controls on migration are necessary, your references to a very specific and positive impact of migration on your own personal life and also to (in earlier posts) your belief that immigration is not that big a problem tend to suggest otherwise. Moreover, I have indeed been 'dragged off’ in ambulances to the Hallamshire (and also the Northern General) for hospital treatment earlier this year after becoming quite seriously ill, although as it was not for cardiac failure, I doubt whether I got to meet your lovely wife. I did however spend several weeks in the Hallamshire and was nursed back to robust health by a wonderful team of doctors and nurses from a wide variety of nationalities and cultural backgrounds. I thank them all from the bottom of my heart.

However, the benefits to me of these cross-cultural and inter-ethnic ministrations in no way justify migration flows on the current scale. Indeed, the number of foreign nationals working in the NHS is an indictment of the failure of successive British governments to reconcile supply and demand in the labour market for health services by means of an effective system of forward planning (with regard for example to the numbers of training places required to meet health service needs). underpinned by realistic budgetary targets and rates of pay roughly equivalent to the attractive pay rates for doctors and nurses in many other developed countries. Instead they have adopted the ‘cheap labour’ policy so beloved of employers of migrant labour everywhere (employers love immigration for this reason).

Furthermore, the oft repeated argument that migrant workers in the health services are beneficial to us (indeed they are, as I know from personal experience) ignores the reverse brain drain effect of such migration flows. As I mentioned in a previous post, it was recently discovered that there were more Zambian nurses working in Birmingham than in Lusaka. Draining developing countries of much needed medical staff is hardly something we should be proud of. The case of Filipino nurses in particular is worthy of further mention. The most recent study of the brain drain with regard to Filipino nurses (see the attached url) claims that since 1994, no less than 100,000 Filipino nurses have left to work abroad and no less than 70% of recent graduates are working abroad, precipitating a health crisis in the Philippines for example leaving large numbers of people in the major cities without medical care). Some hospitals can no longer operate all of their wards because of nursing shortages. According to the report, 5 out of 10 Filipinos die without getting medical attention and over 100 municipalities are doctorless and nurseless (see attached report). Indeed, this report on the Filipino diaspora claims that the medical profession in the Philippines is ‘under severe threat of decimation’ due to the massive exodus of doctors and nurses.

As for 'sycophancy',. my dictionary defines this as 'praising people in authority in a way that is not sincere, usually in order to get some advantage from them'. None of this, in my view, applies to my posts (in which I have praised various posters). As Timo has said, we share an almost uncanny similarity of views on a wide range of subjects, which is perhaps why I said once that Timo was my 'doppelganger' on this forum (the only really exceptions to this remarkable concordance and harmonious meeting of minds I have noticed so far is that he has a higher opinion of Wagner (Wagner is an acquired taste and I must admit I have not fully acquired it) and I have a higher opinion of the poetry of T.S.Eliot. I already had strong views on many of the subjects on which I post before I had even heard of this forum. I have praised Timo's posts not so much because the views he expresses coincide with my own, but rather because of the cogency, erudition and sparkling wit with which he expresses them. Moreover, I have on various occasions praised other posters I admire, such as Starsparkle, Fareast and Nick2. Indeed, in the interests of forum conviviality, I have even damned with faint praise that ungrateful cove Greenback, who unfortunately responded with snarling, sneering insults (thereby forcing me to respond in kind, against my inclination).

I actually quite like the striking phrase 'applause monkey' . As you have so designated me, perhaps I can have a choice as to the type of lower primate. I think I would quite like to be one of those appealing, furry little creatures with big eyes and scampish ways (similar in many ways to Gollum, but with fur) rather than a savage, malevolent beast with intentions of ripping a person's ears off given half a chance. This is why I am pleased to respond positively to your plea not to try to 'bloody' you, I have no intention dear boy of any such thing. I am interested in the issues, not in pointless point scoring. This is one gauntlet therefore that will indeed go unpicked up.

http://www.up.edu.ph/forum/2005/Jul-Aug05/brain_drain.htm

Mod. Note

Hi all,

Just a reminder to keep the one to one chats and slanging matches off the thread.

If anyone starts name calling - fascist, racist, PC Liberal, brownshirt, hairshirt, whatever - then I will not remove the thread but simply ban the user for a few days.

