Why was IMMMIGRATION ignored in the budget>?

ultra10

julieq wrote: »

Ultra10, I don't care why you'll be voting BNP, although I suspect it's something to do with a fairly low level of intellect.

What I do object to, and what I object to very strongly, is feeling ashamed to let my children accept an English flag from people in the town centre (as I did on Saturday), because it has become the symbol of a petty, jealous, sneering and disingenuous view of the world that paints what is different and foreign as a threat, which seeks to set one group of people apart based on lies, exaggerations and demagoguery.

I take people as I find them. However you draw the demagraphic map there are people who are nice and people who are not. But I've yet to find a BNP supporter I'd give the time of day to, so as far as I'm concerned if we're rounding people up for expulsion to save "our way of life", I know who I'd want first on the cattle trucks.

No I have to Agree, my "Low level of intellect" was down to , too much time In Notts Uni Student Union , Amongst other things about 10 yrs back ..Seriously tho, can you not do better than that ?? In terms of "Insult" it is pretty weak .. Have a sleep, Lie down on your couch..whatever infact ... Nite :rolleyes:.

JamesN

julieq wrote: »

What I do object to, and what I object to very strongly, is feeling ashamed to let my children accept an English flag from people in the town centre (as I did on Saturday), because it has become the symbol of a petty, jealous, sneering and disingenuous view of the world that paints what is different and foreign as a threat, which seeks to set one group of people apart based on lies, exaggerations and demagoguery.

People dont celebrate being English enough, because they are scared of being called a racist because of this ridiculous over PC government. i love foreign cultures, im really interested in buddhism. I dont see other religions as a threat, but i feel we give them too much. You think we'd ever be able to put churchs or other places of worship up in the east? i highly doubt it. So why does us saying no to the east come across as racist.

harryhound

ultra10 wrote: »

Another Example of PC madness, Two Chrisitians Beat up a Muslim, becasue they "Thought" ...(Wrongly as it turned out) he had "firebombed" there Church !! ..Obviously if this HAD been the Story you would have heard "Racism" thrown about like confetti & a Custodial sentance would have followed along with media Hysteria..
There are DOZENS of examples like this, but you are not likely to hear about them because ...well...you know why ... read the report & make up your own mind..
P.S to all the defenders of this kind of Bias, perhaps if the victim had been you or a close family member, you might just have a differant opinion....But thats the joys of "Enrichment" for you ..

http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/4318769.Mosque__firebomb__revenge_attacker_given_conditional_discharge/

In this case the two hoodlums plead guilty BUT said it did not happen as the prosecution portrayed the event.
This produced a "Newton" hearing, where both sides see a judge sitting alone and the judge took the side of the two hoodlums. We don't know what the defendants' story was BUT the judge believed them; perhaps because the crown prosecution service had not thought of this tactic and had failed to provide evidence of the kicking and tooth breaking. The defendants' case could have been "We shouted at him, so he shoved us, so we shoved him, so he lunged at us and tripped on the curb and smashed his face & teeth" - You & I were not there and we don't know.
Put simply a Newton Hearing is where the defendant pleads guilty to the charge but disputes the factual basis of the prosecution's case against him. Usually it means that the defendant is claiming that he played a more minor role in the offence which would mean a lesser sentence. The process is much similar to a trial other than there is no jury.
http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Newton_hearings

dervish

Topov wrote: »

dervish is fighting a bettle against a lot of people on here trying to put forward a message that a lot of people want to shout down. no wonder he sometimes makes a few mistakes. dervish is a true champion of free speech on here no matter what some people say. we need a few people in goverment rto do the same and maybe our country will get off its knees.

dervish, keep flying th union jack pal. your doing a top job on here and making a lot of people open there eyes to what is hapening in our great country.

sorry I don't follow orders from poorly constructed fictional characters :rolleyes:

SingleSue

jojo1964 wrote: »

Another inferrence that immigrants work harder than UK nationals, i am sick to death of hearing how immigrants work harder than us, it BS, we have worked hard in this country to give us the lifestyle we would like, we have supported the unions, and the unions have supported us, in making sure we get a fair days pay for a fair days work, yet it seems many seem happy for all these hard fought rights to be discarded, simply because immigrant labour is prepared to work for less, without adhering to the (sensible) health and safety laws employed by this country.

Do you know what? I have never had union representation, never belonged to a union or had anything to do with a union......I have also never been exploited, could work the hours I wanted for the pay I desired without anybody else telling me I was breaking any kind of union rule.

Suited me right down to the ground, I don't like restrictions.

Mind you, some of my fellow workers didn't like my work ethic, first one in, last one home, work blooming hard while there and not sit and chat about Eastenders......and they didn't like my better than they got pay rises,bonuses or promotions either.

My family is a right mixed bag, go back a few or more generations and you will find French, German, Irish and also a smattering of Romany Gypsy...alongside part of my distant family fleeing their country as they was being persecuted due to being Jewish.

So where do I belong? I class myself as British as I was born here, my father was born in Scotland and my mother in London but as shown above, families can be made up of many different things over many different generations.

beccam

Apologies because I haven't read the whole thread so this may have been said before.:o

I see a need for 'foreign' workers....our NHS, care homes etc etc would not be able to continue without nurses, doctors and care workers from other countries.
This is not just the case in healthcare but other sectors too.

BUT

I would like to see a stricter policy on immigration/entering the UK. I think Australia has a fairly good policy in that anyone entering must be able to prove they have finance to support themselves, plans for employment or even travelling and it is basically down to them to provide and fend for themselves. Only certain people with certain skills will be given work visas for permanent residency which means the jobs that are there will be filled without a surplus of unskilled workers.

