PDA

View Full Version : Illegal immigrants



connieb19
13-Jan-06, 18:51
I hear the Government are planning to pay illegal immigrants and assylum seekers £3000 each to leave Britain and return to their own country....plus they are going to support them for a further 12 months once they arrive there!! I am interested to know what everyone thinks of this idea?

paris
13-Jan-06, 18:57
If thats the case, i come from india.... not really .Dont agree with that at all. Money we have payed out of wages ect for taxes over the years could be much better spent.

Donnie
13-Jan-06, 19:02
I hear the Government are planning to pay illegal immigrants and assylum seekers £3000 each to leave Britain and return to their own country....plus they are going to support them for a further 12 months once they arrive there!! I am interested to know what everyone thinks of this idea?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/

It's an excellent source for news. Much better than Joan down at the Fag shed.

connieb19
13-Jan-06, 19:03
http://news.bbc.co.uk/

It's an excellent source for news. Much better than Joan down at the Fag shed.Not nearly as much fun though Donnie...Thanks anyway!!:D

Chillie
13-Jan-06, 19:26
And what country do you come from because your grammer and english spelling is not quite up to the Bilatee standard. [lol]

marion
13-Jan-06, 19:45
I hear the Government are planning to pay illegal immigrants and assylum seekers £3000 each to leave Britain and return to their own country....plus they are going to support them for a further 12 months once they arrive there!! I am interested to know what everyone thinks of this idea?

WOW!!! If the USA decided to do that with illegals that came up across the Mexican/USA border, we would go broke in a hurry.

Does anyone believe this will happeN?

connieb19
13-Jan-06, 19:49
WOW!!! If the USA decided to do that with illegals that came up across the Mexican/USA border, we would go broke in a hurry.

Does anyone believe this will happeN?Well there was a discussion on the radio about it and seemingly it costs in excess of £11000 to forcibly return them to their own country so it will be a saving for the government to only have to fork out £3000 to each of them!!

landmarker
13-Jan-06, 23:06
Scenario no.1: Man leaves poor third world village in a spurious attmept to claim 'asylum' in Britain. He has heard of the gravy train and, he wants to improve his lot. He gets unlucky, and is one of the few failed 'asylum seekers'to be sent back. He arrives back in the village glum, but with story to tell.

Scenario no.2: Same man, same village. He arrives back home with what amounts to six years wages in his pocket (£3,000) How many others will follow his example?

This is not the governments money. It is yours and mine, or the companies we work for. This is yet another step down the road of insanity that this pathetic adminstration is leading us all.

connieb19
13-Jan-06, 23:15
Scenario no.1: Man leaves poor third world village in a spurious attmept to claim 'asylum' in Britain. He has heard of the gravy train and, he wants to improve his lot. He gets unlucky, and is one of the few failed 'asylum seekers'to be sent back. He arrives back in the village glum, but with story to tell.

Scenario no.2: Same man, same village. He arrives back home with what amounts to six years wages in his pocket (£3,000) How many others will follow his example?

This is not the governments money. It is yours and mine, or the companies we work for. This is yet another step down the road of insanity that this pathetic adminstration is leading us all.Not only that us taxpayers are giong to pay to support him and his family for a further 12 months after he goes home...crazy or what?????:confused:

melted_wellie
13-Jan-06, 23:19
Not only that us taxpayers are giong to pay to support him and his family for a further 12 months after he goes home...crazy or what?????:confused:send em home with nothin,or even better have trained marksmen positioned just outside the tunnel entrance.

jjc
13-Jan-06, 23:40
http://news.bbc.co.uk/

It's an excellent source for news. Much better than Joan down at the Fag shed.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article338225.ece


Same man, same village. He arrives back home with what amounts to six years wages in his pocket (£3,000) How many others will follow his example? Relax, the scheme will only be open to refugees who arrived in Britain before the end of last month.


This is not the governments money. It is yours and mine, or the companies we work for. It is and it isnít.

Think about it for a minute. Education, infrastructure, health care, defence, your pension Ė how much do you think what you personally pay in tax would buy you if you had to buy it for yourself?

