Entertaining and Interesting British Thread

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Badunk wrote:
Sifu wrote:

The exploding population is placing increasing burdens on the environment. Green space is being used for new housing developments. Water supplies are reaching their limit. There is more waste and pollution being produced. BNP has polices that will address that.

By sending them all home?

When there are millions of illegal immigrants who never applied for legal permission to live there, hundreds of thousands of bogus asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers who have had their cases heard and rejected why not?

It costs about 18,000 pounds for each one of those asylum cases to be processed through the courts. If they are not going to send them home when their appeal fails what is the point in spending all that money?

In the last decade the number of immigrants Britain has taken in has been equal to the numbers America took in during it’s mass immigration heyday of the late nineteenth early twentieth century.

Labour has for it’s own ends turned immigration into an unrestricted free for all. There was never a referendum or a mandate from the voters to do what they have done. So there is no legitimacy to it. [/quote]

What about all of the legal immigrants, what do we do with them oh wise one?

22

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
My local Tory MP when I was growing up supported bringing back birching as punishment for Criminals. Yes there has been a dive for the centre over recent years but there are still some very right wing members of the Tory party I can assure you.

There is always some asshole who wants to bring back birching. There are countries that have low crime and orderly societies without torturing people. I was really disappointed when the BNP listed birching as part of their law and order policy.

The problem with the Tory’s is when they choose to be right wing it’s for archaic bullshit like birching that very few support and just makes them look out of touch.

The so called center that they have been diving for is actually quite far to the left. It has made the tory’s appear to have no real values and willing to say anything just to get power.

Funnily enough I spent my last year back in the UK running a project for the office of the Deputy Prime Minister which was hilarious given that most of the backers of my company were politically slightly to the right of Genghis Khan. To say I am out of touch with British Politics is a bit of a stretch. I would guess that I sat down for a drink with a British MP slightly more recently than you last did.

Let me guess the project was government spin doctor. So you know an MP and maybe a deputy PM so what. It didsn’t give you any special insight. Evidenced by the fact that you still couldn’t read the mood of the people well enough to accept that the BNP were rapidly gaining popularity when I pointed it out to you back in January. Then after they won two MEPs you still couldn’t accept why they had won and started making up lame excuses that imagined how they could have been beat.

Face the facts Cock. With only 14 percent of the vote in June Labour support has absolutely imploded. Tory’s only received 28 percent of the vote. Combined they still received less than half of the vote. Greens, UKIP and BNP combined received 27.5 percent which is only half a percent less than the Tory’s. That center the Tory’s are fighting Labour for is not the true political center it’s just the center between those two odious parties.

The Tory’s could very well be the next party to implode. The release of No Exspences Spared combined with next months referrendum could very well kick off the demise of the Tory’s.

UKIP is another party that could very well implode. UKIP only has MEP’s, some of whom are not British and don’t even live in Britain who would not have their very high paying jobs without the EU. Only an idiot cannot see that without the EU UKIP has no reason to exist. All it would take is for people to wake up and realize that UKIP is a scam and they are done.

The only alternative to UKIP, the BNP has a reason for existance without the EU and noone can question that their first priority is the interests of Britain. Also the leaders of the BNP have proven that they are willing to personally suffer for their beliefs while UKIP’s leader has taken over 2 million pounds in questionable expenses from his EU post.

The Greens are another party that BNP provides an alternative to. The exploding population is placing increasing burdens on the environment. Green space is being used for new housing developments. Water supplies are reaching their limit. There is more waste and pollution being produced. BNP has polices that will address that.

So you know so much about British politics that you appear to be totally unaware of one of the major parties. Funny, very funny![/quote]

Who, the Lib Dems? They’re going nowhere.

23

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Badunk wrote:
Sifu wrote:

The exploding population is placing increasing burdens on the environment. Green space is being used for new housing developments. Water supplies are reaching their limit. There is more waste and pollution being produced. BNP has polices that will address that.

By sending them all home?

When there are millions of illegal immigrants who never applied for legal permission to live there, hundreds of thousands of bogus asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers who have had their cases heard and rejected why not?

