Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Brutal, without honour, without humanity. These are my feelings over the punishment of asylum seekers that were recently announced. I know the usual arguments will be posted but this isn't the Britain that accepted people from all over the world. I remember when the West Indian immigrants came to the "mother country" (for those who will be extolling the Commonwealth rather than EU). I remember the Ugandan Asians who were ejected by Idi Amin (who started our modern 24/7 life style). I remember the acceptance of South Vietnamese. Today is not the Britain I signed up to. The country i remember was magnaminous and had a decency to be proud of. "Land of Hope and Glory" has been reduced to a Balance Sheet. " There's a big difference between now and then though - and a huge difference between economic migrants and those fleeing persecution and seeking asylum. In days of old economic migrants existed - people seeking to start a new life and give themselves a better chance to improve their quality of life. The big difference was that they came planning to work, start businesses of their own and travelled legally and relied on nobody but themselves for support. True asylum seekers should always be helped. The issue now is simply the numbers, the perception that the gravy train will continue to flow without any individual responsibility to support ones self - and the volume of people claiming persecution when the reality is that they are safe at home and simply see an opportunity for a more fruitful existence in another country, paid for by the state. As I've said before on similar threads - it's a geographical problem. We are close to mainland Europe which has no vast seas separating it from Eastern Europe/North Africa. Australia and the U.S. will never have the issues that Europe has - and not just because of their immigration criteria and points systems. A | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"if they are illegal imigrants then of course payments should stop" Illegal immigrants are not asylum seekers, failed or otherwise. There is a difference | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Brutal, without honour, without humanity. These are my feelings over the punishment of asylum seekers that were recently announced. I know the usual arguments will be posted but this isn't the Britain that accepted people from all over the world. I remember when the West Indian immigrants came to the "mother country" (for those who will be extolling the Commonwealth rather than EU). I remember the Ugandan Asians who were ejected by Idi Amin (who started our modern 24/7 life style). I remember the acceptance of South Vietnamese. Today is not the Britain I signed up to. The country i remember was magnaminous and had a decency to be proud of. "Land of Hope and Glory" has been reduced to a Balance Sheet. " I also remember the Ugandan Asians and the Vietnamese. Britain took a manageable quota of both, albeit because of our ties to the commonwealth, a larger percentage of the Ugandans. In both groups there was a very high percentage of highly educated and highly skilled people who were easily absorbed into the economy of the time. The current wave are completely different. Most are low skilled and uneducated and will be looking for work either in the black economy or competing for minimum wage jobs that are already scarce because of the influx of (currently legal) eastern Europeans that dominate that sector in many parts of the country. Even if they find these jobs they will pay little or no tax and be subsidised by in work benefits, if they don't find work then they will be living on the taxpayer. I don't think anyone is saying we should lose our humanity or honour but it is a simple game of numbers. It is very easy to say that there are only 5000 camped out in Calais and that Britain would easily absorb them (even I would agree with that) However that is only the tip of the iceberg. Once that 5000 are allowed in then there will be the next 5000, and the next, and the next, ad infinitum. The strains on Britain's infrastructure are already severe. Housing shortage, school overcrowding, a NHS that is almost collapsing, and a creaking transport system to name just a few examples. What? chuck more money at it you may say. From where? would be my answer. Britain already runs a massive budget deficit so borrowing more would be out of the question. Taxes are already at a level where any more increases would would start to have an effect on the economy itself (you only have to look at France to see where the high tax route ends up) Yes Britain can take a few of these migrants, but not 5000 a week, or even a month, forever as would be the case if the doors were swung open. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Brutal, without honour, without humanity. These are my feelings over the punishment of asylum seekers that were recently announced. I know the usual arguments will be posted but this isn't the Britain that accepted people from all over the world. I remember when the West Indian immigrants came to the "mother country" (for those who will be extolling the Commonwealth rather than EU). I remember the Ugandan Asians who were ejected by Idi Amin (who started our modern 24/7 life style). I remember the acceptance of South Vietnamese. Today is not the Britain I signed up to. The country i remember was magnaminous and had a decency to be proud of. "Land of Hope and Glory" has been reduced to a Balance Sheet. " There's a VAST difference between the West Indian migrants and the others you quoted...they were ASKED to come over to help get the country back on its feet AND Jamaica was under British rule. Many West Indians had a better wage/standard of living than they actually found here. Some stayed, a lot actually went back. