Published: November 27th 2009 - at 4:00 pmThe Truth about Immigration: Asylum (Part 2)
Between 1991 and 2007, citizens of 41 different countries and areas (i.e. EU Accession States/ Former USSR) have generated enough asylum applications to be listed in official statistics in their own right. These countries/areas account for 682,000 of the 739,000 asylum applications made during that period, the remainder being recorded as ‘other’ and broken down only by region. Top of that list, in terms of the numbers seeking asylum, is Somalia; at the bottom is the African state of Togo with 780 applications.
Of those 739,000 applicants, slightly fewer than 10% (73,750) were granted asylum on a permanent basis on the strength of their initial application with a further 17% (124,720) granted either exceptional of discretionary leave to remain. 529,000 applications were turned down at the first time of asking.
Data on appeals is available only for the period from 1997 onwards, during which period there were 72,450 cases in which an initial decision to refuse was overturned. Just under half of these appear to relate to cases in which applicants were granted either exceptional or discretionary leave to remain only for their status to be upgraded to that of a refugee on appeal although no actual breakdown is given so this figure is my own estimate.
33,000 people withdrew their applications during this period and 132,400 either left the UK voluntarily or were deported. Slightly fewer than 90% of the departures occurred after 1997, with only 13,300 failed asylum seekers having left the UK between 1991 and 1996.
Although the data seems straightforward enough when you see it in the official Home Office report, when you come to try and analyse it, its all a little confused and littered with omissions and discrepancies. The data for appeals shows only the total number of initial decisions overturned in each year without any indication of the type of decision overturned (refusal or exceptional leave to remain) and the actual outcomes, i.e. whether applicant was given full refugee status on appeal or only leave to remain. Much of the problem stems, as with other immigration statistics, from the disconnection of inflows and outflows/outcomes with key ‘events’ (applications, decisions, appeals) recorded against the year in which they occurred, making it almost impossible to ‘audit’ the figures. For example, an asylum application made in 1999, when the backlog in applications awaiting decisions was rising sharply to a peak of 125,000 in 2000, could easily have had to wait up two years for an initial decision and, if the asylum seeker then appealed the decision, anything up another 18 months to two years for the final outcome to be recorded.
Perhaps the best indication of the difficult and confusing state of the data is a note (11), in very small print, in the Home Office’s 2007 report which indicates that settlement data in the main summary table may be ‘under-recorded’ by as many as 25,990 cases over the preceding five year period where the precise outcome (refugee, exceptional leave, etc.) is unknown. Above that note (9) the small print also indicates that the Home Office has no data on the numbers of failed applicants who may have left the UK voluntarily before 2005 without notifying the authorities.
So far as estimating the numbers of applicants from this period who remained in the UK at the end of 2007 goes, the figures suggest that just over 280,000 is the most likely figure, although its one I’d be happy to specify only on the understanding that there may be at least a +/- 10% margin of error in that figure.
Isn’t failed the same as ‘bogus’?
No.
As we saw in part one, the pattern of applications for asylum is closely correlated to the incidence of events such as wars, upswings in civil unrest and periods of severe political repression across the world. Even in the case of Albanian nationals, who in recent times have become, like other Eastern Europeans, a byword for ‘bogus asylum seekers’, the observable pattern at the time they first appeared in the statistics in their won right (1998-2000) strongly suggests that many of that first wave of applicants were Albanian migrants living in Kosovo at the time of the Kosovan war; people who chose to trek across Europe to the UK rather than wind-up in a refugee camp in their native land. From 2001 onwards, the continuing pattern of asylum applications from Albanian nationals begins to look much more like that of the other Eastern Europeans who were attempting to jump the gun on accession to the EU, people who were following in the wake of that first wave but for very different reasons.
Even after appeals, and with the Human Rights Act in force since 1998/9, close to 70% of all asylum applications were turned down entirely during the period from 1991 to 2007. To understand why this is the case we need to return to the concept of political asylum and appreciate that a general fear of the consequences of being returned to your homeland, due to the prevailing situation there, is not enough on its own to meet the legal criteria for asylum, no matter that those fears may be genuinely held. To qualify for asylum, an individual applicant has to provide evidence that shows that they are personally, and specifically, at risk of harm or persecution if they return to their home country, not just that that country is, or has become while they were in the UK, a dangerous place to live. The test is about more than just the general conditions that the individual would be forced to return to.
