Is control on immigration racist?

Great post Earwicker!!

For me the issue revolves around those who have paid into the UK tax system for years and are now not receiving prompt hospital treatment or education for their children, whilst others who have not contributed are being fed and housed with money that could be spent on the former. Rascist? Certainly not. But charity begins at home.

David

quote:

those who have paid into the UK tax system for years and are now not receiving prompt hospital treatment or education for their children

...from hospitals that could not be run without immigrant staff.

quote:

Originally posted by Bruce Woodhouse:
'Economic migrant' seems to be shorthand for something nasty. Why?

The average educational attainment of immigrants is higher than the UK average.

Hmm. Perhaps there's a semantic distinction between immigrant and asylum seeker. A good many of them can't speak english, and looking around me, when I see these druts crawling aimlessly around town smoking fags with their mobile phones (who pays for all this??) permanently glued to their ears, one has to question their potential usefulness.

I suppose there's a demand for trained doctors from abroad perhaps, and cheap labour has its uses. The game hardly seems worth the candle to me though.

EW

So for clarity, would you agree that the following are not the same?

Asylum Seeker
Economic migrant
Bogus asylum seeker

It is just they always seem to be lumped together in these arguments (and your previous post). More than just semantics defines each.

Bruce

Just had a blazing argument with a work colleague over this. His view was that Howard is a hypocrit for his views on immigration policy considering his forefathers were themselves illegal immigrants to this country.

I asked the question about what relevance that
should have to his views - for example if his grandfather had been a nazi would that make him a hypocrit for despising nazism?

Not that I'm an apologist for Howard as I find him quite distasteful.

"Perhaps there's a semantic distinction between immigrant and asylum seeker"

There is. Broadly similar to the "semantic" distinction between cats and dogs in fact.

The American who sits across the office from me Monday to Friday is an immigrant. As are the five or six Frenchmen, the two greeks, the Korean. Vinnay is from Bangalore but isn't an immigrant and is just visiting for a few weeks before going back home -- hoever Dhoot (from Surbiton) will be moving with his family to live and work in India so he will be an immigrant.

The chap who has dialysis and other expensive kidney treatments (courtesy of a one time forum poster here) in an NHS London hospital becuase his testicles were repeatedly electrocuted in his country of origin is an asylum seeker (non-bogus).

"when I see these druts crawling aimlessly around town smoking fags with their mobile phones (who pays for all this??)"

Well if they are Russian "asylum seekers" it will be from organised crime. If they are Romanian it will be from selling aboducted children to evil internet paedophile rings. If they are "hook nosed" and "swarthy skinned" it will be from being in a secret cabal that controls the internationl finance system....

And, I might ask, how do you identify "these druts" in the street? Do they wear "Asylum Seeker" signs? Or is it perhaps becuase they have a different skin colour or ethnicity?

And shall we, for the sake of your squalid little argument, ignore the fact that it seems unlikely you've ever actually seen an asylum seeker let alone met one?

From his offshore tax haven, Abh Dhabi immigrant David Sutton said "For me the issue revolves around those who have paid into the UK tax system for years and are now not receiving prompt hospital treatment or education for their children, whilst others who have not contributed are being fed and housed with money that could be spent on the former."

I'm going to put this in caps becuase it gets misrepresented all the time:

NOBODY MISSES OUT ON HOUSING OR HOSPITAL TREATMENTS BECUASE OF ASYLUM SEEKERS

THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ASYLUM SEEKERS ARE MINIMAL

Matthew

Howard is a hypocrite because he is cynically exploiting sensitive issues purely in an attempt to gain votes. He claims to have the greater interests of society in mind but is, in reality, concerned only with his own power base even if that means stoking up tension within the very communities about which he expresses concern.

Great posts Matthew.

quote:

Originally posted by Nime:
Taking away the social security system for immigrants and ensuring that this information is publicised worldwide would virtually stop immigration to the EU overnight.

So would gassing us with Zyklon B.

quote:

I cannot think of any other reason for anybody to want to come to freezing Scandinavia (from deepest desert Africa for example) except for the social security payments being the highest in the world and the conditions for settlement the most lax and openly welcoming. Nice new flats, central heating, finest free health care, etc. While the Danes languished on endless waiting lists.