It costs about 18,000 pounds for each one of those asylum cases to be processed through the courts. If they are not going to send them home when their appeal fails what is the point in spending all that money?

In the last decade the number of immigrants Britain has taken in has been equal to the numbers America took in during it’s mass immigration heyday of the late nineteenth early twentieth century.

Labour has for it’s own ends turned immigration into an unrestricted free for all. There was never a referendum or a mandate from the voters to do what they have done. So there is no legitimacy to it.

What about all of the legal immigrants, what do we do with them oh wise one?[/quote]

There are a lot of legal ones who should not have been let in either. Labour did not impose any standards as to who would be acceptable and who would not. The last 14 years they have had an unrestricted free for all.

Now they don’t even need more immigration to replace the British. Last year out of 700,000 babies 70 percent were born to mothers who were of non-British descent.

Labour had no right to do what it has done to the nation. Someone has to undo the damage they have done or it is just going to get worse.

24

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Badunk wrote:
Sifu wrote:

The exploding population is placing increasing burdens on the environment. Green space is being used for new housing developments. Water supplies are reaching their limit. There is more waste and pollution being produced. BNP has polices that will address that.

By sending them all home?

When there are millions of illegal immigrants who never applied for legal permission to live there, hundreds of thousands of bogus asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers who have had their cases heard and rejected why not?

It costs about 18,000 pounds for each one of those asylum cases to be processed through the courts. If they are not going to send them home when their appeal fails what is the point in spending all that money?

In the last decade the number of immigrants Britain has taken in has been equal to the numbers America took in during it’s mass immigration heyday of the late nineteenth early twentieth century.

Labour has for it’s own ends turned immigration into an unrestricted free for all. There was never a referendum or a mandate from the voters to do what they have done. So there is no legitimacy to it.

What about all of the legal immigrants, what do we do with them oh wise one?

There are a lot of legal ones who should not have been let in either. Labour did not impose any standards as to who would be acceptable and who would not. The last 14 years they have had an unrestricted free for all.

Now they don’t even need more immigration to replace the British. Last year out of 700,000 babies 70 percent were born to mothers who were of non-British descent.

Labour had no right to do what it has done to the nation. Someone has to undo the damage they have done or it is just going to get worse. [/quote]

So any cahnce of you answering the question then?

25

I don’t think you can complain about people coming to live in Britain when you spent hundreds of years going round the world taking over their countries. You reap what you sow.

And the fact that people want to come here should be something to be proud of, because it shows what a progressive, tolerant, successful society Britain has.

Who the fuck ARE the British anyway? Mongrels, in every sense of the word. Can you trace your ancestry back to the formation of these two islands?

26

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Badunk wrote:
Sifu wrote:

The exploding population is placing increasing burdens on the environment. Green space is being used for new housing developments. Water supplies are reaching their limit. There is more waste and pollution being produced. BNP has polices that will address that.

By sending them all home?

When there are millions of illegal immigrants who never applied for legal permission to live there, hundreds of thousands of bogus asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers who have had their cases heard and rejected why not?

It costs about 18,000 pounds for each one of those asylum cases to be processed through the courts. If they are not going to send them home when their appeal fails what is the point in spending all that money?

In the last decade the number of immigrants Britain has taken in has been equal to the numbers America took in during it’s mass immigration heyday of the late nineteenth early twentieth century.

Labour has for it’s own ends turned immigration into an unrestricted free for all. There was never a referendum or a mandate from the voters to do what they have done. So there is no legitimacy to it.

What about all of the legal immigrants, what do we do with them oh wise one?

There are a lot of legal ones who should not have been let in either. Labour did not impose any standards as to who would be acceptable and who would not. The last 14 years they have had an unrestricted free for all.

Now they don’t even need more immigration to replace the British. Last year out of 700,000 babies 70 percent were born to mothers who were of non-British descent.

Labour had no right to do what it has done to the nation. Someone has to undo the damage they have done or it is just going to get worse.

So any cahnce of you answering the question then?[/quote]

I thought I did. Labour deliberately flooded the country with millions of immigrants without ever getting the permission of the people to do it. As with any people in this world the British have every right to enforce their borders and determine who gets to live there and who doesn’t. They should send them home.

