Is control on immigration racist?

"I haven't got time to check your figure"

Nor time to explain how your aysulm radar works that allows you to see hordes of them lowering the tone despite this being statistically a near impossibility.

"but I can certainly think of better ways of spending that kind of money"

So essentially you believe that the UK should not accept refugees from abroad in order to save a tiny fraction of the UK government spending.

The only party I am aware of offering this policy is the BNP.

Matthew

quote:

Originally posted by Steve G:

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
If you want to stop people coming in because they are not British, then you are racist.

The services in this country could not cope with an unlimited and uncontrolled influx of people, it's as simple as that. It's not racist, it's just common sense.

If you really think that all of the rest of the world should be allowed to move here if and when they want then I can only assume that senility is finally setting in.

Exactly; who the hell'll pay for all this? I mean, any government seems to turn on those who are defenceless first when it comes to cutting benefits (e.g. the disabled), so they obviously don't have enough money in the kitty to pay for those of us already here.

I'm one of the 25% of disabled people working at the mo, and have to work almost twice as hard as a "normal" person to keep up. I resent the idea that me working my arse off means any number of people can come in and get free this and that. EDIT - and that includes the bloody chav brigade; incentives to work (such as starving if you don't) would be a better bet than allowing freeloaders to sit on their arse and grow fat when some of us who are phsyically less able to work still feel inclined to put something back into the community via our income tax.

The earlier definition of "asylum/refugee" is a good one; those really in NEED of our help - that's fine; those who want to freeload and cause trouble not fine.

Those who've failed in their quest to stay here should be sent home.

Simple really - this country is fairly overcrowded compared to somewhere like the US, and no-one seems to bitch about THEIR imigration policies. I'm with them - if you want to live here, you should make an effort to fit in. I don't see other countries fitting out every city with, for example, a Catholic church, yet our councils get done for being un-PC if we don't have mosques everywhere.

Live and let live yes, but don't take the piss! I mean, I can't see what's wrong with wanting to maintain some of our customs and beliefs without being branded as racist.

THIS WILL make me sound like a racist (and I don't care - in THIS case); the one thing I dislike about imigrants is this - why are so many of them employed in basic English-speaking jobs when they can't speak it - e.g., on the other end of the phone at Pizza Hut (last weekend) - if you can't even take the word "Football" (as in Egham FC) as part of an address, how the hell can you be expected to do the job? It's not fair on the imigrant OR the customer. I know a LOT of the English seem to be very reticent to learn other languages, but surely to god, if you intend to live in another country, it's only fair to make an effort to learn. English songs and TV programmes are transmitted worldwide - foreign people have a lot easier time learning English than we do with foreign languages, since we don't have French/Mandarin/Swahili/ummagumma transmitted to us regularly on our TV or radio stations. That's ONE area I'm *happy* to be branded a rscist in.

ANd yeah, I *do* try to speak a little of a foreign language when I go abroad, which is why I've only ever gone to the US and France, as our school only did French. I'd love to learn Spanish, but after a day at work I'm too mentally tired from straining my eyes to do the same work as a fully-able person. Maybe I should give in and freeload too hey?

quote:

Originally posted by matthewr:
"I haven't got time to check your figure"

Nor time to explain how your aysulm radar works that allows you to see hordes of them lowering the tone despite this being statistically a near impossibility.

No it isn't as they tend to congregate - not entirely their fault, but the government lumps them together in centres plonked in the middle of small towns. Not a great idea given the linguistic and cultural incompatibilities with the indiginous/host community.

As the for the cost being a tiny fraction of government spending, if the figures you quote are correct it isn't THAT bloody small - if getting on for half-a-billion quid a year is blown willy-nilly we'll quickly get in the shit.

As for tiny fractions, I think you'll find very few asylum applicants are "genuine"; it'd better be serious. Otherwise you might as well grant asylum to half of bloody Africa, the middle and far east, and a good many other places.

And if you can't spot them I think you're telling me porkies

EW

quote:

Originally posted by domfjbrown:


Live and let live yes, but don't take the piss!

Quite!