We collect our money together in a central pot because it has more buying power that way. The trouble is that you and I are extremely unlikely to agree on just how we want it to be spent, so we need to come up with a way for some kind of decision to be made as to what is and what isnít a good way to spend it. Sure, we could each trot down to the local school to vote every time an invoice comes in to Whitehall but thatís not very practical (or cost effective). Far better that we get together every once in a while (say around four or five years) and pick a group of us who we trust to make decisions for us. We could give that a nameÖ a Ďgeneral electioní maybe?

The point is that it is our money, but we donít get to decide how each pound (or even every £3000) gets spent. One of the things that we, as a nation, seemed to approve of our money being spent on (at least it was a big campaign issue during the last election) is illegal immigration. You canít blame Labour for trying to reduce the number of illegal immigrants Ė after all, that seems to be precisely what a large number of people were calling for in 2005 Ė and thatís going to cost money. Itís going to cost £11,000 to force them to leave or itís going to cost £3,000 to bribe them to do so.

porshiepoo
13-Jan-06, 23:54
Shouldn't have let it get to this state in the first place.
How obvious was it that this was gonna happen.

I'd be more happy about the 3 grand bribe if the 8 grand saving went into more improved armed security at all entries and the building of camps for asylum seekers and immigrants to stay in while their cases are heard.

connieb19
14-Jan-06, 00:06
Shouldn't have let it get to this state in the first place.
How obvious was it that this was gonna happen.

I'd be more happy about the 3 grand bribe if the 8 grand saving went into more improved armed security at all entries and the building of camps for asylum seekers and immigrants to stay in while their cases are heard.i agree it should't have gotten in that state in the first place...why should we be expected to pay the expense for the Governments faults??

the taxpayer will have to pick up the tab twice, once because of the failure to stop them getting into the country in the first place, then again to pay them to leave..

Paying them to go home will encourage them to come here in the first place.. :(

jjc
14-Jan-06, 00:11
...improved armed security at all entries and the building of camps for asylum seekers and immigrants to stay in while their cases are heard. If you are going to build camps for asylum seekers then why would you need to arm the border guards? Are the camps only to be used for those asylum seekers who are quick enough to dodge the bullets?

Oh, and immigrants (as opposed to asylum seekers) come into the country on visas. They donít need to have their cases heard; they just need to walk through immigration control at the airport.

landmarker
14-Jan-06, 00:30
Oh, and immigrants (as opposed to asylum seekers) come into the country on visas. They don’t need to have their cases heard; they just need to walk through immigration control at the airport.

What about the ones arriving in the backs of trucks and underneath railway carriages. I don't blame them for trying. They are desperate enough to risk their lives. I blame this government for leaving the front door off the latch and the back door wide open.

As for your tutorial on tax, you make some valid points but please do not try and make out that Labours re-election was a vindication of their immigration policies. More people voted non-Labour than voted for them. Immigration was a major plank in the Tory campaign and their vote increased. A far right anti-immigrant party attracted almost one million votes! - unprecendented. Something was clearly going wrong in the minds of the majority.

Blair got back in because the economy was still performing well & interests rates were historically low - still are.

You seem in two mind 'it is and it isn't' H.M.G's money you say - -- wrong !
Government's do not have any money of their own.
They raise revenue from the general populace and business.
Tax is obviously necessary and is socially cohesive, we all pay our share (allegedly)
I still maintain that this policy a foolhardy and irresponsible method of disposing of it when it could go to a much better use.

I agree with Porshiepoo that border security is a much improved way of spending our money, on OUR behalf.

JAWS
14-Jan-06, 00:46
Didn't somebody suggest something similar in the late 1960s?

I seem to remember that the suggestion was that people who had come here from abroad and no longer wished to stay could be "assisted" to return home by having their fares paid for.

The "assisted" was immediately translated to mean "forced to return home", the person suggesting it was accused of being a "fascist racist thug" and the whole idea was scorned by some of the very people who are now suggesting the very same thing.

If you suggest it you are the "Devil Incarnate", if I suggest it I am being "Saintly".

