Generic Abilify 5mg Generic Alesse Birth Control Pills Buy Nizoral In Stores Clomid Pills Men Multiple Viagra Pill Usage

Migration is not a crime, but the discussion is criminal


11:37 am - September 9th 2009

by Guest    


      Share on Tumblr

contribution by Left Outside

Carl Packman recently wrote of the left’s problem on immigration. However, it is not the just the left which has difficulty discussing immigration. The right does too, because they just can’t help themselves distorting the truth or outright lying.

As I began to discuss here, talk about immigration in this country is tainted by decades, indeed centuries, of prejudiced stereotypes that are difficult to escape. Unfortunately some papers extend so little effort to escape this regrettable history that numerous blogs have been created to monitor them.

A lack of originality, a surplus of bile
What I want to create is a crib sheet for any article you see on immigration, migrants, refugees or asylum by looking at the history of that discussion. Our modern debate on migration has not developed out of a vacuum.

In fact, we are forced to watch tedious reruns of discussions concerning Huguenots in the 1680s, Irish migrants in the early 19th Century and Eastern Europeans in the late, Jews in the 1930s and West Indians and South Asians in the 1960 and 70s.

As Paul Gilroy describes in There Ain’t no Black in the Union Jack “the wearisome task of dissecting the rhetoric is not helped by its lack of originality: ‘they’ are taking our jobs and houses, using up local resources and undermining ‘our’ culture and, in return, offering ‘us’ disease and terrorism.” However, dissect it we will, again and again, until they fucking learn.

Migration is not a crimeAny immigration story you read in the above papers will be shaped by the groundless assumptions under which the anti-immigrant polemicist operates. These do not pop out of thin air, they are drawn from the past. Pick an article; I will guarantee that it will contain a combination of the below:

The Disloyal Immigrant
This is perhaps the oldest argument of them all. It certainly dates back to the 17th Century. In Catholic France the Huguenots stood out as Protestants and in 1685 the Edict of Nantes was revoked and open season was declared on France’s heretics. They left France for more welcoming shores and arrived in England. [1]

They have since been co-opted as the “good immigrants;” those that integrated, brought valuable skills and blended seamlessly with the indigenous Anglo-Saxon-Norman-Norse-Roman-Celtic population. Those opposed to immigration often make disparaging comparisons with the Huguenots. [2]

In fact the Huguenots were subject to much the same treatment that welcomes modern day refugees, sometimes even worse. They could be subject to double the normal parish dues and national taxes. Petitions were organised against them and their daily lives a constant struggle. The Huguenot’s being refugees inhabited the poorest parts of town, and were soon charged with causing poverty. Even seeking it out in order to undercut the indigenous workforce. These most loyal of migrants were in fact treated like criminals.

This was repeated with each subsequent migration. The most interesting comparison can probably be drawn between Muslims and Catholics. In the early 19th Century the Great Reform Act was in the offing and there was much talk of how far suffrage should be extended. One key sticking point was whether Catholics should have the vote or not. The problem was that a Catholic’s ultimate loyalty was to the pope, not parliament; sound familiar?

The Ummah has been cited as a reason to distrust Muslim immigrants, Muslims in general in fact. This makes about as much sense as denying Catholics the vote, but it won’t stop some people parroting this argument. This is because the migrant must prove their loyalty, they are not innocent, they are guilty until proven otherwise. Even if no one knows guilty of exactly what.

Soft Touch Britain™
In the late 1990s William Hague accused New Labour of being “too soft” on immigration. This period saw a marked increase in the number of asylum applications received in the UK and was snatched upon by the press that Britain was being targeting for its benefits system and wide open borders. As early as 2001 the BBC were running myth debunking stories. In fact throughout Europe record numbers of Asylum Seekers were being received. The collapse of Yugoslavia will do that

Even as benefits have been slashed, this discussion has not ended. Even as Labour enacted five Acts on migration and asylum this discussion has not moved on. At the worst of the “asylum crisis” the numbers reaching Britain were comparable to Germany, France or Italy. Rather than being a “soft touch” Britain was finally receiving its fair share of refugees.

There are few things which make me feel patriotic, as a Socialist I’m sure that doesn’t surprise you. But one thing that makes me intensely proud of this country is that up until 1905 we had no immigration controls. None. Nada. Zip. The irony for the casual anti-immigrant-armchair-colonialist is that the height of Soft Touch Britain™ coincided with the height of Empire.

Diseased and sex obsessed migrants
Concentrating on health concerns, the language is unequivocal, “asylum seekers raising HIV risks.” The Times also contributed to the press personification of contemporary immigrants as carriers of disease with it’s that demands for HIV checks for all immigrants, to prevent “draining the resources of the NHS.”

Previously it has been Tuberculosis that has been the immigrants disease of “choice.” The update does nothing to hide the worrying trend to target migrants as a carrier of disease and instigator of national decay. Now from above you can tell the asylum seekers are going to give you AIDS. HIV is a scary illness, but a particularly had one too contract if your not going to share syringes or have sex with those infected.

This is of course irrelevant because the one that has been associated with migrants is sex: a very unBritish thing indeed. By threatening the local population with HIV The Mail and The Times very effectively demonise asylum seekers as either promiscuous or drug users or both.

The links to sexualised black and asian immigrants or the Opium dens of past Chinese immigrants are plain to see; and about as well founded. There is a lot of could, may, might in those articles, and very little proof that migrants are infecting the “indigenous” population.

Criminal immigrants
It seems, shortly after loyalty, firmness, cleanliness and sexual inadequacy, the one thing we British pride ourselves on is our law abiding nature. Migrants, if we judge by the hysterical historical record, are anything but law abiding. The same that was true of anti-Jewish agitation in the 1900s is true today; the lies remain the same too.

Likewise, in the 1970s it became “common sense” that criminality was a distinct way of expressing “Black Culture,” whether it was a Rastafarian smoking marijuana or a black youth mugging someone. Although these crimes were certainly committed by members of this “immigrant group,” this was not in any proportion to the dominance that this issue had in the 1970 and 1980s.

The obsession with crime and the durability of its images are a focus for discussions on national decline. More than that, they are a way of articulating a crisis of national confidence totally separate from the crimes and criminals themselves. After all, the tumult of the 1970s and 1980s had little to do with race.

Lump of Labour/Housing/Hospitals/Women Fallacy
Yes the Jews/Irish/Blacks/Asians/Chinese/Asylum Seekers are taking your Job/House/Woman/Healthcare [delete as applicable]. This theme is no doubt familiar to you.

The economics of migration are fairly clear. Even Migration Watch UK and the infamous James Slack admit that migrants benefit the UK’s economy. It is instructive that the worst claim they can create, using the most miserly figures, is of a modest benefit. The NHS would collapse without migrant labour and it would never have started without the tremendous work of West Indian nurses in the 1950s.

Similarly, the Lump of Labour Fallacy is often displayed when people argue that immigrants are “stealing” jobs. The jobs and wealth created by immigrants, from Huguenot Weavers to Jewish Cabinet makers to Bangladeshi caterers, is ignored.

Although the immigrant “stealing” theme is a fairly large one I will only pass over it briefly, it is so common as to be particularly irritating. I would like to conclude this short section with a personal gripe; by asking those arguing that immigration in the last decade has made housing less affordable: How would reducing the numbers of builders, plasters, plumbers and electricians in this country make it easier to build a house?

Swamped
Perhaps behind all of this is the idea of being “swamped.” Whether on an individual level, like the little old lady in Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech, or on a national level, like the paranoia that created this article, swamping is pervasive to discussions of immigration.

Of course over the last couple of thousand years these islands have absorbed millions of migrants, and a sense of continuity has remained. In the 1680s in a matter of years fully 1% of the population became Huguenot, it sounds like a small number, but far smaller increases cause massive ripples today. These Huguenots have become British.

The same swamping was seen by Powell in the 1960s

Sometimes people point to the increasing proportion of immigrant offspring born in this country as if the fact contained within itself the ultimate solution. The truth is the opposite. The West Indian or Asian does not, by being born in England, become an Englishman. In law he becomes a United Kingdom citizen by birth; in fact he is a West Indian or an Asian still.

…and by Major Evans Gordon of Jews in East London in the 19th Century…

East of Aldgate one walks into a foreign town. [The modern englishman lived] under the constant danger of being driven from his home, pushed out into the streets not by the natural increase of our own population but by the off-scum of Europe

It wasn’t true in the 17th century, nor in the 18th, nor in the 19th, nor in the 20th. The 21st century is certainly no different. But this “swamping” theme will be repeated ad nauseam, unless we challenge it.

Immigrant Bingo – language and imagery
Now we have tackled those basic assumptions we can move onto the language and imagery which is used. These can be used to spot which of the above ignorant preconceptions are the inspiration for the article you are reading. They are like a tell that a poker play just can’t hide. And they also make for an excellent bingo game. Cards at the ready:

Tabloid Bingo

I’m not going to argue that because some of the arguments descend from xenophobic drivel that they are essentially racist; I’m sure sometimes it is just coincidence. What offends me is the acceptance that this is the best way to discuss immigration. That the above assumptions form the basis for any discussion on immigration in our press or parliament would be a colossal national disgrace if things were not worse elsewhere.