I must admit, when I first saw this thread, I thought it would inevitably provide a platform for the worst kind of little bigot whose ill informed opinions reflected their own ignorance and prejudice rather than having the remotest acquaintance with the facts.
The figures involved have been well stated by MatthewR. The resources needed to flee your country of origin, often at great personal danger and cost, are available largely to educated , professional, middle-class persons. To leave the country of your birth, everything that is familiar and face an ardous and hazardous journey is not one that can be undertaken lightly. Do we really accept that such persons really decide to put themselves through such an ordeal to end up living in a miserable tower block in Liverpool or Glasgow, subsisting on £30 odd quid per week and being harrased by petty-minded bigots and organised nazis.
They've got mobile phones and wristwatches. So f*****g what, does that make them idle layabouts?
Asylum seekers are prevented from working, even though their skills are often badly needed. Do people really believe that a significant amount of taxation is allocated to such refugees compared to the billions spent on an illegal, murderous war in Iraq?
Well, obviously some people do swallow the filth put about by the tabloids and the politicians.
To anyone with a slightly more open mind, go to the Imperial war museum in London. There you will find British newspapers from the 1930's describing Jewish refugees from the Holocaust being described as 'bogus asylum seekers', 'economic migrants' etc..
I don't recall ever seeing an asylum seeker closing down a hospital, or relocating jobs to impoverished S. E. Asian countries.
Who's going to pay for all this? well, we could start by asking the crooks who ripped of the Rover workers for some of their millions.
Failing that, there's always Gordon Brown's war chest, which at present is spent on killing Iraqis rather than beginning charity at home.
As for 'overcrowding' some of the most densely populated countries in the world ( Netherlands, Japan) are also some of the wealthiest. There is no corelation between population density and allocation of public monies.

Domfjbrown

...and yet most of the people who emigrate to the UK DO work, indeed that is usually why they want to come here; for the chance to work. many of them work b@@@dy hard too, often in jobs that nobody else wants. Like flipping your burger. This rubbish about droves of 'freeloaders' is a myth.

quote:

our councils get done for being un-PC if we don't have mosques everywhere.

The mosque comment is just ridiculous, and offensive. We have a large 2nd/3rd generation British population who are Muslims. Should they have a place to worship? Last time I looked it was the local muslim community that bought the property, converted it and established the mosque here, not public funds.

Bruce

quote:

Originally posted by domfjbrown:
Simple really - this country is fairly overcrowded

That's a generalisation based mainly on the situation in the south. Large parts of the country (e.g. Scotland) are not overcrowded and in fact would benefit from more immigration.

quote:

Originally posted by Malky:
Asylum seekers are prevented from working, even though their skills are often badly needed. Do people really believe that a significant amount of taxation is allocated to such refugees compared to the billions spent on an illegal, murderous war in Iraq?

TOO TRUE - you can't argue with THAT. Did we get a choice with Iraq? Nope. Whoever voted "Labour" can be held acountable for that. OH - hang on - that's not fair; talk blatant abuse of power.

Bruce - you're probably right, but the man on the street's perception still seems to hold. Mind you, with the decline of Catholicism etc in Britain, I guess it'll all balance out. I'll retract that comment then.

I still stand by my other comments though - when you see homeless people, born and bred here, starving, yet anyone else can come in (or of course, ALREADY be here, breeding huge families of bastards (father unknown, of course!) while lording it up in their free council house with the B&H and Trisha) and wax the lot, it's grossly unfair.

I don't resent working for my living as it both gives me purpose and gives me more money than being on the dole, but I'd like to have more of a say in where the money we stump up goes. Remember back in the day when dentists and prescriptions were free? I'd much rather pay more tax and get all that back, provided we don't blow it all on Eurocrats and illegal wars.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve G:
Large parts of the country (e.g. Scotland) are not overcrowded and in fact would benefit from more immigration.

Possibly, but of the right sort. That aside, populating an area towards some theoretical maximum capacity isn't necessarily what you want, and certainly isn't justification for lax immigration policy.

I don't think the Scots really want to be inundated with unskilled Afghans who can't speak English, for e.g.