27

[quote]Badunk wrote:
I don’t think you can complain about people coming to live in Britain when you spent hundreds of years going round the world taking over their countries. You reap what you sow. [/quote]

What the British did hundreds of years ago the people alive today had no hand in. So there is no reason why they should be made to suffer for it. It is stupid to think that they deserve to commit national suicide because of events which they did not participate in.

The British have done a lot more in this world than just take. A lot of our modern concepts of international law originated with the British. ie It was the British abolitionist movement that brought an end to the slave trade out of Africa that had gone on for thousands of years.

The British have made extensive contributions of science and technology without which we would not be living in our mdern world.

What about stopping Hitler? Doesn’t that count for anything?

[quote]
And the fact that people want to come here should be something to be proud of, because it shows what a progressive, tolerant, successful society Britain has. [/quote]

Most of the people who are moving to Britain are coming from the most impoverished hell holes on the planet. They are moving to Britain because of all the free give away. Power hungry greedy politicians screwing over their own citizens to buy immigrant votes is nothing to be proud of it is something to be ashamed of.

A successful society?!?!?! Britain is well on it’s way to becoming a failed state. Tory and Labour have turned the country into a multi tribal hellhole that is breaking apart along tribal lines.

That is a load of crap. I can trace my family back to Normandy prior to 1066. When the Normans invaded we slaughtered the Saxons. The English are almost purely Norman. The British are a homogeneous enough of a people that many of us share similar facial features. I’ve had British people come up to me and ask me if I’m English. My father has ahd the same thing happen to him also. A mongrel people who have no common ancestry are not going to be able to recognize one another like that.

28

If the people alive today shouldn’t be made to pay for the actions of their ancestors, by that logic, you should be giving back those crown jewels. All your food is subsidized. YOUR precious nation holds back the advancement of millions of people across the world.

Are you not aware of the loans that 3rd world nations have struggled to pay back? Are you not aware that many of these nations have turned over their entire economy to one or two cash crops that countries like Britain dictate the price of? Did you know that only about 20% of ‘Aid’ given to 3rd world nations in times of dire need (such as earthquakes, famines, etc) is actually ‘free’?

Please don’t act like the British people (or anyone in the developed world, for that matter) is an innocent bystander in the suffering of around 3/5 of the world’s population. “It wasn’t us, guv, honest! We just found them like that.” World hunger has hit one billion ( BBC NEWS | Europe | World hunger 'hits one billion' ), and here’s you bitching and whinging about DER TAKIN ERR JERBS!

Shame on you, Little Englander.

29

[quote]Badunk wrote:
If the people alive today shouldn’t be made to pay for the actions of their ancestors, by that logic, you should be giving back those crown jewels. All your food is subsidized. YOUR precious nation holds back the advancement of millions of people across the world.

Are you not aware of the loans that 3rd world nations have struggled to pay back? Are you not aware that many of these nations have turned over their entire economy to one or two cash crops that countries like Britain dictate the price of? Did you know that only about 20% of ‘Aid’ given to 3rd world nations in times of dire need (such as earthquakes, famines, etc) is actually ‘free’?

Please don’t act like the British people (or anyone in the developed world, for that matter) is an innocent bystander in the suffering of around 3/5 of the world’s population. “It wasn’t us, guv, honest! We just found them like that.” World hunger has hit one billion ( BBC NEWS | Europe | World hunger 'hits one billion' ), and here’s you bitching and whinging about DER TAKIN ERR JERBS!

Shame on you, Little Englander.[/quote]

So what you are saying is Britain should kick out the immigrants AND stop world aid.

30

[quote]Sifu wrote:

I thought I did. Labour deliberately flooded the country with millions of immigrants without ever getting the permission of the people to do it. As with any people in this world the British have every right to enforce their borders and determine who gets to live there and who doesn’t. They should send them home.[/quote]

OK, so any chance of some more detail on your final solution Sifu? Who exactly gets sent home and where to? Also, how do we go about it? Who pays the cost of the extradition? What do we do to the people who resist?

Starting example, friend of mine, born in Sweden to Somali parents, currently living in West London, working in Investment Banking.