This post is meant to provide people with a tick list to check and a way to say, “actually that was bollocks then and it’s bollocks now.”


[1] As an aside, there is a mosque on Brick Lane that used to be a Huguenot church. Later it became a Methodist chapel and later still a Synagogue, before finally becoming the Mosque you find there now. With each new migration migrants find their niché.

[2] In the same way, modern asylum seekers are castigated as being less deserving than the Jews fleeing Nazism, despite this being manifestly untrue.

————
This was first posted at Left Outside

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Economy ,Equality ,Race relations ,Westminster

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


It’s all a question of numbers. I brought my family to Germany in 1978. Our two children entered different classes of the local primary school and learned German in weeks because they had to. They were instantly accepted and integrated into the community even though we were atheists in an overwhelmingly catholic community. It would have been quite different if children from 20 English families had descended on the school so that there was no incentive to learn the language and integrate.

I learned Welsh in four months, and I also went to a Germany school in which the teachers pulled us aside and took us in German I had that down in six weeks.

But in this country to learn English you have to just join in, and thats hard when you do not understand what is being said.

@1 Frank: “It would have been quite different if children from 20 English families had descended on the school so that there was no incentive to learn the language and integrate”.

You mean like the hundreds of thousands of Mail-reading (“Printed in Spain”) Brits in Spain?

What about the ‘Right’ which believes that curbs on immigration are a recent phenomenon, and an affront to human dignity, but are only made necessary by a welfare state, another affront to human dignity.

I would love to scrap the welfare state and allow free immigration, but as the former is impossible, I have to accept curbs on immigration? Are we evil racists too?

Jackart, I blogged about this a few months back…

http://splithorizons.blogspot.com/2009/08/immigrants-and-granting-citizenship.html

SPOILER: “With some simple creativity about how we manage citizenship, we can address the economic concerns that hang over immigration, exposing those who seek restrictions based on their selfish or racist interests. “

4. I don’t think left outside is seriously disagreeing with you. The lump of labour fallacy is almost straight out of a Frederic Bastiat playbook. So apart from the slightly snide implication about anti-PC (i.e. pro-free speech) types, this post is perhaps the most classical liberal yet seen on this site.

Or, Jackart, perhaps expanding the welfare state to impoverished nations which would, according to your theory, allow free immigration. I think the poverty of the third world is the real affront to human dignity.

Where is this country with no border controls and no welfare system?

As I began to discuss here, talk about immigration in this country is tainted by decades, indeed centuries, of prejudiced stereotypes that are difficult to escape

Is this really such a big issue though? By and large, Britain isn’t a country of ethnic ‘purists’, since we’re basically the last stop for waves of north/westward migration across Eurasia – the Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Danes and Normans, for example. Later, other groups such as Huguenots and other religious dissenters found Britain an easier place to get into than other European states. The general population might not have welcomed having a new Huguenot neighbour or ten, but they were allowed to arrive in large (for the times) numbers and in due course everything settled down, if you’ll excuse the pun. My point is that there’s not much we can do to force people to like each other, but we can allow people to arrive, settle and integrate, safe in the knowledge that the long-run consequences will work out just fine.

The key point for me is what the law allows. Even in relatively recent history, there were no official immigration restrictions until the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 (I’m contradicting the original post here, but it’s possible that I’m wrong and restrictions came in earlier; either way, there’s little difference between 1905 and 1914), when foreigners began having to register themselves. Prior to that point, there was no requirement to register or to produce papers of any kind to prove one’s right of residence. London obviously had many immigrant communities by then, but was by no means alone in that regard; Liverpool had Britain’s oldest mosque and Europe’s oldest Chinatown, for example.

The historical evidence stacks up in such a way that it suggests that Britain has always been a relatively liberal country with regards to immigration, at least compared to any other similar country at the time in question. The concern with monitoring and limiting immigration is a very modern one, with, as I’ve said, the requirement for immigrants to even bother telling the authorities about their arrival less than a century old. Of course there have always been reactionary backwards-looking types who have disapproved of this process, but it’s only relatively recently that their views have become the mainstream view of the political establishment, however much they might try to talk up the benefits of immigration from time to time.

Part of the issue is the fact that prior to the early 20th century there also wasn’t much of a welfare state. I know this isn’t an argument anyone wants to hear, but it’s unfortunately difficult to argue against: if we pay benefits to newly-arrived immigrants, we’re not just asking people to tolerate new arrivals, we’re potentially asking them to pay for them too. Immigration ceases to be a question of ‘let people come here if they want to’ and becomes something that we need to have a policy about. We can start attaching figures to how much immigrants might cost, how much of an expense they are to public services and so forth. Prior to the 20th century, these considerations didn’t really exist. I think that this is what constitutes the difference between now and earlier scenarios.

Please do not misunderstand what I’m saying here. I am not saying that we should abolish the welfare state or that we should stop immigration (though, for the record, I’m in favour of something like a basic income as a replacement for the present welfare state). What I am saying is that we need to understand the reasons for which government is now a lot more concerned with limiting and controlling immigration, in ways in which it previously was not. Once government starts taking a view on something, you will get campaigns to change that policy in one direction or another and these are often quite emotional.

I still think that anger about immigration is best dealt with by tackling the situation of those who feel threatened by it. There will always be a hard core of people who simply don’t like immigration because they don’t like change of any kind. They’re not really racists so much as ‘stasists‘, people who want to keep everything exactly as it is. There’s not much that we can do about these, but they’re fortunately normally easy to out-vote.

Then there are those whose motivation is fear – they’re worried about their jobs, their kids’ jobs, their place in the world, the respect they get from others and so forth. Immigrants can threaten those things, and so they fear immigrants. The solution is not to blame the innocent immigrants, but to tackle the fearful situation that these individuals are in. Beyond those two groups there are the genuine racists who I suspect are fairly small in number but are adept at playing on the fears of the former two groups. Add them all up, and you’ve got the BNP’s voting base.

Personally, I’m an optimist about immigration. I’m happy to allow people to arrive and I’m confident that in the long run we’ll all get along. To the extent that we have problems that we want government to solve, these problems are not caused by immigration. Other issues, of poverty and powerlessness and fear, would not be reduced by reducing immigration. To tackle these, we’ll need very different approaches that neither Labour nor the Tories have managed to come up with thus far.

GARY. That’s a good idea. Let’s give all our money to the third world. That will sort it all out. Their shitty socialist governments following planned economies keep the third world poor. Our evil governments preventing free trade (EU CPA, US farm subsidies) keep the third world poor. Giving them money will not help. Giving them free markets (proper free markets) will.

Neil. Anywhere pre WW1. Most of Africa now (there might be border posts, but you can drive around them).

“Neil. Anywhere pre WW1. Most of Africa now”

All the free, wealthy places then…

Well, it was how the US became rich in the first place. Immigration and relatively free markets.

Nick @1.17pm – should I even dignify that with a sarcastic answer? I honestly can’t tell whether you’re taking the piss or not.

I am being perfectly serious.

#4 – or you keep the welfare state, allow free immigration, but deny access to the welfare state for immigrants.

Simples.

Nick:

Well, it was how the US became rich in the first place. Immigration and relatively free markets.

…and the mass import of cheap labour, or slavery, as it is more commonly known.

That aside, the OP does hit on an important point re. the attitudes to successive waves of immigration, which (in my view) is what made the attitudes to Polish people in the UK so complex. Given that they were white, Catholic and European, would they be welcomed (unlike Asians and Afro-Caribbeans) or disliked and discriminated against (like the Catholic Irish) or even ‘racialised’ (Albanians?)? If you’ve seen Gangs of New York it’d be hard not to spot the irony of one group of migrants castigating the new arrivals off the boat: that ‘nativist’ streak is stubborn and never learns from history.

PS: Liked the bingo card.

Not really, Redpesto – the US’s big economic take-off took place after the abolition of slavery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_States#The_Gilded_Age:_1865.E2.80.931900

If slavery permitted rapid economic growth, Africa and the Middle East would have had superpower states long before America even declared independence.

Nick, thanks for the link: I presume any economist would argue that the free movement of (cheapish) labour is more efficient than forcing them to work as slaves (see also agrarian v industrial economies?), but I’d be reluctant to downplay the role of slavery in the history of the US.

Yes, immigrants and minority religions (such as Catholicism or Islam) have been given negative stereotypes of centuries.

However, the fact that a stereotype exists does not indicate that it is wrong. On the contrary, stereotypes often have an element of truth in them.

Does the writer of this article believe that all the stereotypes they’ve listed are statistically untrue? Because I would contend with the factual accuracy of any such assertion.

I believe exactly that point was made by Marx (although he may have been cribbing from Ricardo).

I certainly wouldn’t want to downplay the role of slavery in American history either. I am just saying it wasn’t a decisive factor in America’s spectacular economic growth, especially after its abolition. Instead, immigration and free markets in a state without a welfare state led to growth.