Even those asylum applicants who do meet that requirement may find it difficult to produce the evidence necessary to support their applications – its not like the Borders Agency can just ring up the Zimbabwean secret police and ask whether a particular applicant has been tortured in the past, let alone expect to get a straight answer along the lines of:
“Ah yes, he is one of ours – we had him in for three months on beatings twice a week plus a couple of water-boarding sessions… when’s he due back? We’ve got a few more questions we’d like to put to him.”
A general, but genuinely held, fear of persecution alone is not enough to make the grade when applying for asylum, even for applicants seeking to avoid being returned to what amounts to a warzone, a failed state or a state where political repression and torture is known to be rife. It may, however, be enough to prevent repatriation, even after an applicant has been ordered to the leave the UK, which brings us on to the question of exactly what impact ECHR and the Human Rights Act has had on the asylum system in recent years and, in particular, on efforts to remove failed applicants from the UK
Confounding factors
What impact has the Human Right Act actually had beyond the small number of well documented cases in which it has been successful, and specifically, invoked to procure a successful outcome or prevent an individual from being removed from the UK?
From the available data it’s actually quite difficult to say.
So far as initial decisions on claims are concerned, the relative proportion of successful and unsuccessful asylum claims did not change markedly after its introduction. Under the Major government, from 1991 to 1996/7, 67% of applicants were turned down at the first time of asking compared to 66% in the first six years of New Labour (and the first five of HRA). Although the relative proportions of those granted full refugee status as opposed to temporary, but extended leave to remain, did change markedly between those two periods – only 15% of successful claims netted full refugee status before 1997 compared to 44% from 1997 to 2002 – its impossible to say for sure that HRA was a key factor in that change, which may have had as much, if not more, to do with the nature of the applicants themselves and the situations they were escaping. The Tories had only one major conflict to cope with in Britain played a direct role (Bosnia), New Labour has three in rapid succession (Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq).
Where we can see an effect is, I think, in the data on appeals, which looks like this:
Although the number of successful appeals, as a proportion of all appeals, has remained pretty constant throughout at about 1 in 5, the number of applicants granted asylum on appeal as a proportion of all successful claims shot up dramatically in 2003. This was the first full year in which the provisions of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act came into effect, an Act constructed from a purely political perspective with the intention of implementing a regulatory approach to asylum predicated on an exclusory strategy founded on deterrence, punishment and removal. This is where New Labour’s crackdown on asylum seekers began with the withdrawal of benefit entitlements, the introduction of the current system of closed tribunals and detention/removal centres and the tightening of the criteria applied to initial decision such that the percentage of rejections rose, in the space of one year, from 63% to 83%.
As the data shows, the main effect of the crackdown was to drive up both the number and proportion of applications allowed on appeal and its highly likely that a combination of HRA plus the judiciary’s marked dislike of arbitrary rules and decision-making processes, which were introduced by the Act specifically to drive down the number of asylum seekers granted leave to remain at the initial decision stage, underpin the pattern evident in this graph.
In addition ECHR and HRA can and do present barriers to the removal of applicants whose claim for asylum has been fully rejected. Perhaps the most notorious of these is the ECHR ruling in Chahal vs UK (1996(, which predates HRA and places an absolute prohibition on the removal of failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants to countries where they would be at risk of being subjected to torture and/or inhuman and degrading treatment. This is the ruling that most directly resulted in the highly controversial introduction of control orders, after the permanent incarceration of individuals identified as alleged terrorist suspects by foreign regimes in Belmarsh prison, without trial, was also ruled unlawful.