Thanks,

Joe

Many thanks to Lord C for a truly superb posting, in which he cogently analyses the reasons why the scale of post-1948 immigration 'militates against assimilation', and very importantly draws our attention towards the pressing issue of 'reverse brain drain' in respect of Filipino nursing staff. Lord C addresses Joyphil, whom I know from correspondence may not be able to reply immediately due to holiday arrangements.

Many thanks also to Joe Pritchard. There is a lot that I could say regarding the mysterious temporary disappearance of this thread. All I will say is that I am very grateful indeed that we have such a fairminded, decent, wise and seasoned moderator as Joe on the thread . Long may he continue as the 'voice of reason' of Sheffield Forum.

Originally posted by nick2
But how many people leave the UK each year ? That is not the point.
People leave England/Britain legally and has no connection with in coming illegals.

Originally posted by timo


Many thanks also to Joe Pritchard. There is a lot that I could say regarding the mysterious temporary disappearance of this thread. All I will say is that I am very grateful indeed that we have such a fairminded, decent, wise and seasoned moderator as Joe on the thread . Long may he continue as the 'voice of reason' of Sheffield Forum.

I think we all agree with this post...Uncle Joe's the best !

Originally posted by nick2
But how many people leave the UK each year ?

Dont know nut i bet they are probably Real brits escaping from the invasion of these immigrants

I see the good folk of Birmingham are demonstrating how to get on together over the weekend....

I know, wise Owl , I know. Yet, there are many blinkered posters on this forum who will suggest that serious disturbances like these, which provide stark evidence of the irremediable grudges held by and poor relations between the competing non-European ethnic groups within our borders, are 'untypical' of the 'melting pot' in which we shall all live happily ever after. How many of those running amok like barbarians are illegal immigrants? Not a few, would be my guess. As I said at the beginning of this most controversial thread [that some would dearly love to 'axe'...], thousands of 'visitors' from non-European lands arrive here every year, and not a few from India, Pakistan and the Caribbean islands. How many go home? There are those who suspect that mass immigration from the latter countries still continues in an unofficial form.

What happened in Birmingham over the weekend is a good example of what happens when you get a load of testerone pumped lads and put them all together in a poor estate. There was hardly any asian-white granny wars, was there? You didn't see any pregnant asian women fighting their white british counterparts?

LordChav, timo, I love you both dearly, so I write this with tongue firmly placed in cheek...have you read Politics and the English Language? (http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html) I refer you especially to the last few paragraphs and rules 2,3, and 5, at the bottom of the essay.

Originally posted by kathythebean
What happened in Birmingham over the weekend is a good example of what happens when you get a load of testerone pumped lads and put them all together in a poor estate. There was hardly any asian-white granny wars, was there? You didn't see any pregnant asian women fighting their white british counterparts?

LordChav, timo, I love you both dearly, so I write this with tongue firmly placed in cheek...have you read Politics and the English Language? (http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html) I refer you especially to the last few paragraphs and rules 2,3, and 5, at the bottom of the essay.

Thank you Kathy, my favourite beangirl, for the article by Orwell. I am a great admirer of this ‘Tory anarchist’ as he once described himself (although often viewed as a ‘leftist’, - which in some senses he was – he was also a fierce critic of the left). I fact, the only thing I don’t particularly like about him is that his real name was Blair .

Not only was he a master of the English language and also a very perceptive and far-sighted analyst of contemporary events, he was also very concerned about the misuse of language in politics (hence the article which you cite). Indeed, he was probably the first person to point out that the word ‘fascist’ was being drained of meaning by being used as a crude verbal club in debates and by other forms of flagrant misuse. I am pretty sure he would have taken an equally dim view of the profligate use of the term ‘racist’. Moreover, Orwell was a great enemy of cant and grandiose, but meaningless, phraseology and would probably have had a field day with the robotic clichés associated with multiculturalism. Indeed, much of the language which forms the basis of ‘political correctness’ is very similar to the Newspeak in 1984.

I also would recommend to you his ‘Homage to Catalonia’, which provides some telling insights into just how nasty and hypocritical certain leftist groups – and indeed certain people associated with the far left - can be (no change here then). Orwell wasn’t perfect – he was a bit of a male chauvinist in his personal life, as far as we can gather – but he was without doubt a brilliant analyst of modern politics and society (and a damn fine novelist as well).