Philip Hunt

On the contrary, stereotypes often have an element of truth in them.

Yep, some black people really do have tails…

Sheesh.

22. Josko Jesus Christ

Immigration is a interesting topic, the issue in most parts is much to do with where we originate from in essence. As the reason the left and right can not agree is due to their unattainable reconciliation of how we came to be on Earth. Immigration is linked to our place in the Universe…

Lets just stop and think what we are doing for a moment

We will remove the rose tinted specs and think about whom we are allowing into our society.

In the early 1960s I was in Kingston Jamaica, It was two days after Jamaica got its independence. As an Englishman all made me very welcome.
I returned to Jamaica some 18 months later and it was a very dangerous place. The so-called democratic elections of a prime minister called if I remember correctly Mr Manley resulted in no less than 400 murders.

In Kenya (thought to be the most stable country in Africa) local elections resulted in gangs hacking each other to pieces with machetes and burning women and children alive as they took shelter in church halls very recently

Someone asked me on this forum if I still beat my wife well if I was an Afghan I would have a legal right not only to beat and starve her but also to rape her at will
And I could also have my daughters or sisters murdered if the were deemed to dishonour me.

Zimbabwe is beyond description and society there is non-existent

Even in South Africa people were having petrol soaked tyre’s put round their necks and set alight.

I first went to the beautiful island of Fiji in the 1960 and there were a few emigrants their from the Indian subcontinent. By the late 1990s they had taken over causing a civil uprising.

When did the last non-Muslim suicide bomber launch an attack in Britain?

I could go on and on but the stupid do-gooders have this fantasy that the people they let in here are all very nice and civilised. Has it ever occurred to them that some may be trying to escape retribution for their despicable deeds they committed in their own land and far from being innocent victims they just happened to be on the losing side.

Ethnic communities represent about 10% of the British population so I suggest that you watch crime-watch on TV where you will find that at least 60% of the wanted come from such communities.

All of the above is TRUE and these are the societies we are allowing into our mists.

24. Donut Hinge Party

I’d just barricade yourself in your Bedsit, Roy, with a broom handle and kitchen knife as a bayonet poking over your sofa. Close the curtains, too; the sun comes from 88 million miles away – that’s pretty damn foreign.

Hopefully someone will find your fetid corpse before too much decomposition sets in.

25. Josko Jesus Christ

Roy,

If you thought about it for a nanosecond, you might just have some sense about your experience, unfortunatley you focus on the differences issue, Jesus said love thy neighbor, as such without any debate on any additional scripture I will not go into with you, those words alone should be thought of first, when you stop prisoning your mind within borders and consider that we have many other planets in the universe and that we could be neighbors to none a striking reality of thought involving love could uplift you and the future of our civilizatiion…

Josko

When did the last non-Muslim suicide bomber launch an attack in Britain?

Not a suicide bomber, but the Army defused a 600lb bomb on the Irish border yesterday.

“GARY. That’s a good idea. Let’s give all our money to the third world. That will sort it all out. Their shitty socialist governments following planned economies keep the third world poor. Our evil governments preventing free trade (EU CPA, US farm subsidies) keep the third world poor. Giving them money will not help. Giving them free markets (proper free markets) will. ”

You wouldn’t know socialism if it smacked you between the eyes. Hopefully, someday it will.

I think its funny how the people preventing you from implementing your version of capitalism are the capitalists themselves! The capitalists and the government go hand in hand, particularly with the governments of the “shitty socialist governments following their planned economies”. Perhaps the real world is actually a little bit more complicated than your ultra-rational, removed-from-reality economics. Which I suppose sums up Libertarianism – big following on the Internet amongst smart-arses and bloggers, noone supports or has heard of it in the real world.

Nothing “ultra-rational” about libertarianism, Gary, just a pragmatic scepticism of government power, and support for a handful of institutions that can mitigate the worst of what states tend to deal out.

29. Josko Jesus Christ

Thanks Rob,

I say bring Jesus back, he should sort the whole fucking lot of them : )

Josko

I’m still not sure about the possible numbers we’re talking about here. (For refugees).
Do all the people of Darfur qualify as potential asylum seekers? As we’ve seen with the story about the woman prosecuted for wearing trousers, Sudan is a pretty screwed up society. Maybe all Sudanese could be eligible?
I’m sure the Janjaweed would like it if all the people who they’ve been attcaking were taken away and sent to Europe and North America.

The village culture in northen Nigeria also has some horrible practices, and to escape them could be grounds for re-settlement. Under aged girls being forced to marry much older men, and giving birth when their bodies are too immature, often causing a tearing that leads to permenant disablement. (It’s called fistula).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=L0_oK7Ic1wg

I agree that the discussion about immigration is criminal. The tabloids and the Daily Mail are a disgrace.
But are they more in tune with the popular mood than Carl and Left Outside?
If majorities want to live a certain way, either in Sudan or in ”Middle England”, should not liberals give them some heed?

Are we expecting our general public (in the west) to be so much ”bigger”, humane and magnanimous about the change that large scale resettlement of the world’s poorest and marginalised peoples (can and does have in particular localities) than we would expect of non-western peoples? I sometimes feel like that is the case.

So while we accept without batting an eyelid the fact that people in other places can be tribal (from South Africa to Iraq) … the idea that the last the few cockney white type families in a council block near Brick Lane are also a bit lumpen and ”tribal” (and hang the St George’s Cross from their balcony) fills us with horror and loathing?

I’m not sure if the Huguenot analogy completely stands up here, as it was so long ago.
Though for the Brick Lane area, the Jewish one does quite well.
Could the people re-settled from Darfur become as upwardly mobile as Britain’s Jewish population did though? It might take some time.
I see some immigrant people (like at the food processing factory next to Heathrow airport I visited yesterday) as being almost trapped in a poverty almost as bad as the the dark satanic mills of the industrial revolution.
It’s grim in those places. The only thing that would stop one from sinking into dispair there is family and community.

You may wish to waffle about under age girls being forced to mary old men but we do not only import the under age girls but also the old men. We now have young girls of Asian origin being forced into aranged marriges or cicumcised or or being murdered in so called honour killings in todays Britain. That is the unpalletable fact of the results of imigration, You canot deny it and pontificating on about jesus is downright pathetic. My comments are not racist they are FACTS, facts that all you do-gooders try to gloss over or resort to the old slur of “Racist”

We are importing some of these disgusting cultural beliefs into our society and you cannot deny any of my comments because they are true. You are all afraid that Mr Griffin may point these unpalletable facts out and so chose to silence him

Freedom of speach is the bedrock of democracy and its a pity that all you so called liberals do not understand what true democracy means.

Roy, you might like to learn to spell simple words like “speech” and “unpalatable”, and learn to use an apostrophe correctly, before you put yourself forward as some kind of stalwart defender of the English Volk.

Retard.

“Freedom of speach is the bedrock of democracy”

Indeed it is. Now, what is it you have been prevented from saying?

Nonono, people have called him racist. So we are oppressing his right to free speech.

I don’t want what you have said to be classed as hate speech roy; or for any parties you may or may not be a member of to be banned; nor do I want the BNP dragged through the courts over their overtly racist membership policy. I’m a liberal chap, and I believe you can say what you want. But, please don’t expect a response.

Most of your lies and misrepresentations have been challenged on Carl’s post. And most of what you say is racist. Remember the way you blamed the darkies for all the troubles India and Jamaica have had since independence, and the dewy look in your eyes and the hard on in your pants when you thought about the Empire? As I’ve said before, I’m not going to debate with you.

Anyway

@Jackart et al. I am pushing a fairly classical liberal approach to immigration.

I don’t think immigrants are a drag on the economy, with effective infrastructure investment before hand they’ll pay for themselves. GDP would explode with free movement, and I am a big advocate of how productive refugees tend to be. Free Movement could double world GDP[1]. There would be enough for a welfare state, it’d just be really hard work.

@Rob The first act was 1905, but the first truly effectice act would have been 1914. 1905 was pretty weak because the Liberals eviscerated the Tory policy in Parliament and then won an elections and implemented it poorly.

They’re not really racists so much as ‘stasists‘, people who want to keep everything exactly as it is. There’s not much that we can do about these, but they’re fortunately normally easy to out-vote.

That’s a good way to think about it, thanks for that. I agree with a lot of what your saying, studying migration history does make you pessimistic about what the press and the right (authoritarian right, calm down Libertarians) will do, but also fantastically optimistic about what immigrants can and will do. Like Jews popularising Fish and Chips. (Bloody immigrants, coming here, giving us our national totems…)

@Philip Hunt

Yes, immigrants and minority religions (such as Catholicism or Islam) have been given negative stereotypes of centuries.

However, the fact that a stereotype exists does not indicate that it is wrong. On the contrary, stereotypes often have an element of truth in them.

Interesting… Go on, I wouldn’t want to second guess which stereotypes you think are justifiable. It’s a worthy point, but I’ve looked at a fair amount of evidence and despite the huge differences between various migrant groups the same accusations get levelled at them. But it would be good to discuss specifics.