I wish I could get my own flat or the finest health care here in England. Perhaps I should move to Scandinavia. Where do you live?

quote:

An election poster showed the fomer prime minister in bed with a head-scarved muslim girl. I wonder if the British conservatives would have the nerve to try that with Bliar.

Even the BNP, these days, would not stoop quite that low.

quote:

Now the immigrants kids throw rocks at firemen and policemen when called to their council flat ghettos and drive round at insanely high speed in the cities in souped-up cars.

It's genetic - those impure foreigners just can't help themselves.

quote:

I'm quoting the Danish papers and endless examples on the Danish TV news.

Hey! You guys have the Daily Mail too!

quote:

A good many of them can't speak english, and looking around me, when I see these druts crawling aimlessly around town smoking fags with their mobile phones (who pays for all this??) permanently glued to their ears, one has to question their potential usefulness.

I would politely suggest that you are confused - your description sounds very much like a number of teenagers I know. And, yes, I also question their usefulness, but that's only because I know that they're going to turn into adults spouting rubbish on t'internet forums in the not too distant future.

Mathew,

Lovely figures you have. How accurate are they? They are Asylum seekers with no mention of illegal immigration. I recall a Labour politician recently admitting to not having a clue how many illegal immigrants there are in the country and then there is this lovely bit of propaganda:
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4415279

quote:

Originally posted by matthewr:
Earwicker said "Too many bogus asylum seekers (read, economic migrants) are coming over, shitting the place up, lowering the tone, and costing us a bastard fortune"

That's just not true:

-- The last figures I have is 2nd Quarter 2004 when the total number of Ayslum Seekers was 9,210.

-- The highest ever figure for a single quarter is 25,000 in 2002.

etc.

quote:

Originally posted by starbuck:

quote:

A good many of them can't speak english, and looking around me, when I see these druts crawling aimlessly around town smoking fags with their mobile phones (who pays for all this??) permanently glued to their ears, one has to question their potential usefulness.

I would politely suggest that you are confused - your description sounds very much like a number of teenagers I know. And, yes, I also question their usefulness, but that's only because I know that they're going to turn into adults spouting rubbish on t'internet forums in the not too distant future.

Assuming they're not already part of the 17%+ 11 year old onwards in UK that cannie read nor write. Watching the 'supposed' Paxman grilling of Blair the other day on this particular subject of immigration tallying. His own answer wasn't too un-akin to our Mat's figures and even the dreaded Blunket's earlier comments regarding
supply and demand (ie no limitations on legal entry) seem quite common sense to me, innit.

Fritz Von Obvious innit Tom

Over 1 million under 10's in UK own mobile phones !!!

"Lovely figures you have. How accurate are they?"

They are offical home office figures and are entirely accurate. Unless, that is, someone other than the Home Office is processing asylum seekers.

A bit of googling and you can find all sorts of figures from the home office and various NGOs, newspapers, etc.

"They are Asylum seekers with no mention of illegal immigration"

Correct. But illegal immigrants are not, by defintion, claiming benefits or (generally speaking) using our hospitals. They are working in the black economy and so avoiding paying tax -- a problem to which many people of course have legitimate objections.

"I recall a Labour politician recently admitting to not having a clue how many illegal immigrants there are in the country"

Well nobody really does beyond educated guesses of somewhere between 250,000 and 750,000. So most people just invent a number to suit their argument. In the case of the Daily Mail, The Sun and The Daily Express this number is usually TERRIFYINGLY LARGE.

The same TERRIFYINGLY LARGE numbers are then repeated in articles about asylum seekers thus creating an impression that there is a TERRIFYINGLY LARGE number of asylum seekers living in council houses, getting £500 a week benefits and yapping down their free Nokia 9070 Super Communicator to their NHS funded consultant cardiologist about whether they can switch the bypass to next thursday as they are having a new bathroom fitted on tuesday.

Matthew

Matthew

The Prime Minister is at this very moment in time giving a speech on this subject at the port of Dover (an area heavily affected by 'refugees, etc'), and I must say he's put the point across quite eloquently in that this issue should not be party political, and should not divide and missuse Britain's well tested capacity for tollerance etc; well said Sir, but I still want you out ASAP, innit Mick.

Fritz Von Words ! don't come easy to me

quote:

Originally posted by matthewr:

THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ASYLUM SEEKERS ARE MINIMAL

Matthew

Oh really???????

I'm relieved!