This issue, alone, embroils the asylum debate in some fairly nasty elements of realpolitik, not least in regards to some of those individuals who sought asylum in the UK in the aftermath of the Algerian Civil War which was precipitated by a military coup that prevented an Islamist political party, the Islamic Salvation Front, from taking power as the almost certain winners of a democratic election. In that situation, who’s side should the UK take, that of the Islamic Salvation Front, which looked set to become the legitimately elected government of Algeria but which was, on taking power, likely turn into a hard-line Islamic regime along, perhaps, the lines of that in Iran, and introduce Sharia law, or that of the Algerian military who stepped in to cancel the elections in order to keep the existing regime in power? More to the point, when that same regime then alleges that members of the Islamic Salvation Front who escaped to the UK are wanted terrorists, are we morally and ethically justified in taking them at their word or does expediency and our own interests dictate that we disregard the circumstances in which they held on to power in the belief that their view of us is a rather more favourably one than the likely alternative?
Which is more deserving of support, the totalitarian regime that backs us or the democracy that doesn’t?
Beyond that particularly thorny question – to which you’ll have to find your own answer – article one of ECHR/HRA imposes a requirement that the failed asylum seekers right to life, and the general risk that they may come to serious harm if deported, is a factor that has to be taken into account even if they lack the specific grounds necessary for a successful asylum claim. When, three years ago (and again, last year), the High Court ordered a general moratorium on deportations to Zimbabwe on that grounds that opponents of Robert Mugabe were at risk of persecution, particularly during the period leading into and after last year’s hotly disputed elections, articles one (and three) were invoked to support that decision, which remains in effect today even though the UK has recently moved to resume its deportation flights.
Somewhat more controversially, the right to life has been successfully invoked in a small number cases where failed asylum seekers have gone on hunger strike or threatened to commit suicide to avoid deportation, while the severe delays is processing applications in the early part of the decade plus further delays arising from the time it takes to negotiate the appeals process have enable some failed applicants to not only avoid deportation but obtain leave to remain based on their having lived in the UK for so long that they were deemed to have acquired rights under article eight, the right of a family life.
For some that’s proof that HRA creates problems that the UK could do without, for others it shows that HRA is serving the purpose for which it was intended and protecting people against the arbitrary, unfair and oppressive abuses of state power and authority. Feel free to argue that one in comments, by all mean, but don’t expect to reach any kind of consensus on whether the impact of HRA on the asylum system has been good or bad.
Why don’t they all go home?
Before finishing up, space precludes tackling the issue of how the UK relates to other European and OECD nations in terms of our handling of asylum seekers in any serious detail. What I can recommend, however, is that you read what ‘From Hagley Road to Ladywood’ has to say on the myth that ‘they [immigrants] all come here’.
Beyond that, its worth noting that when it comes to receiving applications for asylum, although the UK is only second behind the US in terms of the total number of applicants, including dependants, between 1998 and 2007 (and ahead of both Germany and France) on a list of the 27 EU states plus Norway, Australia, Canada and the US, when we look at the figures relative to the existing population in each of the states we’re distinctly mid-table at 0.47 per 1,000, above Germany, Australia and the USA (0.21, 0.29 and 0.16 per thousand) but well below Greece and Sweden (2.24 and 3.98 per thousand).
So much for…
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
…the population density of the United States is an eighth of that of the UK and greater only than Norway, Sweden, Australia and Canada, of the countries included in the graphs (above), even if the difference between the US and Australia is fairly marginal.
As for the question of why failed asylum seekers don’t go home, the answer to that becomes self evident if you take the list of 41 states/areas cited in Home Office statistics as the main sources of asylum applicants since 1991 and cross-reference it against two very useful indices, Freedom House’s ‘Freedom Index’ and the Fund for Peace’s ‘Failed States Index’, which ranks states against a range of useful metrics including whether central government is so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory; non-provision of public services; widespread corruption and criminality; refugees and involuntary movement of populations and sharp economic decline.
On the 2009 Freedom Index, 19 of these 41 states/areas are listed as ‘not free’ with a further 14 rated ‘partially free’ and only five classified as ‘free’. Of those free states/areas, two (India and Former Yugoslavia) include disputed regions with a freedom score much lower than the main score. The Indian controlled part of Kashmir is rated ‘partially free’ while Kosovo continues to be rated ‘not free’.