As far your comment about the pacific nature of grannies, well yes – but it was ever thus. There were few grannies involved either in the conflict in Northern Ireland, but that did not stop the conflict from raging for almost three decades. Moreover, even if the root cause is an excess of testosterone, the solution to this problem may not be easy. In today’s moral climate, with its hypersensitivity towards human rights, we cannot take aggressive and violent youths for a quick snip at the local vets.

Co-incidentally, the government are now about to annouce a huge increase in funding into this 'troubled' area to bring it up to a better standard and create opportunities (more things to destroy) for these 'deprived' people.

Perhaps we should hold a riot in Longley to get funds to get the greens finished off?

Originally posted by Internetowl
Co-incidentally, the government are now about to annouce a huge increase in funding into this 'troubled' area to bring it up to a better standard and create opportunities (more things to destroy) for these 'deprived' people.

Perhaps we should hold a riot in Longley to get funds to get the greens finished off?

'Hold a riot'?

An innocent man was murdered in this horrible, senseless violence – can I suggest you show a little more respect?

How does one 'hold a riot' in any case? Surely riots are situations out of control? The unpleasantness in Birmingham was very much out of control. Unfortunately, since the early 1990s riots in Meadowell, Ely etc, rioting has become almost routine in Britain. In situations such as these, the term 'community' is rendered highly problematic, since it is the 'community' which is wrecking its own resources [if you will forgive the reification].

Multi cultural Britain = riots racial tension,destruction.
Multi racial Britain,dont you just love it.;)

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Thank you Kathy, my favourite beangirl....

As far your comment about the pacific nature of grannies, well yes – but it was ever thus. There were few grannies involved either in the conflict in Northern Ireland, but that did not stop the conflict from raging for almost three decades. Moreover, even if the root cause is an excess of testosterone, the solution to this problem may not be easy. In today’s moral climate, with its hypersensitivity towards human rights, we cannot take aggressive and violent youths for a quick snip at the local vets.


:hihi:

Thank you, Lord C, for a good long belly laugh after a long and trying day. This is what I love this forum for :)

Originally posted by royjames
Multi cultural Britain = riots racial tension,destruction.
Multi racial Britain,dont you just love it.;)

well, someone not as kind as me could beg the question how law and order was kept in societies that weren't multi-cultural.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Thank you Joyphil for these kind words, which are much appreciated. Even the verbal barbs you introduce towards the end of your post are velveted with the courtesy and consideration one would expect from the civilized and decent man which I believe you to be. I am naturally pleased to respond in kind and will address the points you raise in turn.

Firstly, you acknowledge that mass immigration is different from previous arrivals in one respect (and one respect only) – i.e. volume. But volume (scale, numbers, size – whatever term you wish to use) is what the problem is very largely about. At some point – and in my view we passed this point long ago – a quantitative change becomes qualitative . The sheer scale of post-war immigration is unprecedented in our history. It is not a minor difference from previous migration flows – it is fundamentally different in scale and also in its likely consequences. Immigration is not 'simply immigration', because scale is not a minor, inconsequential variable, nor, for that matter, are cultural and ethnic diversities. . Moreover, unlike previous waves of immigrants to these shores, who were soon assimilated (within a generation) to British cultural norms and values, the scale of migration militates against assimilation, by enabling migrants to develop and sustain 'communities', which are geographically concentrated and largely self-contained, bolstered, nurtured and legitimised by the socially divisive, indeed pernicious, doctrines of 'multiculturalism'. Moreover, these communities provide powerful networks and conduits for further migration flows through both legal and illegal immigration,, by means of the links maintained with their original homelands. As with all cost-benefit analyses, estimates of the costs and benefits of migration flows are difficult to make, because of the sheer number of variables involved and also because of the intangibility and unquantifiable nature of many of the effects of migration. However, it is clear to me that the volume of migration is a key variable, and a primary causal factor of many of the negative externalities associated with current migration flows, such as the impact on congestion, housing and social cohesion.

With regard to the inconsistency I detected in your posting, well I agree it may stem from misinterpretation of what you wrote, but I think I might (taking the liberty of being charitable to myself for a moment) be forgiven for this error because I do detect more than a note of ambivalence in your posts towards current migration flows. I say this because although you concede that controls on migration are necessary, your references to a very specific and positive impact of migration on your own personal life and also to (in earlier posts) your belief that immigration is not that big a problem tend to suggest otherwise. Moreover, I have indeed been 'dragged off’ in ambulances to the Hallamshire (and also the Northern General) for hospital treatment earlier this year after becoming quite seriously ill, although as it was not for cardiac failure, I doubt whether I got to meet your lovely wife. I did however spend several weeks in the Hallamshire and was nursed back to robust health by a wonderful team of doctors and nurses from a wide variety of nationalities and cultural backgrounds. I thank them all from the bottom of my heart.