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"First safe country you reach to claim asylum not to go Hundreds of miles more because the hand out,s are better" I read in the week that other European countries are also experiencing problems with asylum seekers. Germany and Sweden in particular. We are not the only one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"First safe country you reach to claim asylum not to go Hundreds of miles more because the hand out,s are better I read in the week that other European countries are also experiencing problems with asylum seekers. Germany and Sweden in particular. We are not the only one. " And of course if you've spent weeks in the back of a truck thats final destination is the UK without seeing daylight? Then the UK is the first safe country you reach. A | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It is very easy to say that there are only 5000 camped out in Calais and that Britain would easily absorb them (even I would agree with that) However that is only the tip of the iceberg. Once that 5000 are allowed in then there will be the next 5000, and the next, and the next, ad infinitum. " But in terms of the overall flow of people in and out of Britain even several thousand potential illegal entrants to Britain are still a marginal issue in terms of migration especially as the numbers who have made it through can be measured in the hundreds. The vast majority of people living illegally in Britain came in the front door – through Heathrow airport – and simply overstayed their visas, yet nobody calls for the troops to be sent in to Heathrow. It is easy for the British media, to focus on what is happening at Calais. It is easy to send a camera crew to get footage of a group of migrants breaching the fences at Coquelles regardless of whether they manage to get lucky and subsequently jump on a train. Despite the claims of some reporters that they are “extraordinary scenes”, they are not. They have been going on for years, not just at Calais but also along the coast at Dunkirk and Ostend and other ports, but with little success for the migrants. What, however, is extraordinary is that the attempts of a few hundred migrants, many of whom may well be refugees fleeing war and persecution, have completely eclipsed the situation in the Mediterranean, where thousands do continue to attempt to cross. More than 3,000 were rescued by German and Italian ships in just two days last week. Italy has taken more than 60,000 refugees in the first six months of this year alone. Germany took 175,000 asylum seekers last year. Britain took 24,000. David Cameron continues to insist that nearly all those fleeing north Africa and the Middle East are economic migrants who should be returned from whence they came as rapidly as possible. What Dave fails to acknowledge is that a vast amount of these refugees were caused directly by our ill conceived military action in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A Migrant on ITV Last night they the ITV Have followed him he was on a boat that was sinking in the Med got picked up by the Navy made his way here. Now got his own Flat in Peterborough nothing to pay out and £145 a week benefits to spend. SAYS HE THINKS HE IS IN HEAVEN. Think they should be gas chambers for us British people who have paid there way in life and when we get to Pension age we get that pension benefit as they are calling it. Then we can have more people like that man in Peterborough here " I work with these groups.... Can tell you that this is lies, call it false reporting call it stirring up hate but these groups cannot get that much benefits anyway! I know non eu migrant law! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It is very easy to say that there are only 5000 camped out in Calais and that Britain would easily absorb them (even I would agree with that) However that is only the tip of the iceberg. Once that 5000 are allowed in then there will be the next 5000, and the next, and the next, ad infinitum. But in terms of the overall flow of people in and out of Britain even several thousand potential illegal entrants to Britain are still a marginal issue in terms of migration especially as the numbers who have made it through can be measured in the hundreds. The vast majority of people living illegally in Britain came in the front door – through Heathrow airport – and simply overstayed their visas, yet nobody calls for the troops to be sent in to Heathrow. It is easy for the British media, to focus on what is happening at Calais. It is easy to send a camera crew to get footage of a group of migrants breaching the fences at Coquelles regardless of whether they manage to get lucky and subsequently jump on a train. Despite the claims of some reporters that they are “extraordinary scenes”, they are not. They have been going on for years, not just at Calais but also along the coast at Dunkirk and Ostend and other ports, but with little success for the migrants. What, however, is extraordinary is that the attempts of a few hundred migrants, many of whom may well be refugees fleeing war and persecution, have completely eclipsed the situation in the Mediterranean, where thousands do continue to attempt to cross. More than 3,000 were rescued by German and Italian ships in just two days last week. Italy has taken more than 60,000 refugees in the first six months of this year alone. Germany took 175,000 asylum seekers last year. Britain took 24,000. David Cameron continues to insist that nearly all those fleeing north Africa and the Middle East are economic migrants who should be returned from whence they came as rapidly as possible. What Dave fails to acknowledge is that a vast amount of these refugees were caused directly by our ill conceived military action in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya etc." I would 100% agree with your final paragraph. As for the rest? Sorry very little. Several thousand would depend on where "several" ends up. Several thousand could be 5000 or 500,000. Yes the ones that got through can be measured in hundreds for last week, but what about the week before and the month before and the year before and the decade before? This has been going on since at least 2003 and judging by the number of boats still coming across the Med there is no sign of any let up. I would agree that there is a problem at the airports as well and many do overstay student and tourist visas, but that is for the internal immigration people to sort out. The authorities know when they arrived and where they came from and with a bit of political will they could easily be deported. The situation