Comparing the current index to the first one, from 2002, back then 21 of these states were ranked ‘not free’ – things have improved sufficiently in Kenya, Liberia and Burundi to have moved up from ‘not free’ to ‘partially free’ with another two states showing some improvement, but not enough to alter their classification. Conditions have, however, materially worsened in three states, Russia, which moved from ‘partially free’ to ‘not free’, Bangladesh and the Cote d’Ivoire and many have seen no change at all, including the ones you’d expect, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, etc.
On the Failed States Index, 22 of these 41 states/areas are ranked among the 38 failed ‘Alert’ states on the index, 7 of which are amongst the ‘top’ ten failures. Of the remaining 19, on the EU accession states area contains states rated better than ‘warning’ level, indicating problems that could escalate over time if left unchecked, although the lowest ranked of these (Bulgaria and Romania) are close to making the jump to ‘moderate’, which rather shows up some of the advantages of joining the EU.
In all, the list of failed states on the Failed States index account for 410,000 of the 739,000 asylum applications made between 1991 and 2007, and that’s on list where China, Russia and Libya are classified as ‘warning’ level states, largely because they’re sufficiently adept at repression to minimise some of the factors that cause other totalitarian states, such as Iran, to be classed as failed.
On the Freedom Index, states currently ranked ‘not free’ account for 339,000 asylum applications between 1991 and 2007, with states classed as only ‘partially free’ account for a further 212,000.
Only 130,000 asylum applications over the entire period I’ve covered were made by citizens of states that are no considered to be free, and that includes India and the former Yugoslavia, with their disputed regions of Kashmir and Kosovo, and Ghana, which, at the time that most of its citizen’s applications were lodged, was making the difficult transition from military dictatorship to civilian democracy with all the usual allegations of ballot rigging and intimidation of opposition parties that has sadly become the norm for African states making that important journey.
Why the hell would anyone willingly want to go home to any of that? – And yes, Tom Harris MP, I am looking in your direction when I ask that particular question…
Do some people make ‘bogus’ applications for asylum?
Yes, of course they do.
Inevitably there are some applicants who arrive here as fugitives from justice in their own country, some of whom are even considered terrorists by their own authorities, although there are grounds for questioning just how reliable such designations are when you look at where these people are coming from and under what circumstances.
There are also patterns in the data which point to some groups of applicants using claims for asylum as cover for intentional economic migrations, although the numbers are relatively small compared to the overall number of applications, about 6-7% of applications during this period, the vast majority from what are now EU Accession states plus those from Jamaica and Albanian arrivals from 2001 onwards. These don’t fit the pattern of populations displaced by wars, armed conflicts and political and other forms of repression and, as such, can justifiably be looked at with a degree of suspicion.
The vast majority of asylum applications, however, originate under circumstances where, taken at face value, the basis for such claims is eminently plausible, hence the need to afford them due process in full.
These people do, admittedly, come to the UK because they want what we’ve already got and take too readily for granted; freedom, safety, justice, the rule of law and a chance to work, make a living and build a decent life for themselves. If we want to limit the numbers of asylum seekers coming to the UK, in future, then the answer lies in spreading those values and opportunities to other countries, not in pulling up the shutters and saying ‘they’re ours – you can’t have them’.
---------------------------
| Tweet |
'Unity' is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. He also blogs at Ministry of Truth.
· Other posts by Unity
Story Filed Under: Blog ,Foreign affairs ,Immigration
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Reader comments
Great to see this second part, really fills in the gaps…though it’s evident as to why it needed to be split in to two parts 
though it’s evident as to why it needed to be split in to two parts
Yep, there’s a hell of a lot of ground that needed covering just to make sense of this issues.
‘Why the hell would anyone willingly want to go home to any of that? – And yes, Tom Harris MP, I am looking in your direction when I ask that particular question…’
His comment on your last Asylum piece was quite spectacularly stupid, wasn’t it? Put me in mind of someone triumphantly yelling ‘Gotcha!’ as he shoots a big hole in his foot.
‘Why the hell would anyone willingly want to go home to any of that? – And yes, Tom Harris MP, I am looking in your direction when I ask that particular question…’
Should we then pursue that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, do away with the asylum system entirely, and just open the doors to anyone from such countries who wishes to join us? After all, don’t they have the same ‘eminently plausible’ reason for claiming residencehere as those who manage to successfully negotiate the system as it exists at present?