@Dunc Gahh!!111 evidence contrary to my belief system! I’m melting… meeeltiiiing!!!!11

@damon Sorry this is something that really really annoys me. But there is no such thing as a “potential asylum seeker.” Unless by that you mean all of humanity, everyone is entitled to apply for asylum. What you mean is refugee, or maybe internally displaced person. If we resettled refugees from Darfur or Somalia they wouldn’t be asylum seekers, they would not have to “seek” anything. We rescued them, we know they need help.

I don’t expect particularly large sacrifices from our general public, just sorta leave people alone. Don’t use the violent machinery of the state against the most vulnerable people in the world.

Although I understand people can be scared of change, its not reasonable to use the force of the state to keep strangers in poverty, or in imminent danger of death. I understand people are worried about their jobs, but managed well immigration can create huge wealth in the short, medium and long term (and totally unmanaged migration will still at least produce huge wealth in the medium to long term).

It’s scary only because we haven’t been able to accurately discuss migration because it is tied in knots by the right (again the Mail et al. not Libertarian, Libertarians and I are usually perfectly in alignment in matters like these). If we could have an honest conversation people would realise how much migration has contributed and how much more it still could. Beyond that, people would realise that without making any sacrifices themselves they could be helping millions of others.

That was a long comment….. :-S

[1] HAMILTON, Bob and John WHALLEY (1984) ‘Efficiency and distributional implications of global restrictions on labour mobility’, Journal of Development Economics 14(1): 61-75. and RODRIK, Dani (2002) ‘Feasible Globalisations’, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University: Faculty Research Working Papers Series RWP02-029.

Left Outside
You have not debated anything with me anyway you have just denied the truth.
Honour killings have and do take place in Britain no one can deny it and to do so is to lie to yourself. I am not a racist I am an ex trade union convener who has defended members of the ethnic minority at industrial tribunals on racist issues. Have you ever done anything like that or do you simply spout so called liberal ill informed rubbish.

There is a big difference between racism and realism as you may well one day learn

Everything I have said on here is true, you know its true and I know you know its true so as you cannot deny the truth you decline to engage in debate. how sad is that

Another fantastic bit of work mister, there’s a fat book in you waiting to jump out.

If I could offer a thought, the lump of labour fallacy seems to hold up in an argument, but if I’ve gathered it correctly, the multitude of the jobs, as opposed to the fixed number of jobs, seems to work in the favour of the pioneers of the McJob, that being kind of slang for useless job. Now of course I’m not going to do the usual leftist thing of going on about the McJob in the typical way, but leaving the amount of work there is in the market to the market forces themselves is dangerous, especially in the postindustrial trend. Why? The way in which to “progress” in the McJob era is to replace human labour with machine labour, do you ever see those checkouts in supermarkets that the customer uses his/herself? Thats three legitimate jobs there, and its been discarded for an electronic box on the grounds of productivity – which is obviously a myth.

Now of course there are the Ted Turner’s out there (who I identify as wankers who are bending over backwards to look on the contrary) who will “create jobs”, but left in their hands we have to hope that philanthropy will get the better of them, whereas if it were constitutionally enforceable to promise jobs – you can see where I’m starting to go anyway. In order to curb exploitation and promote good labour conditions, the Lump of Labour fallacy should be tool in our intellectual backbone, not simply a guideline with which to base our entire labour method. Incidentally, of this I’m not accusing you leftoutside, ’tis a mere observation.

One thing I have a problem with in your ideas Left Outside is how your view might go against the popular wiil of many people.
If you took it right down to a local level and spoke of the change that can happen in community in a street or block of flats.
I’ve visited friends in Copenhagen a few times and they live in a block in the inner city. It’s well run and each block has a residents committee.
They have got very particular rules about what’s the right and the wrong things to do, and most people seem to follow the rules.
For example, one time I visited, my friends were moving from one flat in the block into another one there. In the flat they were about to leave they spent the whole weekend cleaning it in a way that is not the culture in England. It had to be spotless. Even inside the oven.
I was roped into the weekend of cleaning as well and it seemed completely bizarre to me,
I have heard they have a similar custom in Switzerland too.

I would immagine that this kind of custom would be hard to maintain if the block became more transient with different people moving in and out more often,

When I worked in a hotel in Germany, the hotel had a couple of appartment buildings that they housed their staff in (mostly us foriegners), The personal department got several complaints from other residents that we didn’t follow the rules properly (like with seperating rubbish and recycling as it wasn’t done in England back then, let alone Bulgaria) … and noise, and drinking on the balconies in the evenings etc.

I remember listening to a bbc radio report on multi-culturalism in The Netherlands one time, and one of the ”grumbles” that white Dutch taxi drivers had about overseas born people becoming taxi drivers too was that the system of not picking up people on the street when near a taxi rank queue (as you were meant to join the queue yourself) soon broke down. The immigrant drivers (so said some Dutch drivers) couldn’t seem to follow this rule that was meant for fairness for all the taxi drivers as a whole and one that had been a custom going back decades.

Maybe it was a made up complaint. Maybe it was exaggerated.
Anyone interested in some issues that have occured in a multi-cultural neighbourhood in Amsterdam should have a listen to this other bbc radio documentary.
And how some muslim and jewish antagonisms were overcome.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/documentary_archive/6563371.stm

I like the sound of this neighbourhood, but I can imagine that some people wouldn’t care for it. Is integration the desired goal? Or is multi-culturalism still the desired end?

By the way on the TV news last night it said that a new law has just been passed to try to prevent the estimated 1000 per year forced arranged marriges that young
Asian girls from Britain are forced into. That is about twenty a week, forced marrige is illegal in Britain. These ethnic minorities wish to live in our country but have NO intention of obeying our laws and we are reduced to make even more laws to try to prevent them abusing young women in today’s Britain

I told you I only tell the truth as does Mr Griffin.

Were you watching a tape of the news from more than two years ago, roy?

40. Donut Hinge Party

“Misogynist, racist, homophobic and xenophobic comments will be deleted.”

Look, Sunny, fun though this is, it’s getting a little tiresome now. I’m all out of cathartic self-congratulation. Can we just condemn the BNP troll to the Winter Wolf and let him have his masturbatory rants on Stormfront, leaving this forum as a place to debate proper solutions and seek the enlightenment of humanity*?

*and take the piss out of Guido, natch.

Donut Hinge Party

Look, Sunny, fun though this is, it’s getting a little tiresome now. I’m all out of cathartic self-congratulation. Can we just condemn the BNP troll to the Winter Wolf and let him have his masturbatory rants on Stormfront, leaving this forum as a place to debate proper solutions and seek the enlightenment of humanity*?

Whilst you totally ignore the truth or try to suppress it, how very liberal !!!

42. Donut Hinge Party

Our advocation of open borders stops at our front door. You’re a mad naked old man smeared in his own excrement jumping and whooping in our fine symposium of intellectual thought and bonhomie.

The right for a man to swing his fist ends where another’s nose begins and roy , you’re starting to scrape nostril

GCSE HISTORY #101
CONTRADICT THE FOLLOWING WHERE NECESSARY. GIVE REASONS FOR YOUR CHOICE.

Those awful Huguenots were dealing drugs and signing on the dole the moment they arrived.

Several blew themselves, and others, to bits on stage coaches and Thames barges because they disapproved of British foreign policy.

They were overrepresented in the prison populationa and among those receiving parish alms.

Huguenots were notorious for forced marriages, cross-cousin marriages and honour killings.

Many became none-too-successful criminals, making frequent court appearances.

Rob immigration is partly about how peopel integrate- Ann Cryer MP for Keighley has raised this issue. There are immigrants on my Father’s and Mother’s side of the family. All left their cultures and native languages at the border: learnt English, the history and geography of the UK and adopted the norms of behaviour; served in the armed forces and never lived on benefit. One relation who fled from the secret police of their native country was always grateful to be British.

The problem is that multi culturalism promoted by many left wing middle class people has reduce the speed and ability of immigrants to assimilate in this country. If we had followed more of the approach of the USA and told immigrants they had to learn the language, history and geography of this country and certain practices were unacceptable – forced marriages, female genital mutilation, divorce unless through British courts, preventing wives from learning Enlglish, polygamy; then ghettos of immigrants would not be so common. It is immigrants not learning English and maintaining customs which are contrary to British ones which has caused so many problems. If there had been compulsory assimilation prgrammes and much of a queueing system when it came to housing there would be far more acceptance of immigration.

There is a saying in French ” One has to be loyal with one’s stomach and one’s heart”. The government should ensure immigrants are loyal with their stomach’s and their heart’s and that they have convinced the Btitish people of this fact. The collapse of textile manufacturing most of Lancashire and Yorkshire has also caused a rise in the BNP.

Often it is the most educted immigrants who find it easiest to assimilate . Most of the European Jews who entered Britain in the 1930s came from highly educated families and they assimilated into this country far quicker than those of the period 1870-1914, who were on average, far less educated. The Huguenots were French Protestants who assimilated very quickly because they were largely well educated silk weavers, bankers and business people who they had the same religion and knew they could not return.

