Why was IMMMIGRATION ignored in the budget>?

jojo1964

tomterm8 wrote: »

I am not a politician. I don't need you to agree with me. or even to like me.



As many as 10 million eskimos have danced on the moon. I gave you the latest official statistics. I don't really care what the daily mail has written on this.

The Daily mail never wrote it, they simply quoted official figures from the government.

Now if you can back up your quoting of the law with actual figures to show that the law is being upheld, then i am prepared to apologise for doubting you.

lifesuckssometimes

jojo1964 wrote: »

So are you saying that an illegal immigrant should be allowed to stay, simply because he gets somebody pregnant?

Catch 22 Child is born here so has rights So immigration should end problem solved

tomterm8

lifesuckssometimes wrote: »

Don't throw your toys out of your pram, (No offence) Not every thing you read and hear are true

I didn't throw my toys out of the pram. But, the law is clear on this, it's not really a debateable topic. Now, how effective the government is at implementing the law... that is debateable. But we're not going to get very far. The statistics we've had, both from jojo and myself, don't come near to answering that question. We know how many people are deported, but we don't have a clue how many should be deported.

There are a load of people who have been deported to Zimbabwe who maybe shouldn't have been... while there are probably others who have lied about being tortured etc who are here wrongly. Who knows?

In an ideal world, no one should be deported. They would all be honest when they claimed asylumn... of course, that world doesn't exist. As it is, there are no statistics I've ever seen that say how many people who are wrongly accepted as being in danger. Or how many people are deported who eventually are killed or tortured as a result.

That leaves us with what the law says, and a complete absence of real fact to bring the debate to any agreement.

edit: As for jojo... it is impossible to prove a negative. It is quite easy for you to supply cases where the law isn't being upheld. You haven't done so, you have just given me statistics about the number of asylumn seekers deported. You need to provide me with cases where asylumn seekers have not been deported, and are not in any danger.

Fire_Fox

"When the Nazis came for the communists
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me."

jojo1964

tomterm8 wrote: »

I didn't throw my toys out of the pram. But, the law is clear on this, it's not really a debateable topic. Now, how effective the government is at implementing the law... that is debateable. But we're not going to get very far. The statistics we've had, both from jojo and myself, don't come near to answering that question. We know how many people are deported, but we don't have a clue how many should be deported.

There are a load of people who have been deported to Zimbabwe who maybe shouldn't have been... while there are probably others who have lied about being tortured etc who are here wrongly. Who knows?

In an ideal world, no one should be deported. They would all be honest when they claimed asylumn... of course, that world doesn't exist. As it is, there are no statistics I've ever seen that say how many people who are wrongly accepted as being in danger. Or how many people are deported who eventually are killed or tortured as a result.

That leaves us with what the law says, and a complete absence of real fact to bring the debate to any agreement.

What the law says should be done, and what actually happens are 2 different things, the government have offered financial inducements to failed asylum seekers to leave of their own accord, yet the figures i read show only 39 took up the offer, out of a possible 17,000 estimated possibly by the government, if the law is so clear over failed asylum seekers then upon being classed as failed, they should be instantly deported, im sorry if that feels harsh but we are a small country, with an infrastructure which seems unable to cope with the present population numbers, let alone with the estimated population in 10 years time, France on the other hand is approx 4 times the size of Britain, yet has a similar population, surely the EU should be encouraging countries such as France to take more asylum seekers or immigrants, and Britain to take less, or is it because of the more generous benefits offered to immigrants here?

tomterm8

jojo1964 wrote: »

if the law is so clear over failed asylum seekers then upon being classed as failed, they should be instantly deported,

In fact, the "failed asylumn seekers" are still in the process. They have rights of appeals, and until those appeals take place they can't be deported. A legal decision, especially one based on an official making a life and death decision in a comfortable office, often then takes time to go through the courts.

So, basically, it is a case of daily mail agenda. If after the legal process they are found not to be in danger, they are deported. It's not a fast process. Personally, I don't think it should be.

jojo1964

Fire_Fox wrote: »

"When the Nazis came for the communists
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me."