Sounds just a little hypocritical to me.

landmarker
14-Jan-06, 00:59
I am minded of the old joke, probably not very politically correct now about the Indian chap at Manchester Airport buying an airline ticket home. The cost was £198.6/-. (yes it was that long ago folks) He only had £198.5/6d on him. So, he went into the road outside and asked the first man he saw to give him sixpence 'I need it to get home' he entreated.

'Here' came the reply, 'here's half a crown take four of your friends with you.'

Of course I never found this gag funny after the first time I heard it. Others like it were all over the television and radio in my youth from Bernard Manning to Stan Boardman we all know much better now than to relate such silly stories.
Don't we?

The essence of this new policy is actually the essence of the joke. A government paying to get rid of people who are politically inconvenient and to help them reach targets whilst not having the guts to say so. Hypocrites.

jjc
14-Jan-06, 01:02
H.M.G's money you say - -- wrong !
ErmÖ no, I really didnít. I said that it is our money but that the system wouldnít work if we decide how each individual pound gets spent.

jjc
14-Jan-06, 01:07
A government paying to get rid of people who are politically inconvenient and to help them reach targets whilst not having the guts to say so. Hypocrites.
That I'll agree with... I don't agree that immigrants should be politically inconvenient and I wish that the government would stop pandering to those who see them as such, but I do agree that they should at least come out and say why they are doing what they are doing.

landmarker
14-Jan-06, 01:13
That I'll agree with... I don't agree that immigrants should be politically inconvenient and I wish that the government would stop pandering to those who see them as such, but I do agree that they should at least come out and say why they are doing what they are doing.

The people concerned are, I believe bogus asylum seekers who tried to get into this country on a false premise. It's hard to see such a group as convenient, politically or otherwise. Yes, they are 'convenient' for those who would exploit cheap labour. This would be in the black economy and rob the revenue of the tax you are happy for them to spend on your behalf.

A pool of cheap immigrant labour, legal or otherwise also keeps down the wages of those already here. This is why wage inflation is so low in many areas of work. Even Eddie George ex chief of the Bank of England admitted this fairly recently.

Drutt
14-Jan-06, 01:20
Demographic trends mean that we need immigration and we will need it more and more in the next few decades, as the birth rate continues to decrease and the population continues to age.

Without immigrant labour, there would be virtually no vegetables on the supermarket shelves. We rely on immigrants more than we're prepared to admit, and increased port security would cause more problems in terms of our way of life and quality of life than is caused by tolerating a not-excessive influx of immigrants.

I'd far rather they were able to enter legally but we don't, as a country, seem willing to acknowledge the benefits they bring.

jjc
14-Jan-06, 01:21
The people concerned are, I believe bogus asylum seekers who tried to get into this country on a false premise. It's hard to see such a group as convenient, politically or otherwise. That I don’t believe that failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants should be considered ‘politically inconvenient’ does not mean that I think they are ‘politically convenient’.

Failed asylum seekers are a fact of asylum. Illegal immigrants are a bi-product of a wealthy economy. Neither should be outside of the law, but I don’t think that an election campaign where each party competes with the others to show just how ‘tough’ they can be is the right response.

JAWS
14-Jan-06, 01:59
Drutt, the demographic trends means that the blip caused by the Baby Boomers is working it's way through the system.
For Politicians to pretend that this was something unforeseen which has been spring upon them by circumstances is totally unsustainable.

Anybody who has the mathematical ability to add 65 to 1950 was able to see the result. There has been more than 50 years for this to have been catered for.

During that time it was ignored for Political Expediency. The attitude was, "Ignore it, by the time it happens it will be somebody elseís problem!"
It was known over 30 years ago, when "Wage Related Benefits" were brought in, that they would eventually become unsustainable but that fact was ignored because promise of "Jam tomorrow" was a good vote winner. The "Somebody elseís Problem" scenario came into play again.

Now the Politicians are unable to stop people from the rest of the World from coming to join in the party they fall back on the "Political Expediency" game.
"Just tell the people that letting it continue is all for their own good. If there are any problems in the future then it will be somebody else's problem and they can sort it out. If we do that it won't cost us votes at the next Election!"