Where do we send him to?

Also, does this then allow the foreign governments to send back the 5.5 Million British Citizens currently living in other countries?

What about the 4.1 Million US Citizens living over seas, do they get sent back to the US?

31

[quote]Badunk wrote:
If the people alive today shouldn’t be made to pay for the actions of their ancestors, by that logic, you should be giving back those crown jewels. All your food is subsidized. YOUR precious nation holds back the advancement of millions of people across the world.

Are you not aware of the loans that 3rd world nations have struggled to pay back? Are you not aware that many of these nations have turned over their entire economy to one or two cash crops that countries like Britain dictate the price of? Did you know that only about 20% of ‘Aid’ given to 3rd world nations in times of dire need (such as earthquakes, famines, etc) is actually ‘free’?

Please don’t act like the British people (or anyone in the developed world, for that matter) is an innocent bystander in the suffering of around 3/5 of the world’s population. “It wasn’t us, guv, honest! We just found them like that.” World hunger has hit one billion ( BBC NEWS | Europe | World hunger 'hits one billion' ), and here’s you bitching and whinging about DER TAKIN ERR JERBS!

Shame on you, Little Englander. [/quote]

The problems of the third world cannot be solved by bringing everyone to Britain or Europe or America.

The best interests of the British are certainly not served by letting ingrateful haters like you into the country. The only way that mass immigration will end for the British is they will become a disinfranchised, stateless, hated minority in their homeland. With people like you spitting on them as they beg for food and telling them they got what they deserved because of something that happened decades or even hundreds of years before they were born.

A lot of the third worlds problems are self inflicted. People there are still having lots of children when they can’t feed the ones they already have. That’s not the fault of Britain or America. Sending food aid so that the children they can’t feed can make it to their child bearing years and add to the problem is not making things better.

32

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:

I thought I did. Labour deliberately flooded the country with millions of immigrants without ever getting the permission of the people to do it. As with any people in this world the British have every right to enforce their borders and determine who gets to live there and who doesn’t. They should send them home.

OK, so any chance of some more detail on your final solution Sifu? [/quote]

FUCK YOU Guardianista! Enforcing immigration laws and border controls is nothing like the final solution shithead.

[quote]
Who exactly gets sent home and where to? Also, how do we go about it? Who pays the cost of the extradition? What do we do to the people who resist?[/quote]

The first ones to go shoud be all the failed and bogus asyum seekers. In the case of failed asyum seekers the British have already paid the costs but they haven’t gone anywhere.

[quote]
Starting example, friend of mine, born in Sweden to Somali parents, currently living in West London, working in Investment Banking.

Where do we send him to?[/quote]

If he’s Swedish send him to Sweden.

[quote]
Also, does this then allow the foreign governments to send back the 5.5 Million British Citizens currently living in other countries?

What about the 4.1 Million US Citizens living over seas, do they get sent back to the US?[/quote]

If people don’t want them in their country they chould have every right to send them home.

33

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:

I thought I did. Labour deliberately flooded the country with millions of immigrants without ever getting the permission of the people to do it. As with any people in this world the British have every right to enforce their borders and determine who gets to live there and who doesn’t. They should send them home.

OK, so any chance of some more detail on your final solution Sifu?

FUCK YOU Guardianista! Enforcing immigration laws and border controls is nothing like the final solution shithead.

[/quote]

You were not talking about enforcing immigration laws though were you Heir Sifu, you were talking about forced repatriation.

Actually failed assylum seakers are deported. That aside, who goes next then?

Well no, he has been in the UK for more than 5 years and has applied for British Citizenship so he is not Swedish he is British. But he is brown skinned and worships in a mosque so he probably is on your shitlist.

[quote]
Also, does this then allow the foreign governments to send back the 5.5 Million British Citizens currently living in other countries?

What about the 4.1 Million US Citizens living over seas, do they get sent back to the US?

If people don’t want them in their country they chould have every right to send them home.[/quote]

So when Mexico sends me back to the UK, does my wife get to come with me? What about my daughter. Both have dual nationality but neither were born in the UK.

34

I’m from Belfast. I wasn’t exactly ‘let in’.