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I am often asked "What is the correct sequence and groups in the quotation?"
Here is my March 2006 answer to one of those queries:[/FONT]

• There are in fact several "correct" versions. Niemöller named different groups when he first coined the saying, probably in 1946, than when it was revived in the 1970s and he was again asked about it.
• The groups he mentioned in several 1946 speeches were (in order, see below):
  1. Communists
  2. Incurably sick
  3. Jews or Jehovah's Witnesses (depending on which speech)
  4. People in countries occupied by Nazi Germany.
• In 1976 Niemöller was asked about the quotation in an interview. The Martin Niemoeller Foundation in Germany takes his 1976 answer to be definitive [see: <http://www.martin-niemoeller-stiftung.de/4/daszitat>]. In his long answer Niemoeller mentioned the following groups, and claimed that he started using the quotation only recently (at a 1974 event) :
  1. Communists
  2. Trade Unions
  3. Social Democrats
  4. Jews (sort of).
• I don't think that that 1976 statement reflects what Niemöller had said in the 1940s--he was 84 years old, and he might have forgotten that he had used it in speeches more than 30 years earlier. The first documented reference to the precise quotation that I know of is in a book first published in 1955, which is based on interviews conducted some time between 1950 and 1954. In this case it is likely that the interviewee added his own groups, namely "schools" and "the press." In any case, researcher/author Milton Mayer quotes a German professor he interviewed who refered to Niemöller having said:
  1. Communists
  2. Socialists
  3. schools
  4. the press
  5. Jews
  6. the Church (see Mayer, below for full citation)
• The next major published version of the quotation can be found in the 1968 Congressional Record (see below). Howard Samuels, an official from a business organization, was testifying before Congress. He explicitly referred to Niemöller as the originator. I am quite sure that Samuels excluded and included certain groups to suit his own business agenda. In my opinion, Niemöller would not have named Catholics or industrialists at all. In 1968 Samuels named the following groups:
  • Jews
  • Catholics
  • Industrialists/Trade Unions
  • Protestant Church.
• Thus the quotation was clearly well known long before 1974, when Niemöller in 1976 claimed to have first said it. Whether you want to take the 1946 not-quite-polished versions, the 1955 published version (to which the secondhand author probably added his own groups), or the 1976 erroneous memory by Niemöller himself as the "correct" version, is up to you.

tomterm8

From http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/niem.htm , I believe.

jojo1964

tomterm8 wrote: »

In fact, the "failed asylumn seekers" are still in the process. They have rights of appeals, and until those appeals take place they can't be deported. A legal decision, especially one based on an official making a life and death decision in a comfortable office, often then takes time to go through the courts.

So, basically, it is a case of daily mail agenda. If after the legal process they are found not to be in danger, they are deported. It's not a fast process. Personally, I don't think it should be.

Perhaps you disagree with the Telegraph from last year aswell.

The number of failed asylum seekers being removed from the country has fallen to a five-year low, new figures have shown.
Despite promises to clear a backlog of up to 285,000 foreign nationals, fewer than 1,000 were deported in September.

Or maybe the Telegraph is simply reporting, once again, official government figures!

These are asylum seekers who have exhausted the appeals process, and are simply not being returned because the government have failed to keep track of their whereabouts.

dylansmum

Asylum seekers make up 0.025% of migratration into the Uk.

The majority of the worlds 8 million refugees are in Africa and Asai - not Europe

There are more applicationals for asylum in 15 other industrialised nations than the Uk.

Asylum seekers (wanting refugee status) do NOT come here by choice - they are fleeing from, rather than to, a country. Seekers from Kenya, for example, do NOT generally have detailed knowledge of the Uk - just as we may not have detailed knowledge of, say, Kenya's health care system.

They can't claim benefits and can't work. We slam families in to detention centres (chilling places).

Should seekers not get right to leave and are not deported then remember: this means if they go underground they can't use the NHS, work, get housing and, if arrested and found to be illegal, are deported.

All these facts can be found via various sources - Refugee Council, World health Org, even the damn far right migration watch can't dispute these figures.

A close friend of mine is a solictor for aslum seekers- it is HARD to get refugee status as it is HARD to prove torture and rape in the context of complex political situations: Kenya springs to mind.

Meanwhile, there are no borders in terms of global capitalism. This means there are no fixed jobs EVER in the global economy this means there are NO fixed 'British jobs.' -