Drutt
14-Jan-06, 02:13
Drutt, the demographic trends means that the blip caused by the Baby Boomers is working it's way through the system.
For Politicians to pretend that this was something unforeseen which has been spring upon them by circumstances is totally unsustainable.
I don't understand how this can be viewed as a 'blip'. If women have, on average, 2.1 children, the population is sustained. Women are actually having, on average, 1.7 children. That this results in an ageing population is only logical.

An ageing population means that there are fewer workers to support (via taxes) those who are no longer working. The pensions crisis isn't a myth.

The birth rate is lower in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. The Scottish Executive keeps cooking up ideas for improving the net immigration and emigration stats by trying to persuade Scots to stay or return rather than head for the south-east of England or abroad. Why would they make these efforts for a 'blip'?

JAWS
14-Jan-06, 03:46
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=951 provides a Birth Rate graph and commentary.

The sudden decline in Birth Rate between 1965-75 must indicate some huge change in circumstance.
For the Birth Rate to fall by almost 50% in a decade must signify a huge change in either health of attitude especially in view of the fact that it has remained at the lower rate since the mid 70s, an effect which seems to be the same throughout Europe.

Scotland now has more people entering the Country than are leaving.
Again, the question is, "Why were people so intent on leaving in the first place." If your bath leaks you stop the leak, you don't just pour more water in with the vague hope you will keep it full.

As you say, the Scottish Executive are constantly cooking up ideas in the hope of persuading Scots here to stay and ex-Pats to return.
But Smoke and Mirrors are not the answer. I hear all the talking but no matter how hard I look I can see very little action.
I was once given the advice that when in charge of anything never to stand there looking lost, do something, anything and pretend you know what you are doing. That way people will be satisfied.
Of course the Executive are constantly coming up with "ideas".
"Pretend we are doing something, anything provided it doesn't cost any money"

With regards to the flight to the south-east of England (London) and to the same thing happening round Edinburgh to a lesser degree I will make only one comment or rather pose only one question.
Where are the Seats of Government for Scotland and for Britain and is there any connection between the locations and the population movements? (sorry, that's really two questions)

Fesman
14-Jan-06, 07:54
I'm a little confused as to why most of you don't like the idea of your Government subsidising the costs of returning aliens to their homelands.

There were no complaints back in the sixties and seventies when your Government operated such a scheme.

I suppose that the difference lies in the fact that back then, you were subsidising your own Countrymen to emigrate.

We, in New Zealand, had boatloads of Britons arrive during those decades. The cost of the trip plus repatriation to each person was £10. Your Government and ours subsidised the rest.

If we delve further backward in time, many, if not all of you, will know that Australia was colonised by boatloads of convicts sent there by the British Government of the time. Most of those reluctant exiles were Britons and the cost of transportation and incarceration was met by the Government.

Your Government has an undeniable history of paying to remove your fellow citizens. Why should you, therefore, complain when they decide to rid your Country of aliens using the same policies?

JAWS
14-Jan-06, 09:39
Fesman, I assume you are referring to the ten pound assisted passage which was certainly in operation into the early 1960s.
I remember a person from Australia House visiting my school extolling it's virtues in order to encourage people to help increase Australia's Population.

We would all have been welcome because our ethnic background fitted in well with the "White Australia" policy which was enforced at the time.
New Zealand I cannot speak for as nobody from New Zealand invited us.

What policies are Australia and New Zealand operating now?
Is there a place for a fifty year old unemployed labourer with a couple of dependents to emigrate to either Country?
Would that person be required to have a blood relative resident there or would some relevant form of employment be a pre-requisite?

Whilst assisting our own citizens to flee the County is quite acceptable to us I am rather afraid that returning other peoples to their place of origin is most definitely not.

golach
14-Jan-06, 11:03
I'm a little confused as to why most of you don't like the idea of your Government subsidising the costs of returning aliens to their homelands.
There were no complaints back in the sixties and seventies when your Government operated such a scheme.

I suppose that the difference lies in the fact that back then, you were subsidising your own Countrymen to emigrate.

We, in New Zealand, had boatloads of Britons arrive during those decades. The cost of the trip plus repatriation to each person was £10. Your Government and ours subsidised the rest.