35

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:

I thought I did. Labour deliberately flooded the country with millions of immigrants without ever getting the permission of the people to do it. As with any people in this world the British have every right to enforce their borders and determine who gets to live there and who doesn’t. They should send them home.

OK, so any chance of some more detail on your final solution Sifu?

FUCK YOU Guardianista! Enforcing immigration laws and border controls is nothing like the final solution shithead.

You were not talking about enforcing immigration laws though were you Heir Sifu, you were talking about forced repatriation.

Who exactly gets sent home and where to? Also, how do we go about it? Who pays the cost of the extradition? What do we do to the people who resist?

The first ones to go shoud be all the failed and bogus asyum seekers. In the case of failed asyum seekers the British have already paid the costs but they haven’t gone anywhere.

Actually failed assylum seakers are deported. That aside, who goes next then?

Starting example, friend of mine, born in Sweden to Somali parents, currently living in West London, working in Investment Banking.

Where do we send him to?

If he’s Swedish send him to Sweden.

Well no, he has been in the UK for more than 5 years and has applied for British Citizenship so he is not Swedish he is British. But he is brown skinned and worships in a mosque so he probably is on your shitlist.

Also, does this then allow the foreign governments to send back the 5.5 Million British Citizens currently living in other countries?

What about the 4.1 Million US Citizens living over seas, do they get sent back to the US?

If people don’t want them in their country they chould have every right to send them home.

So when Mexico sends me back to the UK, does my wife get to come with me? What about my daughter. Both have dual nationality but neither were born in the UK.[/quote]

OK just to cut in here. Failed assylum seakers are sent home. ROLFLMFAO Pull the other one someone might believe you.

Also Sifu unfortunately does have a point in some ways- although the BNP are clearly just latching onto popular feeling and grubbing for votes. Anyway I’ll present four arguments in favour of very stringent border controls and immigration policies. Please try to refute them sensibly. There is no need to resort to Mein Kampf references constantly. (Some of these points are better than others and my arguements are by no means polished (It’s 1:30 in the morning))

Britain is a small country. It is fairly full up. There just isn’t room for that many more people here. And does anyone really think the solution to all third world problems is to move everyone poor to a rich country? Do the maths, it just doesn’t work. How do you choose which people to ‘save’ by bringing them to a rich country? If our government really wanted to help poor people they wouldn’t have fought so many wars. They would have a proper minimum wage in the UK. They would push to remove trade imbalances.

See how I slipped in the bit about the minimum wage in the UK being a living wage? That brings up another can of worms straight out of a certain Marx’s book about the movement of labour being used by capital to keep labour’s value down… I hate to say it but encouraging movement of workers from one area of the UK to another in the 19th century to another in order to keep wages down is exactly the same as moving Polish people in now and various other groups in the past (the Irish)- it’s big money’s way to keep labour costs down. This does not mean the immigrants are bad. It just means that a responsible government should limit and control immigration in order to look after it’s own population (the people who it should represent). They should not encourage it because business owners who donate to their election coffers want cheaper labour.

Britain is indeed a mongrel country. HOWEVER it does take about 3 generations for immigrents to fit into any new country (and the general population also adapts in part to the new cultural influences). The rate of immigration over the last 50 odd years and especially the last 10 has been just too high to sustain without massive social problems especially with the crazy idea of multiculurism. Some of these are already being manifested. We can only hope more don’t follow.

Another agreement is that the British government takes money by force off it’s citizens partially to provide a sound state. Their immigration policies are threatening the people living in that state’s welfare (I don’t mean dole checks). The immigration policies are therefore immoral.

So however much I’d like to agree with you and have free movement of people all around the world it just isn’t possible or practical at the moment.

Finally there is a difference between an expat and an immigrant. You are an immigrant if you are really married with children in Mexico and if the Mexican people and their government didn’t want you they should have been fully able to bar you from settling. Many of those US and UK people are expats. IE employed by a foreign business and temporary.