EW

Steve,
If you believe that every application should be evaluated only on it's merits, without the inclusion of colour, creed or the addendum of "Our needs as a country" then no I don't think that,that would be racist, but once you start filtering and adding requirments then that becomes imo racist,Although, and I'm not suggesting for one moment that present company is,I abhor the BNP and NF but at least one could, [not that I do though] "respect" their supporters for being at least truthful about their beliefs however misguided they may be, but those people that fall into the "I'm not a racist but" catergory , well I can have no respect for at all.
We didn't need the [I think the figure was 20,000 but I could easly be wrong] White Farmers that Mugabe forced out of Zimbabwe or the White people from South Africa when they had their troubles or the "wealthy only" [£125,000 investment required before being allowed in dispite being holders of British Passports by Thatcher] people from Hongkong, but they were made welcome here.So why do we pick on the non white poor and then claim it's not racist.
This Country,and our lives have been very fortunate to have been made much more richer, financially and culturally by the inclusion of people and their cultures from other countrys that have become residents here, for what ever reason,and long may it continue.
Just a thought:- If this Country and it's Politicians stopped exporting arms, and propping up some of the more obnoxious regimens when it suited our goverments politically,and then distroying them when it no longer does, there would not be the numbers of people that have been displaced and now require sanctuary, whats that old proverb "ye shall reap as ye sow" or something like that
oldie.

-- The cost to the UK is insignificant compared to, say, benefits abuse, tax avoidance, etc. e.g. the budget for supporting asylum seekers during 2002-2003 was £434 million or about 0.1 per cent of total projected public spending. In 2001, government subsidies to the UK arms export industry cost UK taxpayers up to £990 million.


Well said Matthew R, this works out at about £6 per head of population annually or 12p a week. Who's gonna miss that?

The biggest problem is a) nobody believes what the government says and b) the newspapers (well, some of them) are stirring up the issue with sensationalistic headlines - no wonder immigration is an issue because no one knows the truth.

Comments such as "the right sort" (of immigration) at least have the benefit of letting you know what you're dealing with.
As a Scot, give me unskilled Afghanis over lumpen British racists every time.

"the government lumps them together in centres plonked in the middle of small towns. Not a great idea given the linguistic and cultural incompatibilities with the indiginous/host community"

I agree and think asylum seekers should be dispersed through the country and live in normal housing while their claims are being procesed. The reason they are in camps is becuase lots of people made a fuss about them absconding -- you can't have it both ways.

"As the for the cost being a tiny fraction of government spending, if the figures you quote are correct it isn't THAT bloody small"

Is about 0.1 percent of spending. A "tiny fraction" seems a reasonable description of 1/10th of 1 percent to me.

"As for tiny fractions, I think you'll find very few asylum applicants are "genuine";"

It varies depending on the origin and the regime from which the majority arrive. Go back a few years and most refugees were coming from Iraq and Somalia and the quarterly figure was typically between 30 and 40%.

Current figures are much lower -- typically below 10% -- largely because the government policy of cracking down is "working". The rules were changed to mean that applicants had to qualify via 'humanitarian protection' and 'discretionary leave to remain' rather than the somewhat more discretionary 'exceptional leave to remain'. Initial decision making is also much stricter although all this has really done is lead to a huge increase in the number of appeals that are successful on appeal and the principal aim appears to be to get the numbers down.

None of this sort of thing has much effect on 'bogus' seekers who still some in the same numbers even since the 24 country 'white list' was introduced. Their numbers remain unchanged since their plan is to essentially string the process along and then abscond.

Hence, overall number and percantage fo successfull applications are both going down.

"And if you can't spot them I think you're telling me porkies"

I urge you once again to explain explicitly how you can spot asylum seekers and so determine they "lower the tone". If you don't do this or withdraw your statements most people reading your posts will think you making your observations on the basis of ethnicity nad draw the obvious conclusions about your views.

Matthew

MichaelC said "no wonder immigration is an issue because no one knows the truth"

Actually lots of people know the truth, it gets regularly reported and is widely disemminated. The problem is that most people just ignore it and go back to "my sister just had twins and the council forced her to live in a bus shelter while giving a nice flat to a somalian" style urban myths.

This is not to say that immigration is not a serious and difficult issue for the UK. However, the problem appears to me not to be one of policy as much as implementation. It's entirely fair to say this government has been staggeringly inept in this regard.

Matthew

quote:

Originally posted by oldie:
or the addendum of "Our needs as a country"

Again to be clear - so therefore because I said that IMO applications should be evaluated on the basis of either the applicants needs as individuals and our needs as a country that, in your eyes, brands me a racist?

For someone to come and settle in this country then either they should "need" us, or we should "need" them. If they meet either of those criteria then I don't give a flying fuck what colour they are, what religion they follow or what country they're from.