EW

quote:

Originally posted by matthewr:
And shall we, for the sake of your squalid little argument, ignore the fact that it seems unlikely you've ever actually seen an asylum seeker let alone met one?

Look where I live, for God's sake...!

There’s another reason why immigration needs to be (or needs to be seen to be) under control.

The trouble is that when the public believes rightly or wrongly that immigration controls are a shambles then all non white immigrants (legal or illegal) are tarred with the same brush. If, on the other hand, people think all immigrants are carefully vetted and approved (with those failing being returned to their country of origin) then there are likely to be a lot more welcoming/less hostile.

So, tighten up on immigration (which is not easy when the likes of The Daily Black Shirt distorts the figures out of all proportion), send back those here illegally and this will, amongst other things, actually help the genuine and legal non white immigrants who are presently assumed to be illegals by the less well or incorrectly informed members of the UK.

Matt.

Earwicker you dont appear to be reading my posts. We'll try again.

"Oh really???????"

The cost to the taxpayer in 2003/4 was £434m or about 0.1 per cent of total projected public spending.

If you beleive the UK should stop accepting refugees in order to save this (relatively) modest anount of money then a) say so and b) vote BNP.

"Look where I live, for God's sake...!"

You live in Stoke-on-Trent. I quoted the total figure for asylum seekers in the north west (i.e. including Manchester and Liverpool as well as Stoke) at the end of 2002 as just over 10,000.

The facts are unless you live in London -- and specifcally places like Hackney rather than Park Lane -- or next to some kind of asylum seeker hostel or processing center you are statistically unlikely to have seen one.

And you still have said how you can spot them and under what critera you have deemed them to be lowering the tone.

Matthew

Matthew,

You seem to be the one who's having trouble making a distinction between refugees/asylum seekers and illegal immigrants.

I wouldn't want or expect a tightening of immigration policy to have an affect on the number of refugees/asylum seekers we accept - perhaps it might even allow an increase in the numbers if illegal immigration/economic migration were under better control.

Regards
Steve

quote:

Originally posted by matthewr:
The cost to the taxpayer in 2003/4 was £434m or about 0.1 per cent of total projected public spending.

If you beleive the UK should stop accepting refugees in order to save this (relatively) modest anount of money then a) say so and b) vote BNP.

I haven't got time to check your figure, but I can certainly think of better ways of spending that kind of money.

If you bothered to watch to watch "This Week" BBC1 at 11.45 last night, with amoungst others Andrew Neil and Mark Mardell,this very subject was raised and the figures for Asylum seekers, both applying for, failed and disappeared, and also the so called illegal Imigrants, were obtained by Mark Mardell from both official sources and some extream right wing organisations, and to be frank the numbers added up to peanuts.There is more damage done to this economy by the economic migrants such as the likes of Murdock and his ilk than all of the rest of the people wishing to stay here, put together. I'm reminded of a quote from the 70's/80's that stated, "If you scratch a English man ,you will find a racist underneath",and following this thread I'm ashammed to admit that it would still seem to be the case,Dispite all of the work done by people in the past,the anti racist marches and rallys, that millions of people supported during that period seemed to have been a total waste of time. I only hope that those people contributing to this thread that have hidden behind the usual "I'm not a racist but",
never have to use public transport or the NHS,never grow old,eat fresh vegtables grown in this country, nor attend Higher or for that matter any Education at all ,because with out the benifit of people from other countrys doing this work these facilitys would not be available.
oldie.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh,
Rasher, what have you done??

Oldie,

To clarify who you regard as a racist then - would you call my position on this subject "My view is that each application should be evaluated on a basis of their needs as individuals and our needs as a country." a racist one?

Regards
Steve

Quite right Oldie, when I look back to my Multi-Culteral Sixth form days, with my English teacher Mrs Chaudrey being Ceylonese, Our Physics & Rugby Master being Pakistani ( Mr Ohmar Dhir 'Honnest'), a few other folk too, who didn't realöly make the grade, as it was atough establishment, and they tended often to have nervous breakdowns. But to crown it all was our Headmisstress, Guinneth Jones, A German Graduate and stickler for standards and the rules, quite a lady actually, though she couldn't spell Sidcup to save her life, innit.


Fritz Von True Englishmen do nor Exist anyway

Hopefully my last post will soon get through administration and those bloody trigger happy words again ? soon ?