By the way, the Romans, Anglo Saxons, Vikings and Normans were invaders. The first immigrants who were allowed to settle here start with the Huguenots

Mary Tudor burning 280 Protestants in some 5 years ( more than in France , Spain and Italy combined ),The Armada , the Pope calling Elizabeth the First a bastard and encouraging her assassination, probably had much to do with Protestant England be wary of Catholics. The Gunpowder Plot was also undertaken largely by Catholics. In fact, a descendent of one of the Gun Powder Plotters said to me there certain similarities with a small minority of muslims.

People can complain about immigrants treatment in this country but it is invariably better than the treatment they receive in their home countries or any other.

If we had green card allowing people to work here for a fixed term, compulsory assimilation course and good border security greatly reducing illegal entry; then I am sure people would be more welcoming to asylum seekers because they would have more confidence in that they were genuine. Left wing middle class people continually criticising this country and accusing everyone who disagrees with them as rascist or fascist raises the question ” Well is this country is so awful and worse than any where else, why do so many people want to come here and why do immigrants not go to a better place?” The attitude of a minority of Sunni Muslims has angered some Shia Muslims who disagree and have said if they do not Britain then they should leave.

My last post on this debate was censored, in hindsight. it was a daft response. but I.m sure most of the contributors here would have recognized it as hyperbole I can’t understand why the posts from that t..t Roy, remain.

This forum only serves to support the fact that any discussion on imigration must not be allowed, and opposing views should be blotted out.

It denies truth and castgates any who’s opinions do not fall within the realm of the do-gooder. Denying truth does not remove it it is still the truth, I have not posted any lies on this forum I have only posted what is to many on here unpalletable facts.

Quote ” this forum as a place to debate proper solutions and seek the enlightenment of humanity*?

Is it indeed, is that why the so called Intellectuals on here have been reduced to childish insults. I am so pleased that I manage to avoid this “enlightenment of humanity*? and can stick to puting forward an opposing view without throwing a tantrum. I can at least take comfort in the fact that I am grown up well educated, well travelled, a highly skilled engineer and articulate enough to partake in debates without reducing them to chidish name calling. Perhaps our education system has failed some of you even if you do have degrees My only educational failing is my inabilty to always spell words correctly but I am good at debates as I stick to truth and controll my temper.

Roy,

If you are solely telling “the truth” can you explain statements like this: “These ethnic minorities wish to live in our country but have NO intention of obeying our laws”. Any fool can see that’s not true – I know plenty of UK citizens from ethnic minorities, together with one or two who have not yet gained citizenship, all of whom are very law abiding individuals, none of whom want anything to do with things like forced marriages. Now, despite your ability to participate civilly in debates, of which you are so proud, what are the chances of you now acknowledging that what you wrote is rubbish, like a good debater ought?

And, to repeat a point I’ve made on other threads, if you want to look at things in terms of “probability of obeying the laws of the land”, do you think the average BNP supporter is more or less likely to be a criminal than the average liberal so-called intellectual? If you are going to oppose immigration on these grounds, at least be consistent and campaign for the deportation of BNP supporters, most of whom live in our country but have no intention of conforming to British values like fair-mindedness, tolerance and decency.

All these reports of disproportionate numbers of the foreign-born clogging the U.K. prison system are lies!

Lies!

Lies!

This forum only serves to support the fact that any discussion on imigration must not be allowed, and opposing views should be blotted out.

Which is why you’ve been banned and all your comments have been deleted, right?

Roy
What do you mean when you use the word ‘do-gooder’, is this suppose to be some kind of covert criticism?
We have a population of about 56 million people within a culture which values and encourages individualism, how then can multi-culturalism within such an environment be any kind of threat, providing that all people conform to the prevailing laws?
Furthermore, all laws are reactive and not naturally given.

@49 hahahaha, genius.

Look guys my interent is broken at home, where I have a longer reply set out.

But breifly to roy… provide some fucking evidence or shut up. As I’ve said before we want to see what the hell you’re talking about or no one is going to take you seriously.

At stormfront you might be able to get aways with scurilous accusations which are not back up with anything, but not here. Please post links backing up your accusations. Or at least tell us what papers, websites, reports you are getting your information from, otherwise no. We won’t listen to you.

52. Donut Hinge Party

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/stats-prison-population-projections-2009-2015.xls
2009: Total in Prison: 68,488

2001 census (sorry about mixing dates), my MRS tutor would spank me.

White British = 85.67%

A proportionate level of non-white British population would be 9,800

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=7363
“White males made up 84 per cent of the male prison population of British nationals in England and Wales in 2002. Black British nationals accounted for 11 per cent of the sentenced population in prison”

That’s pretty close, and bearing in mind that recent immigrants (who are the current betes noir, rather than old Mr Patel who used to be a conductor and now runs a corner shop) tend to be younger and maler than the general populace (who ARE more pre-disposed to crime) they’re actually doing pretty well.

SEE! THAT’S FACTS!

These are some of my comments,

Do asylum seekers get free dentistry: – YES
Do they get free accommodation: – YES
Do they get free food :- YES
Do they get free medical attention :- Yes
Do they get some financial benefits :- YES
Did they apply for asylum in any other country like France :- NO
Are their actions a breach of international asylum law :- YES

Carl commented
People are only entitled to any kind of support at all (and by support I mean housing that is of such a poor standard that it’s illegal to house British people there, and benefits amounting to only 2/3 of unemployment benefit)

My reply post 169

And is this funded by the taxpayer. The same tax payer who cannot get a free dentist or has been on the local housing list for years
I understand that recently in Birmingham residents were moved out of a large block of flats as they were considered unfit to reside in and too expensive to repair. However once they became empty they were all totally renovated for (you’ve guessed it) asylum seekers. No wonder the do-gooders want to silence Mr Griffin

My post 170

Lets just stop and think what we are doing for a moment
We will remove the rose tinted specs and think about whom we are allowing into our society.
In the early 1960s I was in Kingston Jamaica, It was two days after Jamaica got its independence. As an Englishman all made me very welcome.
I returned to Jamaica some 18 months later and it was a very dangerous place. The so-called democratic elections of a prime minister called if I remember correctly Mr Manley resulted in no less than 400 murders.
In Kenya (thought to be the most stable country in Africa) local elections resulted in gangs hacking each other to pieces with machetes and burning women and children alive as they took shelter in church halls very recently
Someone asked me on this forum if I still beat my wife well if I was an Afghan I would have a legal right not only to beat and starve her but also to rape her at will
And I could also have my daughters or sisters murdered if the were deemed to dishonour me.
Zimbabwe is beyond description and society there is non-existent
Even in South Africa people were having petrol soaked tyre’s put round their necks and set alight.
I first went to the beautiful island of Fiji in the 1960 and there were a few emigrants their from the Indian subcontinent. By the late 1990s they had taken over causing a civil uprising.
When did the last non-Muslim suicide bomber launch an attack in Britain?
I could go on and on but the stupid do-gooders have this fantasy that the people they let in here are all very nice and civilised. Has it ever occurred to them that some may be trying to escape retribution for their despicable deeds they committed in their own land and far from being innocent victims they just happened to be on the losing side.
Ethnic communities represent about 10% of the British population so I suggest that you watch crime-watch on TV where you will find that at least 60% of the wanted come from such communities.
All of the above is TRUE and these are the societies we are allowing into our mists

By the way on the TV news last night it said that a new law has just been passed to try to prevent the estimated 1000 per year forced arranged marriages that young
Asian girls from Britain are forced into. That is about twenty a week, forced marriage is illegal in Britain. These ethnic minorities wish to live in our country but have NO intention of obeying our laws and we are reduced to make even more laws to try to prevent them abusing young women in today’s Britain

Other comments by myself can be read on the posts 23, 31, 35 and 38

ALL of these comments are true, I was in Jamaica and in Fiji at the times stated.
The subsequent events pointed out in post 170 are undisputably true and can be easily verified.

Now I will ask a question.

If you allow imigration from these strife ridden nations how do you know that the imigrants are not the perpetrators of these dispicable acts?, you dont.

One of our most famous international war corespondents John Simpson met an extreemly dangerous man in Afghanistan who had commited terible crime , he was known as the “Human Dog” by way of his vicous acts. This “human Dog” has been identified and filmed living in London on benefits.

Different cultures throughout the world have very different social values and those values do not for the most part change simply by emigrating. We do not simply import people we import cultures too. Furthermore there are members of British society who have paid into the state by way of taxes and NI contributions all of their working lives. And yes they do not get free dentistry or free accomadation or free food.

Now then which of you interlectuals is going to point out a part of my post 170 or my statement at the beginning of this post and tell me it is not TRUE.

55. Donut Hinge Party

Did evacuees in WWII get free dentistry: – YES
Did they get free accommodation: – YES
Did they get free food :- YES
Did they get free medical attention :- Yes
Did they get some financial benefits :- YES (pocket money?)
Did they apply for asylum in any other country like France :- NO
Were their actions a breach of international asylum law :- Ah, got me on that one.