Well excuse me Fesman, I worked on the RMS Captain Cook and RMS Orontes in the early 60's the first taking "£10 stowaways" as we the crew called the passengers to New Zealand and the later taking the same to Australia. And I remember full well how your Government and fellow country men welcomed them with open arms, as did the Oz citizens, there was also weekly ship loads of Greeks and Italians arriving too not just Brits. Maybe if NZ had more people than sheep there would have been no need for this migration

porshiepoo
14-Jan-06, 11:13
If you are going to build camps for asylum seekers then why would you need to arm the border guards? Are the camps only to be used for those asylum seekers who are quick enough to dodge the bullets?

We'd still need the border guards for the bucket loads that will still attempt to get through.
Those that are seeking genuine asylum should be housed at camps until their case is heard and then only allowed to stay on the condition that they return to their native countries when it is safe to do so.
So in answer to your question JJC the camps would be for all asylum seekers.



Oh, and immigrants (as opposed to asylum seekers) come into the country on visas. They donít need to have their cases heard; they just need to walk through immigration control at the airport.


I think you already know jjc my views on immigrants and how we allow them free access to this country, and that view still stands.

I can see how certain people i.e. medical professionals etc can be of benefit to this country whatever country they come from themselves, I just think we should have similar immigration laws to some of the other countries.
We allow to many in unsupervised. This country has no idea how many illegal immigrants are settled here right now, our preventative methods are shoddy at best. If more thought had gone into this topic before and during it's introduction then maybe we wouldn't be having to consider bribes to send them home. Bribes that will undoubtedly spur on more immigrants to give it a go, and no doubt we'd carry on paying them. Why don't we just put a structure in place now - albeit after the horse has bolted - and at least safe guard what part of this countrys future that we can.

Why are all those supposed asylum seekers lined up at the tunnel in France risking their necks to get over here? In theory they're in a relatively safe country in France so why risk life and limb to get into here? Basically it's because they all know that once they're here they won't get shipped straight back or housed in camps as they do in France. Once they're here they know that they can lose themselves fairly easy and / or have their rights protected if / when they are found. It's absolutely crazy!
I used to be quite proud of this country, Great Britain was everything the name suggested and more, not now though, it's more like Gullible Ballsup.

Fesman
14-Jan-06, 11:28
Yes Jaws, I was talking about the Assisted Passage. It was still available to Britons emigrating to NZ well into the 70's. There was a backlash from it, that as a Kiwi, I'm not too proud of. The influx of Britons were mainly blue collar workers and had a Union mentality. Strikes became the norm and the Kiwis started to resent the so-called £10 Poms. Tension turned to violence and the Government changed it's Immigration Policy.

I am unable to say what immigration policies Australia has, except that I know that I can take up residence and work there as a New Zealand citizen. Australians can do the same here. Australia also sends asylum seekers to Nauru Island, where they languish as their cases are proccessed. Not many succeed in their applications and some come here.

We have a relatively open door for Pacific Islanders (Polynesia), Australians and Zimbabwians. Immediate family members of residents are allowed to immigrate as are certain skilled workers. All others have virtually no chance of gaining residence. Overstayers are tracked down and deported.

porshiepoo
14-Jan-06, 11:41
Yes Jaws, I was talking about the Assisted Passage. It was still available to Britons emigrating to NZ well into the 70's. There was a backlash from it, that as a Kiwi, I'm not too proud of. The influx of Britons were mainly blue collar workers and had a Union mentality. Strikes became the norm and the Kiwis started to resent the so-called £10 Poms. Tension turned to violence and the Government changed it's Immigration Policy.

I am unable to say what immigration policies Australia has, except that I know that I can take up residence and work there as a New Zealand citizen. Australians can do the same here. Australia also sends asylum seekers to Nauru Island, where they languish as their cases are proccessed. Not many succeed in their applications and some come here.

We have a relatively open door for Pacific Islanders (Polynesia), Australians and Zimbabwians. Immediate family members of residents are allowed to immigrate as are certain skilled workers. All others have virtually no chance of gaining residence. Overstayers are tracked down and deported.


