Ruptured gonad

Ah-ha, a copy 'n' paste merchant. You have not considered the numbers of people (normally single men as it happens) who enter the UK illegally who do not claim asylum. The UNHCR quote highest number of applications when it suits the purpose for showing Germany as top destination but per capita when they need to show tiny countries accepting more than UK. Using those figures, per Capita, UK exceeds Germany and USA.

jayr

And as opposed to backing up comments with a third source 'cut and paste', your knowledge of numbers of illegal entrants to the Uk is based on what? Your opinion? You counted them personally?

Ruptured gonad

Why not cut out the bitterness?

I am completely neutral in the asylum debate. Just trying to destroy a few romantic myths that all are freeing tyranny. It is largely a vehicle for economic migrants who just want a better life. And who could blame them?


Cheers

Ruptured gonad

You display a tendency to get a little too emotive.

NedKelly

If Birmingham is now 50% non-white they must have come from somewhere. I am sure they wern't all born there.

Ceri

Tough one.
I quite agree. You don't want to go down this road.

A country's language eroded because of the influence of a foreign language.Things such as schools had to teach in this foreign language. Also even going as far as setting up company schools to educate the workers children in this alien, foreign language. Courts of law , this foreign language had to be used, and the countries own language would not be accepted in the lands court. Children were whipped if they uttered their own language in a classroom.
Influence of many migrants who walked into the country without a passport for the work at the time, but yet they wanted to change the nation they walked into.

Recent years, these immigrants are still coming in, taking jobs, many scrounging off the dole and taking public housing. If that was not enough they still have the cheek to moan about the nations language, such as they can't read road signs and need to flick their eyes to read the language that they understand - there are so many of them that they influence the nations vote and the ethnic vote is fast becoming the minority.

These immigrants think they have the right to come and go as they please , treat the country as their own.

I say run them back into their own country. They don't have far to go (a bums rush would do it) and gladly accept the real immigrants who don't want to change anything, but integrate.


These same people also travelled the world going into many nations, changing the nations language, taking over their laws of the land, and putting down their own rule. Instead of integrating into that nation.

Today, many nations flee to these above peoples own land, not to rape it's culture or put down it's own laws, but to live in a nation which they think is democratic, not to face persecution, but to give a better life for their children and families. But many of these above people are not very reciprocal are they? After centuries of swanning in and out of other lands, changing laws, dominating other cultures , they do not wish for people today to come to their own little part of the world


pick up a mirror

You should not throw stones in glasshouses

jayr

Perhaps you'd like to send them back where they came from?

jayr

As opposed to your rationally objective view that people who support human rights are trying to stop nativity plays. Excuse me?

chels

1. England can't have it both ways. Economic migrants were encouraged to come to the country when there have been shortages of workers.

2. There is still a need to fill many of the jobs in lower-paid sectors. Areas like London, where the population is falling, need more, not less people. Economic migrants are some of the very people who are willing to take such jobs.

3. The birth rate in England (and Australia) is falling. To keep population levels at a economically viable level, first world countries have to look to the developing world.

4. Why (including this post) are only non-white, or non-Christian migrants referred to as a 'problem'?

5. In the 1930s, the Daily Mail ran a similar crusade against Jews fleeing Nazi persecution. There were similar articles to the ones it runs today about how people were fabricating tales of hardship, persecution, etc and how, if they were allowed in, they would take over the English culture with their foreign ways.

6. Does the Daily Mail (and the Sun, Daily Telegraph etc) create the views or does it reflect what some of the public really thinks? My view is that it reflects the views of its readers - if they didn't want to read that rubbish, they wouldn't buy the paper, it would quickly go out of business, so it prints what they want to read and gives them the so-called facts to back their claims up.

7. One of the nicest men I know, who is like a surrogate dad to me, believes in this Daily Mail twaddle about asylum seekers, legal and illegal, and economic migrants, flooding the country, sponging off our benefits, ripping the tax payer, living in mansions etc. Funny thing is, he's never met such a person, neither have I. I've yet to meet anyone who has, apart from Daily Mail journalists! If such a nice bloke can hold these views, it doesn't surprise that so many less nice people are similarly inclined.

8. I'm no expert on this subject. I read about things, in both the left and right wing press and try to form an opinion. Which is all this post is - my opinion.

Ruptured gonad

You are still doing it.

It is very difficult to have a reasonable debate on this matter as anyone who doesn't adopt an open door policy is shouted down or called a tinpot Nazi/Daily Mail reader, it is increadibly tidious.

There is a 'human rights' industry who are actually incredibily patronising to 'asylum seekers' with their 'we know what is best for you' attitude. In reality these people just want to work & have a decent home like everybody else, they don't give a fig about being offended by school plays, Xmas carols or the public display of national flags. It is the people who make a career out of 'human rights' and their emotive supporters that cause most of the misplaced resentment by locals towards 'asylum seekers'.

bondipom

Indeed it may but I am sure there are those in Germany and the USA who believe they are the only nation in the world taking in refugees and assylum seekers. You asked for the nations so I provided them in a convenient form. I could have just asked you to use google.

Counting and comparing illegal migrant numbers is tricky because they will not be forthcoming in a census. The US has its issues with economic migrants from South America. The law there is hypocritical in allowing them to work there and support the Americans profligate lifestyle yet deny them any rights. There is no onus on an employer to check for the legality of workers and the likes of WalMarts sub contractors use this and actively maintain political pressure to keep the status quo.

Germany has long taken in workers, especially in the building trade. Auf Wiedersein Pet was based on what many people in Britain were doing, ie going overseas for work.

This human rights industry. Is it a sector on the stock market? Sounds more like a figment of the imagination of paranoid right wingers. A bit like the theories fascists create about Jewish banking groups.

Ruptured gonad

Most of this is entirely true. The issue is that these people should be here on temporary worker or PR visas not classed as asylum seekers with the benefits that status brings. But they cannot get in any other way. From developing nations it is almost impossible to get working visas in UK/Oz for unskilled workers so the asylum route is the only option. This is the problem.

bondipom

Sadly the Daily Mail is feeding the bullshit that a lot of people come up with. They'll print a story about a criminal assylum seeker who has no case and smear the genuine cases with the same brush.

People could argue that the Home Office is incompetent, slow, inconsistent, making incorrect decisions etc but instead they repeat tabloid bull that paints every assylum seeker as an illegal scumbag.

People talk about assylum, refugees, illegal migrants and the EU expansion as though it is one issue and seem confused as anything as to what is going on. They seem unaware as to what is actually happening.

bondipom

They bypass assylum and just work illegally and uncounted. Assylum means being registered by authorities. The cockle pickers who drowned were not assylum seekers nor were they refugees.

One of the touted benefits of the EU expansion is that legal East Europeans could be used to squeeze out the criminal elements behind the smuggling of the workers.

chels

And I have to agree with you there.

A lot of people would probably prefer, in an ideal world, to stay here temporarily and to return to their home countries. Unfortunately, the wealth disparities between say, England and Albania, would make going back home a rather unpleasant contrast to the luxuries many people enjoy in England even on the salary of an unskilled worker.

Re the so-called human rights industry. There are usually good intentions behind many of the initiatives that are derided in the media. Banning Ba Ba Black Sheep for example - if it stops children associating 'black' with bad/lesser, what is so wrong with that? If it helps to prevent racism by encouraging children to treat everyone the same, whatever their racial background, is that wrong?