When I've moved to work in other (non-EEC) countries then I've been allowed to do so because those countries have needed by skills. I didn't assume they were racist towards me because of that.

quote:

Originally posted by Malky:
As a Scot, give me unskilled Afghanis over lumpen British racists every time.

I presuse you meant "English"!

And I thought we'd all agreed that immigration policy and racism weren't related? (Or at least not the same thing.)

EW

Steve,
I just don't think that the "if our country" adendum is needed, as It could be ,and has been argued that Scotland dosn't need anymore English migrants moving up there by Scotish friends of mine, that phrase just gives the oppertunity for "others" to use a large stick to beat others with,and allows them to hide their racist beliefs behind a smoke screen. Just to be absolutely clear no I would not brand you as a racist, I just think we have a slight differance on the need for that inclusion
oldie.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by matthewr:
__________________________________________________ most people reading your posts will think you making your observations on the basis of ethnicity nad draw the obvious conclusions about your views
__________________________________________________
I think I already have.

So, to go back a moment, where does all this put Michael Howard?
I thought at one time (as he obviously did) that this might be a vote catcher, but from what I'm reading here, those that feel there is need to reform in the way that immigration is handled here, are extremely anxious to distance themselves from any labeling as a rascist. So where does that leave Michael Howard? At best he will be thought to be an opportunist, at worst a rascist that no-one here wants to stand next to, whatever their thoughts on this issue.
Interesting.
I think this will bite Howard on the bum.

__________________________________________________
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Earwicker:
And I thought we'd all agreed that immigration policy and racism weren't related? (Or at least not the same thing.)
__________________________________________________
We're not talking about abstract principles here. When politicians talk of 'Immigration control' it is code for Black, Asian and East European. They are not talking about restricting entry to white immigrants from Canada, Australia etc.. Therefore, as immigration controls are enforced against certain ethnic groups, they are in fact racist.

___________________________________________________

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:
So, to go back a moment, where does all this put Michael Howard?
__________________________________________________
I think this will bite Howard on the bum.

___________________________________________________
Howard is a nasty little creep who has realised that he has been completely outflanked by New Labour as far as centre-right policies are concerned. He has gambled on playing the race card as this is an obvious an area where he can exploit people's fears and uncertainties. New Labour are still on course to romp the election but, like a genie out of the bottle, Howard will lose control of the sentiments he is stirring up. Of course he try to distance himself from the inevitable results of bolstering the arguments of the racists. The thuggish element will perceive this legitamation of such views as a green light to continue their attacks on immigrants.
Hopefully, post-election, he will be dumped like Hague and Duncan Smith. Unfortunately, New Labour have proved themselves as more than adept at carrying on such zenophobic filth.

quote:

Originally posted by oldie:
I just don't think that the "if our country" adendum is needed, as It could be ,and has been argued that Scotland dosn't need anymore English migrants moving up there by Scottish friends of mine,

Did your friends give a reason for what appears on the face of it to be clear bigotry?

Unfortunately there are a few people up here like that but fortunately most don't feel that way. Don't confuse the fact that most Scots want England to lose at the footie with any real hatred etc. Yes you'll get some nasty anti-English people up here (comments on this thread and others about ridding England of Scottish politicians might indicate England has a reciprical problem) but the vast majority have no issue with the English in general. As my mother is English I certainly don't.

quote:

that phrase just gives the oppertunity for "others" to use a large stick to beat others with,and allows them to hide their racist beliefs behind a smoke screen. Just to be absolutely clear no I would not brand you as a racist, I just think we have a slight differance on the need for that inclusion.

Fair enough. It is unfortunate that the immigration waters are so muddied that any attempt at sensible debate seems to end up with accusations of racism though.

quote:

Originally posted by Malky:
When politicians talk of 'Immigration control' it is code for Black, Asian and East European. They are not talking about restricting entry to white immigrants from Canada, Australia etc.. Therefore, as immigration controls are enforced against certain ethnic groups, they are in fact racist.

Given that I know of Americans and Australians who've been denied leave to remain in this country I don't think that's true.

I agree that Howard appears to be a nasty piece of work, but then so is B.liar and most other politicians.

Howard may or may-not be a racist but it wasn't his party that changed the law to allow the unlimited detention of foreign nationals on a political whim.