Donut Hinge Party

The NHS did not come into being until 1948, don’t you know anything.

You had to pay at least half a crown (12.5p) to even get to see a doctor which for normal working people was a lot of money

My parents had been contributing with their taxes since leaving school to the nations financies and my father was fighting for Britain at the time.

Pocket money!! what planet do you belong to. Kids didn’t get pocket money they had to get out of shool hours jobs or go without.

Food was on ration and even if you had money which most did not you couldn’t buy food. have you never heard of ration books.

The accomadation was provided by the householders out of the needs of national survival not funded by the income tax of the others

Who was your history teacher he must be some know nothing interlectual with a degree in basket weaving

Now go away and read up on your WW2 history and the later Beverage Report. Unlike you I only post the truth I dont make up silly answers

roy #53;

“Carl commented
People are only entitled to any kind of support at all”

The fact that this makes no sense as a sentence is testament to the fact that I didn’t say that.

“Do asylum seekers get free dentistry: – YES
Do they get free accommodation: – YES
Do they get free food :- YES
Do they get free medical attention :- Yes
Do they get some financial benefits :- YES
Did they apply for asylum in any other country like France :- NO
Are their actions a breach of international asylum law :- YES”

ok lets deal with these;

Dentistry – emergency treatment only, plus a few charities funding some other work.
Free accommodation – some get housed in UKBA hostels, others don’t – it depends on whether they followed certain rules. Some will also get free accommodation in one of her majesty’s detention centres. None are eligable for local authority accommodation or homelessness support.
Free food – no. They have to pay for it with their meagre benefits – unless they are held in detention centres.
Medical attention – emergency treatment yes – chronic conditions no (see the case of the Palestinian who was denied regular dialysis)
Benefits – yes, but far lower than you imagine. About 70% of what the dole is IIRC.
Did they apply elsewhere? – some probably did, some probably didn’t – you’d have to ask them.
Are their actions a breach of international law? – depends what actions you are talking about, and not all asylum seekers do the same thing and act in the same way. This is a concept you clearly have difficulty with.

All the above applies to Asylum seekers whilst their case is being processed by the home office – during which time they aren’t allowed to work. Perhaps Roy would prefer it if they starved and froze to death?

Now Roy, for homework go and use google and find out what happens to the asylum seeker once their case is processed and the home office either decides to let them stay, or refuses asylum.

59. Donut Hinge Party

Not that I give a hairy testicle what the foreign-finder general thinks of me, but I’m well aware of the foundation of the welfare state. I’m also aware that country-dwellers were paid handsomely enough by the government (including their medical bills) for taking in inner city kids under operation Pied Piper, especially after the earlier false alarm, some of whom urinated on their floors, stole their possessions and beat up their own children.

Similarly, the government of your fathers also took in foreign children from warzones (French, mostly).

My more general point was that you as an evacuee was taken in out of charity and compassion – a generation earlier you’d have been left to scratch on the floor begging on the streets.

Most of the asylum regulation, and indeed much of the welfare state, isn’t aimed at protecting healthy men, but the children that are often inevitably dragged along or born into poor circumstances.

Without compassion, you’d be dead a long time ago.

60. Donut Hinge Party

Oh, just for some facts on the ‘billeting allowance’ paid to those who looked after evacuees.

10 shillings per week for the first child. On an average wage comparison that’s about 300 pounds in today’s money.

Ahh roy! I’m back!

@roy this is the internet, so I have problems believing almost anything you say about yourself. But, I’ll take you at face value and if you have defended colleagues then I am impressed. But a little disappointed you would continue to spread such misinformation despite this.

Now I have debated you as have others. Others have provided data and evidence which you have ignored and I see no reason in repeating arguments which you have either read and dismissed or dismissed without reading.

To tackle one particular point, “Honour killings” do happen, and they disgust me. But most, no nearly all, immigrants do not engage in such behaviour, it is unfair to use it as a weapon against immigrants.

1) If those who kill in this way did not migrate to the UK “honour killings” would still occur, just further afield. An honour killing disgusts me as much in Pakistan as it does here, at least here the victim has a chance of escape before hand or posthumous justice if they can’t.

2) You have not proved that honour killings exist to an extent which would make restricting immigration beneficial.

3) You ignore the fact that violence against women and children happens in this country too. Fritzl was an Austrian, you want to ban all Austrians from entering the country?

4) You mention and imply heavily that immigrants commit crimes in numbers out of proportion with the numbers here. Evidence has been provided here that contradicts that assertion, rather than comment on that you just go on about “SPEAKING THE TRUTH,” when you are doing no such thing. As has been proved on previous threads and in previous comments.

Again, I refer to our previous thread. There are unpleasant migrants, just as there are unpleasant people, but there is a huge weight of evidence that migrants do not degrade this country’s culture but enrich it, that they do not scrounge benefits but contribute taxes in excess of what they draw, and that they can easily become law abiding citizens.

The arguments you have displayed time and time again are the same as were deployed against the Irish, the Jews, the Huguenots and the West Indians. Hell, this post could be about you!

We don’t agree, no one agrees with you, and unless you can link to some sound research or evidence which disproves that which was provided for you, I suggest you will not get far here. Reposting your assertions is not evidence, the fact you have done so without also posting others rebuttals says a great deal about how serious you are about debate.

That was a free one, I doubt you’ll provoke me to discuss anything with you again because you seem to be sticking your fingers in your ears as a child and going “lalala can’t hear you!”

@Carl

Yes the McJob… A difficult one that… And I wouldn’t dream of you accusing me of anything, we are bosom pals!

Migrants have tended to drift towards the lower end of the value added chain. That is, they tend to do the jobs which add little value to the end product, which are poorly paid, but which are still nevertheless essential. This is because they arrived with nothing and had to take to whatever was offered (My knowledge is mostly of refugees).

For example, Jewish labourers were accused of working in sweatshops in the 19th century largely because they did, Irish Navies dug canals and laid track and Chinese have been press ganged into cockle picking.

Now some of the working conditions existed, and migrants worked as accused. But others also worked in similar conditions without drawing the same ire, British people.

In certain circumstances it is not migrants producing the McJobs, they are simply satisfying a demand which would otherwise exist, and in certain circumstances the supply of cheap labour has helped create these jobs. It is quite complicated to say the least.

I would argue that enforcing a solid core of strong labour laws and an active, inclusive labour movement would help undermine this tendency. But I don’t think it will ever vanish without a big levelling up of world incomes. For the moment I’m not sure I have an answer for you… It’s something I will come back to in another post I think

Apart from pointing out that migrants make bloody good entrepreneurs and that this would offset the tendency for people with nothing to take low pay McJobs over doing nothing.

(Now I’m quite happy with those bleepy boxes you hate, people scanning boxes is a waste of people’s time. But the benefits of that box is not spread fairly enough for my liking, although this is a totally different discussion)

Donut Hinge Party

Just to help you along with your lack of social history knowledge

Before 1948 there was No National Health Service and No Free Dentists,
No Social Security Benefits, No Invalidity Benefits No Sickness Benefit No subsidised Opticians No Old Age Pension and No Family Allowance
Family allowance was not available for your first-born child until well into the 1970s and even then it was only 50p per week

Unemployed people only when desperate could apply to go “ON THE PANNEL” whereby they had to go before a panel of local bigwigs to apply for relief. Such relief might be given if you were of good character and were destitute. You were subjected to MEANS TESTING where your home would be visited and any saleable non-essential furniture or belongings were sold before any relief was given.

All throughout the war food was rationed, only essential imports were allowed to be imported and as I am sure that you are aware the German U-boats sank literally hundreds of merchant ships in the “Battle of the Atlantic” Britain was on the verge of being starved into submission.

Food remained on ration for years after the war and the last food item to come off ration was sugar in 1953 which meant that for the first time children could buy sweets without sweet coupons from their ration books that is providing they could find a means of earning some cash. No child I knew got pocket money but we all tried to find a little job, helping the milkman butcher grocer delivering papers in fact anything that may get a few coppers even collecting rose hips from the hedgerows which could be sold for an old penny a pound.

THE RATION BOOK

Everyone was issued with a ration book and you had to register this book with your local traders i.e. Grocer. Butcher ect ect These books contained coupons that specified the quantity of lard, eggs, flour, cheese ect that you were allowed to purchase Regardless of whether you had the money to pay for extra you could not buy it without the coupons which the tradesman cut out of your ration book as you received your goods. Hence no coupons = no food.

Perhaps now after reading this you will understand just how ridiculous your last post was and hopefully your future comments will be better informed.

By the way I think you will find tha billiting allowance was for billting servicemen not evacuees.

64. Donut Hinge Party

Well, Hansard disagrees with you. You were only 10 at the time, though, so I can forgive you not having a complete understanding of the world around you then.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1942/jul/07/ceylon-evacuees-billeting-scotland

Mr. Robertson

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he will take to relieve the plight of two fatherless girls, aged 17 and 15 years, respectively, evacuated from Ceylon on the advice of the authorities and now dependent on strangers in Midlothian who have kindly taken them in, as the Department of Health for Scotland is unable to care for them?