What possible objection could there be to that?
Well, Dan, that’s effectively the Shengen system, isn’t it? Provided that there’s no criminal proceedings active against the individual, they should be free to travel, tourist, and source employment wherever they want, provided their employer carries the cost of getting rid of them and they accept that they receive no benefit support until they’ve paid a certain amount of NI. I mean, we know that there are people who have gone from cradle to grave without paying a jot more than VAT on fags and booze to contribute to the country.
If it wasn’t for the fact that we can’t be sure they’re not terrorists or criminals I don’t see why there’d be a problem – on the understanding that we, too, could get on our bikes and look for employment in other countries. It’s all good old market factors anyway, right?
Erm .. er … right. It’s yer open borders innit?
We can all beetle off to Iraq and get taken on as trainee datepickers while they all come here and work for the NHS. What could possibly be more satisfactory?
We can all beetle off to Iraq and get taken on as trainee datepickers while they all come here and work for the NHS. What could possibly be more satisfactory?
If you wanted to go to Iraq, you could; if you preferred the sound of California or Spain, that’d be an option too. What’s not to like?
Unity, FWIW I scanned it and definitely going to read thoroughly this weekend. Great work.
[8] just a weekend – I’ll need longer than that.
Fascinating stuff though, just need a bit of time to let it percolate.
#7
I’m actually not averse to the concept of balanced migration between countries of broadly similar cultural, economic and HDI status.
But that largely exists today, it is the third world component of the migration stream that creates the asymmetry.
Opening the borders would merely exacerbate that problem.
Using the UK as a whole is highly misleading, given the disparity between the size of England and Scotland’s respective population size, density and the comparative shares of immigration. It would be fairer to treat England and Scotland since: (1) the overwhelming majority of immigrants end up in England, which already has 84% of the UK’s population (2) Scotland has an overall population density only one sixth of that of England. In 2008 England became the most crowded country in Europe, barring micro states.
If you want to compare the UK and England with the USA, then of 50 states, 48 are less crowded than England, and 46 less crowded than the UK. 32 are even less crowded than Scotland. 20% of the population of the USA is contained within the UK, a country slightly smaller than Oregon.
Once again, Unity makes a very decent fist of it using the stats available, if at times the lachrymose sound of plaintive violin playing distracts from the important factual data that is being conveyed.
The only serious niggle concerning numbers would be that his imputed total of 739,000 claims significantly understates the overall scale of the contribution to the increase in the UK population attributable to entrants via the ‘humanitarian’ channel. Extending the data back to mid-80s, and including an allowance for dependants and UK-born offspring would bring the overall total to around 1.2 million, the overwhelming majority (90% plus) of which is of Afro-Asian provenance. At the risk of provoking the r-word, that figure will be important to remember when we reach the denouément of this series, which will be a consideration of the demographic transformation that has ensued and continues to ensue from the effects of mass immigration from the third world (and emigration).
I have several further observations to add, but will first pause and await the predictable howls of outrage from regular contributors whose liberal sensibilities may have been wounded by these remarks.
Extending the data back to mid-80s, and including an allowance for dependants and UK-born offspring would bring the overall total to around 1.2 million, the overwhelming majority (90% plus) of which is of Afro-Asian provenance.
Big.
Fucking.
Deal.
You don’t like it; have more shiny white Christian kids.
Congrats on getting the first howl in.
But who’s advocating a rutting contest? Not me, 50 million seems quite enough to be going on with.
Pressing on …
“… So far as estimating the numbers of applicants from this period who remained in the UK at the end of 2007 goes, the figures suggest that just over 280,000 is the most likely figure,…”
The LSE report suggests 380,000, has their methodology been reviewed and found wanting?
“Isn’t failed the same as ‘bogus’?”
That question, and the couple of paragraphs that follow it, lead to a more general point, one which concerns the criteria under which refugee status or ‘temporary protection’ are granted to a claimant.
