I'm Fuming - Comet sells "Extended Warranty" to disabled 90-some y.o.

cybergibbons

Marleyboy - you know what an argument is? Where you try to convince someone else of something?

You just keep on quoting huge tracts of text from largely irrelevant sources.

Let's see what you originally said:

Not all immigrants are here illegally, but a very large percentage of them are, and continue to try to get in.

You can't prove this can you? Without the two numbers stugib asks for, it isn't possible to state this.

I bet you get really angry when you reply to posts like this, and look up to seek hope and joy from the big poster of Nick Griffin above your bed.

stugib

marleyboy wrote: »

In answer to the first question, as I have already indicated, the Government admit that it cannot give an accurate figure of how many illegal immigrants are in the country,

Of course not, almost by definition, no one can.

marleyboy wrote: »

Or to coin it differently..........Why dont you tell me what it is?

No idea, but I'm not throwing around claims about the numbers. I'm skeptical that 'most' immigrants here are illegal though.

marleyboy wrote: »

This might help in answering your second question..............

Nope, not really.

marleyboy wrote: »

"My opinion" is based on the "facts" probably better explained here........http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/131

Well, I've no time for that lot, but if you must use that as a source....

"2 The total of migrants who have arrived since 1997 is about 3 million[3] (net foreign immigration of 2.67 plus half the latest estimate of 725,000 illegals)" - [URL="http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/144]"]http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/144[/URL]

So lets for the sake of argument say there was zero immigrants here in 1997. I make that 0.725/3.0M = 24.1% between 1997 and 2009.


Edited to add: MigrationWatch's stat above says the 3M includes 'half the latest estimate of 725,000, so it's possibly 12%.

marleyboy

cybergibbons wrote: »

Marleyboy - you know what an argument is? Where you try to convince someone else of something?

You just keep on quoting huge tracts of text from largely irrelevant sources.

Let's see what you originally said:



You can't prove this can you? Without the two numbers stugib asks for, it isn't possible to state this.

I bet you get really angry when you reply to posts like this, and look up to seek hope and joy from the big poster of Nick Griffin above your bed.

Interesting, how this connects to Nick Griffin, You claim these sources irrelevant, even though they are the Governments own facts and figures, that I can only accept is supposed to be enough proof o convince me.

Yet you have not given me any figures that gives me any "reason" to think they are flawed, in any way.

Where Nick Grifin comes into it I have no idea, I can only assume your paranoia that it has anything, even remotely to do with, racially motivated BNP policies, not everyone who mentions "immigration" is a racist, maybe thats a common "narrow minded" misconception you need to work on.

I am less concerned with your demands of "proof" than I am of your ability to "disprove" it

stugib

cybergibbons wrote: »

I bet you get really angry when you reply to posts like this, and look up to seek hope and joy from the big poster of Nick Griffin above your bed.

For the record I've never considered marleyboy of being of BNP ilk or racist.

marleyboy

stugib wrote: »

Of course not, almost by definition, no one can.


No idea, but I'm not throwing around claims about the numbers. I'm skeptical that 'most' immigrants here are illegal though.


Nope, not really.


Well, I've no time for that lot, but if you must use that as a source....

"2 The total of migrants who have arrived since 1997 is about 3 million[3] (net foreign immigration of 2.67 plus half the latest estimate of 725,000 illegals)" - [URL="http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/144]"]http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/144[/URL]

So lets for the sake of argument say there was zero immigrants here in 1997. I make that 0.725/3.0M = 24.1% between 1997 and 2009.


Edited to add: MigrationWatch's stat above says the 3M includes 'half the latest estimate of 725,000, so it's possibly 12%.

Maybe your right, but whatever they truly are, it does not hide the problem that it is still an overcrowding and immigration problem, how ever many there are, there is still no more room at the Inn.

That you have not got time for the governments facts n figures amusingly entitled "that lot" by you, then I really havent got time to show them.

EDIT to say; "appreciate that stugib" we can disagree, but would hope can at least "get on" civilly.

stugib

marleyboy wrote: »

That you have not got time for the governments facts n figures amusingly entitled "that lot" by you, then I really havent got time to discuss it with you.

I wouldn't crow too much about a grasp of facts and figures TBH!

Esqui

stugib wrote: »

For the record I've never considered marleyboy of being of BNP ilk or racist.

Nor me. In fact, I think we're both getting at the same thing, but from different sides.

Also, to go along with a point raised above, there's a high number of people who do have the right to be in the country, and fradulently claim benefits. That is not really relevant.

And like any criminals, illegal immigrants will do all they can not to get caught. It should be the breach of law that defines the debate, not the country of origin.

Equaliser123

Esqui wrote: »

Nor me. In fact, I think we're both getting at the same thing, but from different sides.

Also, to go along with a point raised above, there's a high number of people who do have the right to be in the country, and fradulently claim benefits. That is not really relevant.

And like any criminals, illegal immigrants will do all they can not to get caught. It should be the breach of law that defines the debate, not the country of origin.

Agreed...to an extent.

Some of the comments on here are absolutely right. To talk about immigration is now seen as racist.

I love my little overcrowded country. Frankly, I don't think we can afford to share anything just now.

I would dearly love to be in a situation where immigration was so properly controlled that it was no longer an issue.

Esqui

I don't see talking about immigration as racist. I see "them forrins coming over here taking our jobs stealing our benefits" as having undertones of racism - thankfully no serious poster here has been that bad! - but not completely prejudice-free. Thing is, the people shouting most loudly about immigration are generally racist - and it means the people that want to have a logical, fact-based discussion are often tarred with the same brush. Which is a shame, because there's a lot that needs to be done and tightened up on the immigration front.

marleyboy

stugib wrote: »

I wouldn't crow too much about a grasp of facts and figures TBH!

I presented facts and figures because I was asked to present them,

I can only go off the figures I can find from "independent" sources, it is hard enough finding figures from sites that are not biased one way or the other, I have at the very least, chosen sources I can only accept as "reliable" much as I dont trust any Government reports, they are the nearest you will get to being "independent", and "factual" figures.

I was asked to present them to justify my "belief". I have so far not seen anyone post any other figures from any "reliable" or "unbiased" source that proves to me these facts or figures are wrong.

Of course I dont rely on facts and figures alone to convince me of the population problem, I can see it everyday in the City for myself, enough to be convinced by it.

But tell me why I should not grasp them, if they are all I can rely on? If you are claiming they are wrong, I am more than welcome to see what figures you have to convince me.