Shame Great Britain hasn't taken this road.
I think that if immigration laws were more tight here then there would be far less people against immigration. I certainly would be more for it if I knew that certain practices were in place before they even got here and that those that do come in have proven that they have a skill to offer.

Fesman
14-Jan-06, 12:07
And I remember full well how your Government and fellow country men welcomed them with open arms, as did the Oz citizens, there was also weekly ship loads of Greeks and Italians arriving too not just Brits. Maybe if NZ had more people than sheep there would have been no need for this migration

As you will note from my previous post that welcome mat soon became sullied.

We have very few Greeks and Italians here.. too cold I suppose, so I'm picking that they went to Australia to work in the sugar cane plantations.

We are well used to jokes about our sheep. If you take a look at the price of NZ lamb in your shops you will soon realise who has the last laugh.

JAWS
14-Jan-06, 13:10
The biggest joke about N Z and sheep was from your own Government suggesting there should be a tax on them because of the Greenhouse Gases they produced. I thought that was an absolute blinder.

Oz will now only accept the "super rich" and those with a skill that they are short of.

I have no objections to people coming here no matter where they are from provided it is done under some sort of control.
Asylum seekers are supposed to flee to the nearest "safe" Country and claim asylum there. How anybody can travel halfway round the world and all the way across Europe without entering a "safe" Country I have yet to work out.
They are no more "Asylum Seekers" than I am.
We are told that we desperately need these people to keep the Country going.
I might be more ready to accept that had we not refused, point blank, to issue Passports to the latest British Colony to leave us, the Hong Kong Chinese. They had a very good claim to say we had a duty towards them but we turned our backs once again because it was politically expedient not to upset China. (I would hate to suggest there was a racist motive behind it, honest!)

Chinas response? When Chinese Illegals arrive here there is nothing that can be done with them. Obviously they arrive here without papers and the first thing the Chinese Authorities say is, "No papers? You can't prove they are from here so we won't have them back."

If a Country refuses to have it's own Nationals back I have to wonder what sort of people they really are and why it was so easy for them to leave the Country.

EDDIE
14-Jan-06, 13:18
I hear the Government are planning to pay illegal immigrants and assylum seekers £3000 each to leave Britain and return to their own country....plus they are going to support them for a further 12 months once they arrive there!! I am interested to know what everyone thinks of this idea?
Its a wrong thing to do because all your doing is rewarding them to commit an offence and engourging everyone else till do the same.
They should be deported back to there own country or better still dump them in iraq and let them find there own way home that teach them.

Fesman
14-Jan-06, 14:33
The biggest joke about N Z and sheep was from your own Government suggesting there should be a tax on them because of the Greenhouse Gases they produced. I thought that was an absolute blinder.


Our Government was merely following provisions laid out in the Kyoto Protocol. All signatories to the Protocol are required to do the same.

We were drawing the World's attention to the follies of the Protocol.... and the Government played their part, quite successfully, it seems, if the news reached the far north of Scotland :)

The clean, green image that NZ projects to the rest of the World has it's downside, in that, we are a target for all manner of wannabe Kiwis. We are fortunate in that we have no tunnels, linking us to other Countries and our borders are protected by the Southern Oceans.

I forgot to mention in my first reply to you, Jaws, that we do allow prospective immigrants to buy residency, with strict stipulations.... but the sums of money required are vast and only affordable to Asians it seems :)

Donnie
14-Jan-06, 16:07
http://news.bbc.co.uk/

It's an excellent source for news. Much better than Joan down at the Fag shed.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article338225.ece




Thanks for highlighting my point. With out a reputable source this kind of thing is open to interpretation. Hearsay is not a good thing.

jjc
14-Jan-06, 18:14
Thanks for highlighting my point. With out a reputable source this kind of thing is open to interpretation. Hearsay is not a good thing.
I quite agree... just look at the difference between the suggested £3000 cash that immigrants will arrive home with and the true figure (£500 cash, £1500 in housing/education assistance and £1000 for training or to start a business).

porshiepoo
14-Jan-06, 18:28
I quite agree... just look at the difference between the suggested £3000 cash that immigrants will arrive home with and the true figure (£500 cash, £1500 in housing/education assistance and £1000 for training or to start a business).