36

[quote]Sifu wrote:
That is a load of crap. I can trace my family back to Normandy prior to 1066. When the Normans invaded we slaughtered the Saxons. The English are almost purely Norman. The British are a homogeneous enough of a people that many of us share similar facial features. I’ve had British people come up to me and ask me if I’m English. My father has ahd the same thing happen to him also. A mongrel people who have no common ancestry are not going to be able to recognize one another like that.[/quote]

Really? You really believe this? If you can trace your ancestry back that far then well done have a cookie. It doesn’t make you a better British citizen than anyone else. You could try judging people on what they are not their parents and certainly not their distant ancestors.

37

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:

I thought I did. Labour deliberately flooded the country with millions of immigrants without ever getting the permission of the people to do it. As with any people in this world the British have every right to enforce their borders and determine who gets to live there and who doesn’t. They should send them home.

OK, so any chance of some more detail on your final solution Sifu?

FUCK YOU Guardianista! Enforcing immigration laws and border controls is nothing like the final solution shithead.

You were not talking about enforcing immigration laws though were you Heir Sifu, you were talking about forced repatriation. [/quote]

There are a lot of people who have illegally entered the country. Most of the asylum seekers have broken the rules of asylum by not requesting asylum in the first safe country they entered isntead they have traveled across Europe to Britain where they get the most welfare. For crying out loud, there are asylum seeker camps on the French coast where they are trying to cross the channel from France to apppy for asylum in Britain and the British government allows it.

I think they have every right to decide who comes into the country and who has to get out. If they have to forcibly repatriate peope what is wrong with that? It’s their country.

[quote]
Who exactly gets sent home and where to? Also, how do we go about it? Who pays the cost of the extradition? What do we do to the people who resist?

The first ones to go shoud be all the failed and bogus asyum seekers. In the case of failed asyum seekers the British have already paid the costs but they haven’t gone anywhere.

Actually failed assylum seakers are deported. That aside, who goes next then? [/quote]

No they are not deported. There are thousands who have had their bid rejected who are still in the country.

[quote]
Starting example, friend of mine, born in Sweden to Somali parents, currently living in West London, working in Investment Banking.

Where do we send him to?

If he’s Swedish send him to Sweden.

Well no, he has been in the UK for more than 5 years and has applied for British Citizenship so he is not Swedish he is British. But he is brown skinned and worships in a mosque so he probably is on your shitlist. [/quote]

The color of his skin doesn’t matter what matters is he is a muslim. Islam is incompatable with the British way of life and vice versa. The muslims in Britain are not going to integrate. It makes no sense to add to the problem.

[quote]
Also, does this then allow the foreign governments to send back the 5.5 Million British Citizens currently living in other countries?

What about the 4.1 Million US Citizens living over seas, do they get sent back to the US?

If people don’t want them in their country they chould have every right to send them home.

So when Mexico sends me back to the UK, does my wife get to come with me? What about my daughter. Both have dual nationality but neither were born in the UK. [/quote]

Don’t worry Cock if I was running the government I would personally intervene with the Mexicans on your behalf to keep you over there.

38

[quote]Badunk wrote:
I’m from Belfast. I wasn’t exactly ‘let in’.[/quote]

Well that explains your hatred of the English.

39

[quote]lou21 wrote:

OK just to cut in here. Failed assylum seakers are sent home. ROLFLMFAO Pull the other one someone might believe you.

Also Sifu unfortunately does have a point in some ways- although the BNP are clearly just latching onto popular feeling and grubbing for votes. Anyway I’ll present four arguments in favour of very stringent border controls and immigration policies. Please try to refute them sensibly. There is no need to resort to Mein Kampf references constantly. (Some of these points are better than others and my arguements are by no means polished (It’s 1:30 in the morning))

Britain is a small country. It is fairly full up. There just isn’t room for that many more people here. And does anyone really think the solution to all third world problems is to move everyone poor to a rich country? Do the maths, it just doesn’t work. How do you choose which people to ‘save’ by bringing them to a rich country? If our government really wanted to help poor people they wouldn’t have fought so many wars. They would have a proper minimum wage in the UK. They would push to remove trade imbalances.