Mr. Johnston

A billeting allowance in respect of these girls has now been authorised.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1942/sep/08/billeting-allowance

Sir J. Mellor

My right hon. Friend has put forward the figure of 27s. 6d. per week in justification of the scale of Army pay and allowances; would it hot, therefore, be quite right to compare that figure with the figure paid to persons who are required to billet evacuees?

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-Civil-Social/UK-Civil-Social-12.html

When the evacuation of mothers and children was being planned before the war the Government took pains to inform receiving authorities that they would not be put to any expenditure. This was the first principle; full reimbursement for extra costs arising from the evacuation scheme.10 the second principle, to which no reference was made before the war by the Ministry of Health, laid down that evacuating authorities could not be allowed to benefit; that they should, in some form or another, pay up what they were saving as a result of the removal of mothers and children from their areas.12 Receiving authorities were therefore told to recover ‘normal’ costs from evacuating authorities. So far as possible,accounts were to be settled between the two authorities by ‘day-to-day operations’, receiving authorities recovering expenses attributable to individual evacuees from the evacuating authorities, who might have had to bear the cost if evacuation had not taken place.13 The latter authorities were, in turn, advised to follow their peacetime practice of recovering in appropriate cases from parents and responsible relatives.14 Any costs not recovered by the reception authorities from the evacuation authorities would be a proper charge on the Exchequer.

65. Donut Hinge Party

Like most of your claims, two minutes on Google proves you’re full of shit.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1942/jul/07/ceylon-evacuees-billeting-scotland

Mr. Robertson

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he will take to relieve the plight of two fatherless girls, aged 17 and 15 years, respectively, evacuated from Ceylon on the advice of the authorities and now dependent on strangers in Midlothian who have kindly taken them in, as the Department of Health for Scotland is unable to care for them?

Mr. Johnston

A billeting allowance in respect of these girls has now been authorised.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1942/sep/08/billeting-allowance

Sir J. Mellor

My right hon. Friend has put forward the figure of 27s. 6d. per week in justification of the scale of Army pay and allowances; would it hot, therefore, be quite right to compare that figure with the figure paid to persons who are required to billet evacuees?

Left Outside

I accept your right to dissagree but are you saying that the events I described in Jamaica, Kenya, South Africa and Fiji did not happen? Are you claiming that the laws regading wife starvation or rape has NOT been recently passed in Afghanistan?. Are you saying that the asylum sytem is NOT financed by the British taxpayer?. Are you saying that the provision of the free services benefits and accomadation I refer to are untrue?

Well “THEY ARE TRUE” all of them and your faiure to recognise that fact undermines the validity of your debating stance. Yes I know that these facts when debated in the public theatre cause great embasaement to those who have a different view but pretending that they are not true will not remove them from the public forum

Donut Hinge Party

Comparing evacuees in wartime in Britain is a total red hering, this is my homeland. the land for which generations of my family have paid taxes into. The evacuees of WW2 were not foriegn asylum seekers but chidren being moved to the homes of fellow countrymen. We were not freeloading on foriegn countries but just regrouping to allow the adult population less worry and more freedom to apply themselves to the conflict. the analogies you try to bring forward are an irellivance.

You have admitted that the benefits they get are financed by the British taxpayer, the other issues mentioned above are all true.ie Jamaica,Kenya,Afghanistan,And Fiji it’s ALL TRUE.

Now I can accept that you look upon these issues from a differing point of view but please do not insult you own IQ and that of others by claiming that the above facts are untrue

67. Donut Hinge Party

So? Jamaica and India paid a commonwealth tax at the same time as your father paid tax – doesn’t that entitle their descendants to at least as much as you?

Universal income tax had only existed since the first world war, prior to that it had only been collected by the rich – who admittedly were the only ones who could afford it. So that’s probably a single generation your esteemed ancestors were paying for – unless you were the son of a rich shipping magnate or something, which somehow I doubt. Your ancestors were more likely just semi-skilled factory workers making things for rich people to buy, and contributing by keeping themselves alive just in case the government wanted to have a war. Which pretty much puts you in the same boat as any other country.

Having looked at your hansard quote when the billiting allowance question was raised requering the rate for billiting allowance for evacuees to be raised the final remark by Sir K was NO have another look

Donut Hinge Party

You have still not said wether or not the statements on my post 65 above reference the benefits paid to asylum seekers are financed by the taxpayer or the incidents I refer to in Jamaica, Kenya, Afghanistan and Fiji are true. So I will ask you again for a straigt answer YES or NO

ARE THESE FACTS TRUE???

Atempting to muddy the waters with silly fererences to wartime evacuees is irellivant the fact remains that you have consistently denied the facts above are true

So lets be grown up and answer the question please

@roy no. They are not true.

As has been pointed out before (and is one of the main themes of this post), refugees and immigrants pay for themselves.

Asylum Seekers are not paid for out of tax payers money, they will become taxpayers themselves and pay tax. So the payments made to them are simply deferred.Immigration is a net contributor to the UK exchequer and refugees are double as resourceful and productive. So UK taxpayers are only funding asylum seekers as far as asylum seekers are future UK tax payers.

I’m not sure what you’re saying about Jamaica, Kenya, Afghanistan, Fiji and India.

tWhat I do know is that the 1950s and 60s were the golden age of development. Between 1900 and independence India’s growth rate was approximately 0% a year. Following the end of colonialism it was 3.5%, poor, but better.

The post-colonial world was a difficult place, landmasses that were barely nations suddenly found themselves states. But I would argue that their independence was better than their subjugation.

Roy, other countries have bad people in them, they will continue to have bad people in them just as Britain has produced Myra Hindley and Ian Huntley, it is not an argument against migration. Migrants have made, and continue to make a positive contribution to this country, you are attempted to smear them by association with unsavoury characters. As I said, you have yet to provide any evidence to back up your statements and you seem to think that we somehow have to prove you wrong…

Left Outside

My statements are TRUE.

Under international asylum law you are obliged to seek asylum in the first country you come to when leaving your own. Regardless of wether or not the UK under Labour decides to ignore international law or not it is still the LAW. That means that these people are illegal imigrants. It is estimated that aproximatly 100,000 illegal imigrants are at present in this country which the government are affraid to deport them in case it offends their human rights. My point regading Kenya ect is that though you may wish to bring Myra Hindly as an example of criminals in the UK such has no comparison to the wholsale slaughter by thousands of Kenyans on their fellow countrymen simply because their side lost the election. Similarly we do not get 400 politcaly motivated murders at election time as happened in Jamaica. The Law in Afghanistan has recently been changed to make it legal for husbands to starve or rape their wives if they do not allow sex at least once every 4 days. These are the cultural differences we are allowing into Britain today.

The British tax payer has had to build and staff detention centres for these illegal imigrants so that we can process their applications to stay and the thank us by burning them to the ground. We have at the moment 2.500,000 unemployed, I wonder how many we would have if all the emigrants from Europe went home. The majority of the British do not want them here.

Donut Hinge Party

Your claim that evacuees were financed by oug government would appear to be true but it is an irellivance, that is just the British government looking after it’s people. We are debating the fact that we are now paying for illegal forigners and though they may pay for their own food we give them the money in the first place.
Recently I required emergency dental treatment yet even though I had paid into the system for 50years and I am a pensioner when I finaly found a dentist I had to pay £48 for an extraction. You think that that is fair well I dont and niether to most of the British public

Roy -Taxation is not ‘fair’ in the same sense as handing money over for an item and receiving the same value as the next customer.
I would agree that taxation is massivly unfair to the working-class,(low wager earner) who generally pays a higher proportion of tax than higher income/wage earners, and those who can avoid tax by employing accountants.
And as I have mentioned in another post, the immigrants/asylum seekers of which you refer. mainly belong to the working-class, and will, if accepted, be subject to the same unfair tax system as yourself.

I suppose I must now state my real position on my political allegiances.

Well I am not a member of any political party and have an open mind. But I am always alert to the general consensus of opinion at what can perhaps best be described as the grass roots of society. As a skilled engineer I have had the opportunity to mix with a very wide range of the social spectrum and what I have for some time been aware of are the following divisions.

To begin there is undoubtedly a section of society consisting mainly of the business, academic and political elite who for no other reason than their social position believes that their opinions are the only ones that are valid. Having formed these opinions on social issues they then claim to be mainstream when in reality they simply have greater access to the media. This access allows them to override public opinion in general and to disregard democracy.

A classic example of this is the Lisbon Treaty, which we all know would be thrown out should the promised referendum ever take place. The Labour party simply lied to the electorate but nonetheless the Tories will not hold a referendum but will hide behind the Irish vote. Regardless of the fact that under British law no government can bind the hand of its successor.

This same overriding of public opinion is also used to discredit all opposition to the human rights act and what could loosely be described our immigration and asylum policy.