My OH worked in production and manufacturing and was made redundant last year, he worked with alot of foreign workers from various countries but they now are out of work due to the sharp decline in these areas and as positions for unskilled workers are in such short supply there does become a feeling of 'taking our jobs'.

MiserlyMartin

dylansmum wrote: »

You may not like this, but an open debate should mean just that. Not a one sided, send the devils home/shut the borders. It means looking at the issue from a number of pespectives. The issue is not two-sided - its is multi-dimensional.

And it isn't two sided apart from the undeniable facts which result in only one conclusion. Nobody is saying shut the borders for good and send all foreigners home. Controlled immigration is good and has a place. But uncontrolled immigration is crazy. Its so uncontrolled now that the government have absolutely no idea how many people are here let alone being able to manage the budgets for local services, infrastructure to house and school their children. Some may say that as we have taken in so many more people than we can manage that we ought to shut the borders completely for a while to bring the average level down and get some kind of control before managed imigration can start.

MiserlyMartin

Cleaver wrote: »

Apologies as I've missed something as I'm no expert, but which 'generous benefits' are you referring to?

You are certainly no expert and must live in your own little bubble.

From the daily telegraph Calais mayor blames Britain for immigration problems
The mayor of Calais, Natacha Bouchart, has blamed Britain's asylum and benefits system for "imposing" thousands of illegal migrants on her town. In an angry attack in which she also called for millions in compensation, Natacha Bouchart said the UK was entirely to blame for the hordes of foreigners who use the French port as a staging point to get across the Channel.
Mrs Bouchart pointed out that the Calais Chamber of Trade was having to spend £12 million each year securing the port area – money she suggested the French government should pay back.
But it was Britain's immigration system which was predominantly to blame for thousands of Africans, eastern Europeans and people from central Asia trying to clamber aboard lorries and trains in Calais to get to the UK every day.
"Requesting asylum is easier with them (the British) than in France," said Mrs Bouchart.
"The asylum seeker is given accommodation and receives £31 to £40 a week according to their case, when the annual salary of the average Eritrean is around $200 (£136).
"That seems enormous and it's attractive, even if in some places it's nothing."
Calling for a "change in attitude", Mrs Bouchart said the current build up of UK-bound foreigners was untenable.
She said the fact that Britain had not signed up to the Schengen agreement – which allows people in Europe to travel from one country to another without a passport – made life very easy for the UK.
(so the government could do something about this if they had any balls)
Although Britain has signed the Dublin Convention, which streamlined the application process for political asylum, France still had a duty to try and keep illegal migrants out of the UK."

In Britain, asylum seekers can receive payments as soon as a claim is lodged. In France, an asylum seeker usually is given nothing for six months. Is that generous enough for you?

Cleaver wrote: »

We have a Polish cleaner at our work. She's uber-reliable, pleasant, good at her job and overall a great employee. Why on earth would my organisation want to replace her with one of your 'bone idle benefit scroungers'? Quick answer is that we wouldn't.

As for the lazy bone idle UK scroungers, if we had a decent government that didn't encourage people to be lazy, instead showing people the reward of hard work you would see no difference between your Polish cleaner and them. One way is to remove the benefit system after so many weeks and make them take a job, whatever it is. Otherwise no more money!

jojo1964

SingleSue wrote: »

Do you know what? I have never had union representation, never belonged to a union or had anything to do with a union......I have also never been exploited, could work the hours I wanted for the pay I desired without anybody else telling me I was breaking any kind of union rule.

Suited me right down to the ground, I don't like restrictions.

Mind you, some of my fellow workers didn't like my work ethic, first one in, last one home, work blooming hard while there and not sit and chat about Eastenders......and they didn't like my better than they got pay rises,bonuses or promotions either.

My family is a right mixed bag, go back a few or more generations and you will find French, German, Irish and also a smattering of Romany Gypsy...alongside part of my distant family fleeing their country as they was being persecuted due to being Jewish.

So where do I belong? I class myself as British as I was born here, my father was born in Scotland and my mother in London but as shown above, families can be made up of many different things over many different generations.

Laws i was thinking about were along the lines of.

Correct equiptment for workers involved in stripping asbestos from buildings.

Correct equiptment for workers involved in working at heights, etc etc.

Ten of course are the rights to paid holidays, getting adequate breaks from work etc etc.

Im sure that there are other posters who can expand hugely on the few items i have mentioned.

The unions in the past have done sterling work for the workers (they have also made massive mistakes) but on balance, the workers in this country are infinitely better off because of union involvement, even those who do not belong to a union have benefitted.

Perhaps you would prefer a scenario whereby all these improvements are discarded because we are employing a workforce who have not had these safeguards in their own country, and as such, are able to undercut the local labour force because they are prepared to work longer hours, without holidays, and without adhering to health and safety rules.

ninky_2

JamesN wrote: »

People dont celebrate being English enough, because they are scared of being called a racist because of this ridiculous over PC government. i love foreign cultures, im really interested in buddhism. I dont see other religions as a threat, but i feel we give them too much. You think we'd ever be able to put churchs or other places of worship up in the east? i highly doubt it. So why does us saying no to the east come across as racist.

there are already plenty of churches in the 'east'. along with arabic speaking christians etc. hardly surprising since christianity actually originated from the east. jesus christ was after all born there. in judea (now palestine). arabic christians refer to god as 'allah' (as jesus may well have done too as it is likely he spoke aramaic).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Christians