I get what you/re saying there honestly I do and it's fine that people think like that, however, why the heck should we?????????
I know I've beaten this drum before but what about giving those same incentives to people in this country that sleep on the streets etc?
Great Britain can ill afford to set up immigrants from other countries with the luxuries or chances that we don't afford our own.
Obviously we have to do something about this problem and I understand thats it's going to mean using our hard earned money, and most people can digest that, but not if nothing is done to prevent it happening in the future.How long are we expected to pay up for every immigrant that gets past border control??


We need stringent plans put in place now with regards to Great Britains policy of letting foreign sttlers in and those plans needs changing radically first.

If citizens of this country felt that foreign settlers to Great Britain had proven their worth through thorough conditions before they even touched land here, then I think there would be more of an understanding and compassion all round.
The asylum seekers are a different matter, obviously they need a safe place but our policy for that should be safe housing in camps and immediate return when it's safe to do so. If we have our full quota in the camps then other countries need to step forward, perhaps all the ones that have waved them through on their way to paradise!!!!!

JAWS
14-Jan-06, 18:28
Our Government was merely following provisions laid out in the Kyoto Protocol. All signatories to the Protocol are required to do the same.

We were drawing the World's attention to the follies of the Protocol.... and the Government played their part, quite successfully, it seems, if the news reached the far north of Scotland :)
Now that one I really do like. I never imagined I would ever find a Government which had my sense of ridicule. :D
If an instruction is stupid then follow it to it's extremes.
A Government I can actually admire, that realy is a first for me!

Alice in Blunderland
14-Jan-06, 23:18
Although I am not sure how I stand on this issue I can see some logic in it.You send them back with some cash and help them towards housing and education and starting a business hopefully they become successful in turn they employ people who may have thought stuff it I cant get work Im off to find something elsewhere eventualy turning up in Britain.I know its a long shot but every little helps to keep immigrants in their home country.The restricions for entering this country legally are tight whether its for work or holiday and you have to prove yourself before you can even get a visa its the illegal ones there are no controls over once they are in its finding them to get them out.

landmarker
14-Jan-06, 23:25
....Shame Great Britain hasn't taken this road.
I think that if immigration laws were more tight here then there would be far less people against immigration.....

I couldn't agree more. My problems with immigration had been resolved by the late ninties and resigned to a changing nation. Since the turn of the century the floodgates have opened and the ethnic make up of some part sof the country are changing too quickly.

porshiepoo
14-Jan-06, 23:30
Although I am not sure how I stand on this issue I can see some logic in it.You send them back with some cash and help them towards housing and education and starting a business hopefully they become successful in turn they employ people who may have thought stuff it I cant get work Im off to find something elsewhere eventualy turning up in Britain.I know its a long shot but every little helps to keep immigrants in their home country.The restricions for entering this country legally are tight whether its for work or holiday and you have to prove yourself before you can even get a visa its the illegal ones there are no controls over once they are in its finding them to get them out.


But Ūt's the fact that there are so many illegal ones that causes alot of the distrust and animosity toward the 'legal'ones.
Cracking down seriously and hard on the illegal ones can only be of benefit in the long run to the legal ones. Then we'd all find something else to gripe about! lol.;)

Alice in Blunderland
14-Jan-06, 23:45
I couldnt agree more but where to begin finding them.Over the years thousands have just disappeared into society.

porshiepoo
15-Jan-06, 00:00
Ah see theres the problem. I can't see our goverment having the sense to use our hard earned cash to flush em out or at the very minimum using it to put in place better preventative methods.

We're stuck in a country where the blind is leading the dumb I'm afraid, They're all so terriffied of making a wrong move that they don't make any move.

Alice in Blunderland
15-Jan-06, 00:11
In some cases it would only take simple measures to reduce the figure.If someone is in the country legally and applies to stay on and is refused they are given a leaving date.At this point we know who they are and where they are but come that date are there any checks/visits to make sure they are gone ....no.This person is then free to disappear one more to roam around with no trace.It will be a long uphill struggle for whatever government to get this one sorted.

porshiepoo
15-Jan-06, 00:18
Yep but whatever they decide to do it'll be funded by our hard earned money.