However the far right have raised the issues of dissatisfaction of a large section of the community whose anger is rising steadily. This in response has led to the established parties organising both the media and the shadowy UAF to denigrate there views and break up their legitimate political meetings and labelling them nazis in order to ostracise them.

However this too has failed to quell the anger and has in fact spawned the formation of a new movement the English Defence League. These cannot be deemed nazi or hooligans as it obeyed the request not to march in Luton last week. However some local Asians decide to attack the police who were there in case the march took place.

No doubt if Mr Griffin does appear on Question time the audience will be filled with a large number from rent-a-mob who will not engage in sensible discussion on the issues he represents but do their utmost to ensure he is not heard.

We have seen the “British Jobs for British Workers” already causing industrial unrest at the TOTAL oil terminal. This spontaneous action was not the act of a load of nazi skinheads but the legitimate protest of disenfranchised workingmen.

On a personal basis I can only say this. Regardless of the media speak the general public are becoming more and more angry at the human rights act and the volume of immigrants we now have. They do no longer believe the government spokespersons that tell us that they are all going home, they know that it’s a lie and they also know that the government statistics are invariably manipulated.

In the past few weeks I have heard the issue of immigration raised at football matches, in pubs, on the shop floor and offices of several companies whom I have recently visited and even in my local Morrison store. The anger comes from the skilled worker, pensioners, unemployed and even members of the “blue rinse brigade”. These are normal members of our society they are not National Front skinheads. This anger will not abate easily and the currant economic climate will only add fuel to the fire.

I have on this forum raised the issues that have been raised in the public forums I have specified.

I have been answered with spurious claims that the services provided for asylum seekers are not paid for by the taxpayer some of which are denied to the ordinary British subject. There has been no sensible response to the questions I have raised regarding the violent societies that some of these immigrants come from. There have even been ridiculous references to the evacuee system in W.W.2; I look upon this as clutching at straws

However what I found most disappointing were the cries of “RACIST” as this in such a debate is to me the last desperate measure of the unsuccessful.

I am gloomy for our future and I hope that my contribution to this forum has given at least some of you food for thought. The issues raised are of the utmost importance and If they are not addressed then I believe as I said at the outset the real possibility of civil unrest is open.

74. Donut Hinge Party

You seek to create division between British Citizens and those seeking to be British citizens based on their race. That’s race-ist.

Until 1947, in fact through the very war that you feel somehow legitimises your claim, India was British. Indians fought in the Second World War every bit as keenly as your father. That’s why in that snippet from Hansard the girl from Ceylon was billetted in Scotland.

Until 1952, Egypt was part of the British Empire, and one of our strongest resources against Rommel

Until 1962, Jamaica was as much a part of the British Empire as Wales, Scotland or Manchester (and believe me, there’s places there I wouldn’t go without jabs)

Your arguments are still spurious, your compassion lacking, and your aim erratic. Do you seek to deride asylum seekers economic migrants or second generation British citizens?

Donut Hinge Party

I fail to see what WW2 or my own national government financing evacuees has to do with this debate, it is a total irrelevance. The debate as I understand it is about our management or non-management of today’s immigration into the UK.

My concerns are that regardless of the growing anger by a large portion of the population reference the recent massive increase in immigration to the UK public discussion about it is suppressed for fear of being deemed a racist a cry you yourself has tried to hide behind

The ordinary man in the street is not fooled by platitudes from the establishment and they know that asylum seekers are invariably bogus under international law and are financed by the taxpayer. Any attempt to gloss over this truth fools no one and does nothing to placate the disenfranchised but serves to anger them even more. My own experience outlined earlier regarding dentistry happens to British subjects every day and you can see on TV queues of people hoping to register with an NHS dentist whose treatment is not free even for OAPs. Fortunately the small cost to me was an irrelevance but to some it would be a significant expense. Do you honestly expect them to be happy about this state of affairs, how can you possibly justify it to someone with toothache who has paid contribution for years

Having travelled extensively throughout the late 1950s and into the1960s I was struck by the fact that as colonial powers withdrew from their respective colonies or were ejected by their indigenous populations so these nations erupted into civil wars. Uganda, India, Mozambique. Rhodesia and Ceylon. Others like Jamaica became increasingly lawless but have now settled down. Such lawlessness and civil conflict still exists in many African nations like Somalia and has I believe returned yet again to Uganda

However we seem willing to accept immigrants from these countries with no way of knowing if they were the persecuted or the persecutors. The do-gooder liberal mindset is that all religions and races can live together in harmony. If such a scenario were true wars would not exist. We have witnessed over the last decade or two civil uprisings in not just the Middle East but in Tibet, China and Ceylon as well as Eastern Europe and the crumbling USSR. Most of these conflicts are orchestrated on religious or tribal grounds

I am afraid I am digressing here though the point raised is a valid one. The fact remains however that immigration is becoming a cause of significant anger and unrest. The majority feel that Britain has become a soft touch by way of its benefit system. If people wish to immigrate to the UK there is nothing to stop them from applying from anywhere in the world, even from France but they choose instead to sneak across the channel and try to claim bogus asylum. They are certainly not going to be persecuted for their politics in France. The only difference between France and Britain for asylum seekers is the welfare state.

This issue is not going to go away and just as an afterthought you may like to consider this. The most vociferous complainer about the immigration into the UK who spoke to my wife and I in Morrison’s was in fact a charming 66 year old from Trinidad an island I have visited on many occasions and yes she was black, she had arrived here in 1964

61. comment by
Left Outside

@roy this is the internet, so I have problems believing almost anything you say about yourself. But, I’ll take you at face value and if you have defended colleagues then I am impressed.

Well what I have said is true, The head of the Bedford Industrial Tribunal Office at the time Was a Mrs C. Tribe, One of the panel members there today is Fred Hanna who represents the Union. I only ever defended members of ethnic minorities as either a representative or witness on their behalf. I also knew several leading members of the Commission for Racial Equality, Mr Donovan Rene being the leading light at the Leicester Office in the Haymarket Shopping Centre. And Mr Nadeem Malik at the Park Road Wellingborough Offices

However I do not need to espouse my credentials as they bare no reference on my comments, but here is something that cannot be overlooked easily. The English Defence League has been formed not in order to denigrate the Muslim community but to condemn the jihad radicals. One would have hoped that the non-radical Muslims would fall over themselves to support such a movement. That however has not been the case, the Muslim community have gone out of their way to start violence and attack the police. This happened in Luton even though the EDL stayed away such stupidity is only adding fuel to the fire.

I am not a racist in any way whatsoever but I am a realist and my comment on here represent the true feeling of a vast and growing number of the British population

Accusing those who speak out against unrestricted immigration and publicly funded asylum of being nazi or racists is simply the cat calling one expects from those who find opposing views difficult to undermine. A harmonious society cannot exclude the interests of the indigenous population in favour of minority interests. The police stood by and allowed Abu Hansa to preach his hatred unopposed outside Finsbury Mosque yet the establishment now ban marches that oppose this type of hatred.

Be careful what you wish for this could become very dangerous


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Left Outside

    RT I’m on @libcon Liberal Conspiracy » Migration is not a crime, but the discussion is criminal http://bit.ly/TwMb6

  2. Paulo Coimbra

    RT @tweetmeme Liberal Conspiracy » Migration is not a crime, but the discussion is criminal http://bit.ly/TwMb6

  3. Left Outside

    RT I’m on @libcon Liberal Conspiracy » Migration is not a crime, but the discussion is criminal http://bit.ly/TwMb6

  4. investigate-anyone

    Liberal Conspiracy » Migration is not a crime, but the discussion … http://bit.ly/TEEml

  5. Paulo Coimbra

    RT @tweetmeme Liberal Conspiracy » Migration is not a crime, but the discussion is criminal http://bit.ly/TwMb6

  6. INTERNAC

    Liberal Conspiracy » Migration is not a crime, but the discussion …: Josko Jesus Christ. .. http://bit.ly/GaTTc http://bit.ly/105Fmv

  7. INTERNAC

    Liberal Conspiracy » Migration is not a crime, but the discussion …: Josko Jesus Christ. Immigration is a inte.. http://bit.ly/GaTTc

  8. investigate-anyone

    Liberal Conspiracy » Migration is not a crime, but the discussion … http://bit.ly/TEEml

  9. INTERNAC

    Liberal Conspiracy » Migration is not a crime, but the discussion …: Josko Jesus Christ. .. http://bit.ly/GaTTc http://bit.ly/105Fmv

  10. INTERNAC

    Liberal Conspiracy » Migration is not a crime, but the discussion …: Josko Jesus Christ. Immigration is a inte.. http://bit.ly/GaTTc

  11. edburness

    RT @tweetmeme Liberal Conspiracy » Migration is not a crime, but the discussion is criminal http://bit.ly/TwMb6

  12. Sing when you’re winning… « Left Outside

    […] Yes that is what happens when a fairly anonymous blogger writes something reasonably interesting and slut it around until it ends up posted on Liberal Conspiracy. […]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.