at Calais is totally different. These are people trying to force their way into the country with no papers (in many cases deliberately destroyed) and many lie about their country of origin. If these are not "extraordinary scenes" then you must agree that this has been going on for years so your claim that there is little success for the migrants really doesn't hold water. Yes Germany has taken a lot more migrants than Britain but, take it from someone who lives there, the strains are starting to show already. Riots in Hamburg recently because the migrants didn't like their accommodation. In Ingolstadt (Audi town) the migrants have been banned from all bars and disco's because of the unprecedented rates of young girls being molested by them. In our town (and many others) one of the local high schools has had to give up its gymnasium to house them. Short of building more property there is very little housing available in Germany for them. In Dresden, Leipzig and other city's the locals are taking to the streets to protest about the numbers, and I'm not talking the usual far right skinheads but ordinary people who are sick of what is happening. This cannot go on forever and some form of in Africa solution has to be found, and very soon. Some estimates put the numbers in Libya at up to a million waiting to cross the Med. With more to follow them. Where will they go? Trust me they are not busting a gut to get into Romania, Bulgaria, Spain, France, or Italy or any other of the eastern or southern EU states. They only want passage through to Britain, Germany, Sweden or Holland. Open the doors? I think not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"if they are illegal imigrants then of course payments should stop Illegal immigrants are not asylum seekers, failed or otherwise. There is a difference" But how many asylum seekers are really economic migrants? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Two questions. 1. As a result of the ageing UK population, last year the media were talking about the need to increase our population by an additional million people to provide the services, replace the diminishing workforce and to pay taxes. This is an additional million people over and above those that are already in the UK and forecast immigration and birth rate. Is this and opportunity for swingers to breed like rabbits or bring in more people. 2. I asked this question in another thread. Imagine a person receives political asylum in, say, Italy. At what point are they able to benefit from open borders - immediately (able to go straight to UK or upon receiving citizenship (and then go to UK)" Given that unemployment stands at over 1 million would it not be better to use that section of the population - either through direct employment or retraining? Increasing the population to replace an ageing one simply creates a bigger problem later down the line surely? A | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"if they are illegal imigrants then of course payments should stop Illegal immigrants are not asylum seekers, failed or otherwise. There is a difference But how many asylum seekers are really economic migrants? " You tell me, i dont know. All i know is that they are different and i dont confuse someone who wants a better life for themselves and their family with someone who has been tortured and is in fear of their lives. And i was an economic refugee in the 80s / 90s for seven years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Two questions. 1. As a result of the ageing UK population, last year the media were talking about the need to increase our population by an additional million people to provide the services, replace the diminishing workforce and to pay taxes. This is an additional million people over and above those that are already in the UK and forecast immigration and birth rate. Is this and opportunity for swingers to breed like rabbits or bring in more people. 2. I asked this question in another thread. Imagine a person receives political asylum in, say, Italy. At what point are they able to benefit from open borders - immediately (able to go straight to UK or upon receiving citizenship (and then go to UK) Given that unemployment stands at over 1 million would it not be better to use that section of the population - either through direct employment or retraining? Increasing the population to replace an ageing one simply creates a bigger problem later down the line surely? A" What i said was over and above those who are already here and forecast to arrive by immigration or birth | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Two questions. 1. As a result of the ageing UK population, last year the media were talking about the need to increase our population by an additional million people to provide the services, replace the diminishing workforce and to pay taxes. This is an additional million people over and above those that are already in the UK and forecast immigration and birth rate. Is this and opportunity for swingers to breed like rabbits or bring in more people. 2. I asked this question in another thread. Imagine a person receives political asylum in, say, Italy. At what point are they able to benefit from open borders - immediately (able to go straight to UK or upon receiving citizenship (and then go to UK) Given that unemployment stands at over 1 million would it not be better to use that section of the population - either through direct employment or retraining? Increasing the population to replace an ageing one simply creates a bigger problem later down the line surely? A What i said was over and above those who are already here and forecast to arrive by immigration or birth" Already here working? Or already here unemployed? To pay taxes they must be working, surely? And if there is a need to provide more workers then there is already a sufficient number of people already unemployed. Retraining will reduce unemployment without increasing the population, the costs involved in providing healthcare, housing and infrastructure - which will significantly outweigh any tax income. And any additional population will one day be that ageing population you make reference to. A | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