I know it could very well be a long hard up hill struggle but if it's started now then it could make a huge difference.
Like you say people are lost in the system very easily and other than us implementing a big brother system I don't know how much can be done about that.
We need to also come dowm extremely hard on the people that are found to be smuggling these people in, what we do at the moment just isnt enough. The penalties for anyone involved in trafficking of this nature should be severe enough to make them think twice.
Then we need to make sure border control are armed and in force, preferably with dogs. Anyone that attempts to get in illegally should then forfeit any future right to enter this country, we have to make people think twice about actions they're intending to take.
Who knows, even then it may be to little to late.

connieb19
15-Jan-06, 01:04
I couldn't agree more. My problems with immigration had been resolved by the late ninties and resigned to a changing nation. Since the turn of the century the floodgates have opened and the ethnic make up of some part sof the country are changing too quickly.i totaly agree

Rheghead
15-Jan-06, 01:09
Since the turn of the century the floodgates have opened and the ethnic make up of some part sof the country are changing too quickly.

What is wrong with that?

landmarker
15-Jan-06, 16:50
What is wrong with that?

From your perspective Rheghead, probably very little.
For now, for me, I see it as a totally negative and worrying
aspect. Were I to live in a remote corner of these islands, in a country with an element of self-government, which seems intent on giving its people much of what they need, I might feel more sanguine about the whole situation.

JAWS
15-Jan-06, 17:09
i totaly agree but i might as well say blah blah blah blah beause i notice that seems to be the attitude taken to every post I make' even though I start the thread!!!!!!!!! Another -20 i ASSUME !!!!!!!!!
Just ignore them connieb. I can't see anything wrong with any of your posts and certainly nothing which is in the least out of order.
People who cannot challenge you openly about your opinions are not worth worrying about.
They obviously are unable to justify their opinions or they would state them openly.
Just carry on posting and ignore them until they get bored. Never let them think they are getting through to you, it only encourages them not to grow up.

porshiepoo
15-Jan-06, 17:10
completely agree with Jaws, connieb 19, keep posting, your views are as justifiable as anyone elses.

connieb19
15-Jan-06, 17:13
completely agree with Jaws, connieb 19, keep posting, your views are as justifiable as anyone elses.Not according to my reputation this morning........I give up!!!!!!!!!! You can never keep everyone happy I suppose..LOL

porshiepoo
15-Jan-06, 17:16
Not according to my reputation this morning........I give up!!!!!!!!!! You can never keep everyone happy I suppose..LOL


Jeepers I gave up checking mine ages ago! lol.
Who cares what people say about you! Half of them are too wimpy to leave their names anyway, hardly a person with an opinion worth worrying about is it! [lol]

connieb19
15-Jan-06, 17:20
Jeepers I gave up checking mine ages ago! lol.
Who cares what people say about you! Half of them are too wimpy to leave their names anyway, hardly a person with an opinion worth worrying about is it! [lol]Your right there..I think Ill stop looking now too. Thanks!!:D

_Ju_
15-Jan-06, 18:03
What about the ones arriving in the backs of trucks and underneath railway carriages. I don't blame them for trying.


Immigrant and ILLEGAL immigrant are two different things. Don't know any legal immigrants that ride in on the back of trucks, risking their lives.




By the way, don't you all think it doesn't help matters when truck drivers report suspecting that illegal immigrants have hitched a ride on their trucks and then they get heftily fined for it anyway?

_Ju_
15-Jan-06, 18:26
How long are we expected to pay up for every immigrant that gets past border control??





We do not pay "for every immigrant that gets past border control". This scheme is directed to illegal immigrants and failed assylum seekers.

porshiepoo
15-Jan-06, 19:04
We do not pay "for every immigrant that gets past border control". This scheme is directed to illegal immigrants and failed assylum seekers.



Apologies for that one Ju. I did actually mean illegal immigrants, I'll try to pay more attention in future!