Why was IMMMIGRATION ignored in the budget>?

lifesuckssometimes

endure wrote: »

I have Thai friends who all now, having spent years working and paying taxes in the UK, have British passports and citizenship. Surprisingly, when they are talking amongst themselves, they choose to speak Thai.

Yes but in society i bet they speak good english

endure

lifesuckssometimes wrote: »

Yes but in society i bet they speak good english

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'in society'. If you're talking about everyday life in England it is true that they can speak twice as many languages as the English people they talk to. It's also true that they arrived as people with very few resources and started working as waiters and kitchen porters. They now own and run restaurants, purely by dint of their own hard work and very long hours. They drive Mercedes, they send their children to private schools, Oxford and Cambridge. They haven't done anything that British people couldn't do apart from whine about hard done by they are,.

i8change

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.

Blimey, how many safe countries are there between here and Africa? They must like walking. I thought we signed an agreement that specified "asylum seekers should go to the nearest safe country," not move continents!
Anyhow, where was the asylum for our grandparents when they were called up to the front line? They had to run at machine guns, supposedly, for our security! If their countries are that crap why can't they fight for them like we had to? We deserve a decent safe country after our grandparents efforts. To fill it with Muslims is a betrayal of that effort. Did they not notice the partition of India and the upheaval that caused? If they were rejected in their own country what made the powers that be think everything would be hunky dory if they moved here!

dervish

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."

well said.

Someone MUST be brave enough to speak out aginst immigration and the effects of foreigners coming over here.

Otherwise it appears there will be no-one left to defend us when they eventually come after us.

endure

i8change wrote: »

Blimey, how many safe countries are there between here and Africa? They must like walking. I thought we signed an agreement that specified "asylum seekers should go to the nearest safe country not move continents!
Anyhow, where was the asylum for our grandparents when they were called up to the front line? They had to run at machine guns, supposedly, for our security! If their countries are that crap why can't they fight for them like we had to?

They did. It's a pity you don't bother to read a little history. The largest volunteer army the world has ever seen was raised in the Indian subcontinent during WWII. An army of 1.5 MILLION volunteers (Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims) volunteered to put their lives in harm's way on the side of the country that, for the previous 150 years, had subjected their populations to empirical slavery. When was the last time you volunteered to risk your life for them?

dervish

endure wrote: »

i8change wrote: »

Blimey, how many safe countries are there between here and Africa? They must like walking. I thought we signed an agreement that specified "asylum seekers should go to the nearest safe country not move continents!
Anyhow, where was the asylum for our grandparents when they were called up to the front line? They had to run at machine guns, supposedly, for our security! If their countries are that crap why can't they fight for them like we had to? /QUOTE]

They did. It's a pity you don't bother to read a little history. The largest volunteer army the world has ever seen was raised in the Indian subcontinent during WWII. An army of 1.5 MILLION volunteers (Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims) volunteered to put their lives in harm's way on the side of the country that, for the previous 150 years, had subjected their populations to empirical slavery. When was the last time you volunteered to risk your life for them?

maybe you shoudl change your callsign picture to the flag of the Indian Navy, becuase your snide, anti-British comments shame the use of the Red Ensign. :mad:

i8change

They did. It's a pity you don't bother to read a little history. The largest volunteer army the world has ever seen was raised in the Indian subcontinent during WWII. An army of 1.5 MILLION volunteers (Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims) volunteered to put their lives in harm's way on the side of the country that, for the previous 150 years, had subjected their populations to empirical slavery. When was the last time you volunteered to risk your life for them?

Are you suggesting slaves of the empire chose to fight for their masters?
If you know history you know they fought with little effect and their casualties were light even compared to ours in WW2, never mind ours in WW1. But then there were all those other wars over the centuries as well, for my English ancestors. I won't be fighting for India and I don't expect them to be fighting for me.
I am grateful for Russia and America saving the day but will not suggest they move in here. Better we spread out a bit!

lifesuckssometimes

endure wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'in society'. If you're talking about everyday life in England it is true that they can speak twice as many languages as the English people they talk to. It's also true that they arrived as people with very few resources and started working as waiters and kitchen porters. They now own and run restaurants, purely by dint of their own hard work and very long hours. They drive Mercedes, they send their children to private schools, Oxford and Cambridge. They haven't done anything that British people couldn't do apart from whine about hard done by they are,.

Yet another who does not read complete thread and understand it:rolleyes: No one is whining but yourself . You dont understand what i mean by society:rolleyes:
society is a group of humans or other organisms of a single species that is delineated by the bounds of cultural identity, social solidarity, functional interdependence, or eusociality. Hope this helps

harryhound

We are all European Union citizens, let us not confuse the figures by mixing up the self regulating comings and goings across European borders, with one way migration from the third world.. I am not advocating immigration controls at Gretna Green.

Many illegal immigrants cannot go back to their countries of origin. They have destroyed their documentation.Their "home" country does not want them back either because their stay in the West has "corrupted" their beliefs or because their home country is already living on aid from the West anyway and does not want yet another jobless statistic.
Some migrants do not want to integrate, they form ghettos and then start demanding that our laws should be changed to their ways of thinking. I have no problem with liberalising our laws to accommodate their ideas BUT when it is suggested that a new system of law should be introduced for these little sub communities then the answer is no.
Religion is self evidently a major problem. In the UK religion should be a private hobby, like golf, financed by its practitioners. The difficulty is that "believers" know they are right; some believers are prepared to die for their beliefs or worse kill other people in order to get back to the structure of society their priests proscribe. This gives me a problem with schooling, as some educational establishments with a Christian heritage do a good job and children raised with no system of ethics, risk leading unfulfilled lives. Anyone got suggestions for getting the valuable benefits of heritage but avoiding the conservative tendency encouraging anti science "witch burning" attitudes?
Education: In the West, we have invested hundreds of thousand pounds per job in equipment and infrastructure. Every child costs its parents and our wider society hundreds of thousands of pounds to raise.
It is self evident that each illiterate, innumerate, non English speaking migrant requires an investment or hundred of thousands of pounds, if they are to become fully productive and integrated members of our society. As this process is best achieved from the age of 8 months to 18 years, is it really ever possible for then to catch up and achieve what could have been their full potential?
If the migrants come to Britain from the third world as a literate, numerate English speakers, do we have the moral right to rob their home country of a citizens that might be able to improve the economy of the society that raised them.
(A limited period as a guest worker coupled with a training scheme would be in the interests of both societies)

Enough of the standards for integrating third world migrants.

You cannot get away from the fact that we are still a privileged society, with an infrastructure built over 150 years. On the down side we have a dense unsustainable population. It is our privilege to conserve our way of life and choose the future direction of our society.
I cannot see how taking in surplus people, unemployable and unwanted in their home countries, would not overload our country. Do we really want to set our land on the road to Calcutta?
See full size image
1200 x 801 - 762k - jpg - www.stevemccurry.com/.../photos/INDIA-10206.jpg
Image may be subject to copyright.
Below is the image at: www.stevemccurry.com/.../photo-INDIA-10206/

aliballi

My guess is immigration was not mentioned in the budget because is not a budget issue.