However, the benefits to me of these cross-cultural and inter-ethnic ministrations in no way justify migration flows on the current scale. Indeed, the number of foreign nationals working in the NHS is an indictment of the failure of successive British governments to reconcile supply and demand in the labour market for health services by means of an effective system of forward planning (with regard for example to the numbers of training places required to meet health service needs). underpinned by realistic budgetary targets and rates of pay roughly equivalent to the attractive pay rates for doctors and nurses in many other developed countries. Instead they have adopted the ‘cheap labour’ policy so beloved of employers of migrant labour everywhere (employers love immigration for this reason).

Furthermore, the oft repeated argument that migrant workers in the health services are beneficial to us (indeed they are, as I know from personal experience) ignores the reverse brain drain effect of such migration flows. As I mentioned in a previous post, it was recently discovered that there were more Zambian nurses working in Birmingham than in Lusaka. Draining developing countries of much needed medical staff is hardly something we should be proud of. The case of Filipino nurses in particular is worthy of further mention. The most recent study of the brain drain with regard to Filipino nurses (see the attached url) claims that since 1994, no less than 100,000 Filipino nurses have left to work abroad and no less than 70% of recent graduates are working abroad, precipitating a health crisis in the Philippines for example leaving large numbers of people in the major cities without medical care). Some hospitals can no longer operate all of their wards because of nursing shortages. According to the report, 5 out of 10 Filipinos die without getting medical attention and over 100 municipalities are doctorless and nurseless (see attached report). Indeed, this report on the Filipino diaspora claims that the medical profession in the Philippines is ‘under severe threat of decimation’ due to the massive exodus of doctors and nurses.

As for 'sycophancy',. my dictionary defines this as 'praising people in authority in a way that is not sincere, usually in order to get some advantage from them'. None of this, in my view, applies to my posts (in which I have praised various posters). As Timo has said, we share an almost uncanny similarity of views on a wide range of subjects, which is perhaps why I said once that Timo was my 'doppelganger' on this forum (the only really exceptions to this remarkable concordance and harmonious meeting of minds I have noticed so far is that he has a higher opinion of Wagner (Wagner is an acquired taste and I must admit I have not fully acquired it) and I have a higher opinion of the poetry of T.S.Eliot. I already had strong views on many of the subjects on which I post before I had even heard of this forum. I have praised Timo's posts not so much because the views he expresses coincide with my own, but rather because of the cogency, erudition and sparkling wit with which he expresses them. Moreover, I have on various occasions praised other posters I admire, such as Starsparkle, Fareast and Nick2. Indeed, in the interests of forum conviviality, I have even damned with faint praise that ungrateful cove Greenback, who unfortunately responded with snarling, sneering insults (thereby forcing me to respond in kind, against my inclination).

I actually quite like the striking phrase 'applause monkey' . As you have so designated me, perhaps I can have a choice as to the type of lower primate. I think I would quite like to be one of those appealing, furry little creatures with big eyes and scampish ways (similar in many ways to Gollum, but with fur) rather than a savage, malevolent beast with intentions of ripping a person's ears off given half a chance. This is why I am pleased to respond positively to your plea not to try to 'bloody' you, I have no intention dear boy of any such thing. I am interested in the issues, not in pointless point scoring. This is one gauntlet therefore that will indeed go unpicked up.

http://www.up.edu.ph/forum/2005/Jul-Aug05/brain_drain.htm

I wonder how many people can be bothered to read your post fully?

Can't you condense it a bit, or space it out more? :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Greenback
'Hold a riot'?

An innocent man was murdered in this horrible, senseless violence – can I suggest you show a little more respect?
Like taking the P**s out of Altzheimers sufferers?

:suspect:

and he forgot the second victim - doesn't he count then Greenback?

Originally posted by royjames
Multi cultural Britain = riots racial tension,destruction.
Multi racial Britain,dont you just love it.;)

Roy, you are such a wag...I note its all calmed down now they are getting the money...makes you wonder?