See how I slipped in the bit about the minimum wage in the UK being a living wage? That brings up another can of worms straight out of a certain Marx’s book about the movement of labour being used by capital to keep labour’s value down… I hate to say it but encouraging movement of workers from one area of the UK to another in the 19th century to another in order to keep wages down is exactly the same as moving Polish people in now and various other groups in the past (the Irish)- it’s big money’s way to keep labour costs down. This does not mean the immigrants are bad. It just means that a responsible government should limit and control immigration in order to look after it’s own population (the people who it should represent). They should not encourage it because business owners who donate to their election coffers want cheaper labour.

Britain is indeed a mongrel country. HOWEVER it does take about 3 generations for immigrents to fit into any new country (and the general population also adapts in part to the new cultural influences). The rate of immigration over the last 50 odd years and especially the last 10 has been just too high to sustain without massive social problems especially with the crazy idea of multiculurism. Some of these are already being manifested. We can only hope more don’t follow.

Another agreement is that the British government takes money by force off it’s citizens partially to provide a sound state. Their immigration policies are threatening the people living in that state’s welfare (I don’t mean dole checks). The immigration policies are therefore immoral.

So however much I’d like to agree with you and have free movement of people all around the world it just isn’t possible or practical at the moment.

Finally there is a difference between an expat and an immigrant. You are an immigrant if you are really married with children in Mexico and if the Mexican people and their government didn’t want you they should have been fully able to bar you from settling. Many of those US and UK people are expats. IE employed by a foreign business and temporary.
[/quote]

Failed Asymlum seakers are sent home, possibly not enough and not quickly enough but it does happen.

One of the biggest issues over the last few years has been the policies of the rest of Europe to just hastily pass immigrants through their countries with the aim of dumping them in Calais where they could make a break over the border to the UK.

With the current global set up then it is sensible for the UK to have stringent border controls and immigration policies. Some of the current rules around student visas for instance are ridiculous.

In an ideal world there would be free movement of labour worldwide but we are a long way from that. The only real way to cut immigration pressure is to improve conditions in the poorer countries thus removing the impetus. Anything else is just sticking fingers in the dyke. In fact, immigrants who send money home are already helping with that.

40

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:

I thought I did. Labour deliberately flooded the country with millions of immigrants without ever getting the permission of the people to do it. As with any people in this world the British have every right to enforce their borders and determine who gets to live there and who doesn’t. They should send them home.

OK, so any chance of some more detail on your final solution Sifu?

FUCK YOU Guardianista! Enforcing immigration laws and border controls is nothing like the final solution shithead.

You were not talking about enforcing immigration laws though were you Heir Sifu, you were talking about forced repatriation.

There are a lot of people who have illegally entered the country. Most of the asylum seekers have broken the rules of asylum by not requesting asylum in the first safe country they entered isntead they have traveled across Europe to Britain where they get the most welfare. For crying out loud, there are asylum seeker camps on the French coast where they are trying to cross the channel from France to apppy for asylum in Britain and the British government allows it.

I think they have every right to decide who comes into the country and who has to get out. If they have to forcibly repatriate peope what is wrong with that? It’s their country.

[/quote]

But you were not talking about the illegal immigrants. You stated that legal immigrants should be sent home. I am waiting for you to define who and how.

the system is not working well at the moment however the process is that they are deported. Mind you, if we can’t even keep up with deporting these, where does the money come from for the millions of legal immigrants repatriation costs?

He is very well integrated actually. He has a large number of friends of various faiths, colours and backgrounds. He teaches BJJ to children in his spare time. He pays his taxes and is not a burden on anyone. Why should he be forcibly removed from the country and sent to Sweden where according to your logic he would then be packed up with the rest of his family and sent to Somalia?

[quote]

Also, does this then allow the foreign governments to send back the 5.5 Million British Citizens currently living in other countries?

What about the 4.1 Million US Citizens living over seas, do they get sent back to the US?

If people don’t want them in their country they chould have every right to send them home.

So when Mexico sends me back to the UK, does my wife get to come with me? What about my daughter. Both have dual nationality but neither were born in the UK.

Don’t worry Cock if I was running the government I would personally intervene with the Mexicans on your behalf to keep you over there. [/quote]

Way to sidestep the question. When you have a family where one partner is from one country and the other from a different country what happens? Or do you just burn them as heretics for having an unatural interracial relationship?