The Geneva Convention definition of a refugee is quite narrow, and were that to be religiously cleaved to, the numbers would be even lower than even the 10% or so who are granted refugee status. In the UK, case law and various statutory instruments have significantly broadened the scope of the term ‘refugee’ to include persecution from not just state actors, but from any actor. The concept of ‘social group’ has been interpreted to include all manner of personal characteristics beyond those of ‘race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion’ cited in the Convention.
Beyond the strict definition of refugee there is also, as Unity explains, the catch-all category of claimants who are awarded some form of ‘humanitarian protection’. This comprises a number of sub-categories, each subject to bewildering changes in nomenclature over the years. Suffice it to say, the numbers permitted to stay under this general category have, in most years, comfortably exceeded the numbers admitted as ‘genuine’ refugees. The impact of appeals on the relationship between these two general categories is indeterminate, although Unity estimates that half of the successful appeals resulted in an upgrade to full refugee status which, if correct, would negate my remarks. However, we aren’t told the basis on which that estimate was formed.
A concluding observation on the ways in which successive British governments have chosen to interpret their obligations under the Convention concerns the matter of permanent reisdency, and citizenship. The Convention does not require signatories to provide refugees with the right to permanent residence and in fact the UK does not do that, at least not at the outset. However refugees awarded given five years ELR following which they will be eligible for ILR, that is permanent resident status and, eventually, British citizenship if they wish it. The immigration rules do include a caveat that refugee status can be revoked if conditions were to improve in the country of origin, but I’m unaware of any cases in which that rule has been invoked. Claimants awarded ILR, DL or HP have a couple of additional hoops to negotiate, but essentially they are also on the same settlement track as refugees.
The theme of humanitarian protection naturally leads into a discussion of the HRA …
But why would you want to list the children of refugees with refugees?
I don’t doubt there is some ground to count them, but surely under a different heading.
Call me paranoid, but its almost like (almost mind) you’re trying to inflate the figure.
Or that you think people with foreign parents aren’t really British?
I’m curious, why list them in the same 1.2m figure. Its like counting horses and dogs together.
With respect to the HRA, I am pleased to note that Unity acknowledges the obvious impact that this has had upon the ability to remove failed claimants. There have of course been a number of high-profile cases in which the HRA has been invoked, not the least of which is that of the Afghan airline hijackers whose deportation was blocked in 2004 on human rights grounds. We have also had the recent instance of the leaked memo in which Immigration Minister Phil Woolas quietly approved a change in the immigration rules to allow 40,000 failed asylum seekers (part of the so-called ‘legacy case’ backlog) who had managed to evade deportation for four or more years to remain permanently. The reason for the decision was said to be concern about possible protracted litigation, i.e. the HRA.
As to the utility or otherwise of the HRA, a case can certainly be made that its impact upon the asylum system and the immigration regime in general has been a classic example of the Law of Unintended Consequences in action. In truth, the HRA enacted by New Labour 1998 is nothing more or less than the 60 year-old European Convention on Human Rights ported into British law, with a few additional bells and whistles. “Bringing Rights Home” was the catchy slogan, as I recall. Of course Britons have had access to the European courts for such purposes since 1966 so the net effect of allowing human rights cases to be heard by British courts has simply been an explosion in frivolous and vexatious cases, aided and abetted by the willing legions of the Human Rights Lawyers Association. Business must be gratifyingly brisk since the membership in the HRLA has expanded from 650 in 2002 to 1800 in 2007. One notable case was A vs Home Secretary, in which the Law Lords ruled that the continued detention of terrorist suspects violated Art. 14 of the HRA (prohibition of discrimination – they were all foreigners), and which led to the introduction of control orders in 2005. It hardly needs noting that several of the suspects released from custody promptly absconded.
And, finally, with respect to the recommendation to read ‘From Hagley Road to Ladywood’ and in doing so take comfort that Britain’s immigration problem is not as dire as some others’, I can only comment that that’s somewhat similar to saying to a squaddie who’s just had his leg blown off by the Taliban “Stop bloody whingeing – look at ‘im over there. He’s got no ‘ead left and ‘e’s not complaining.”
#16
I assume you’re referring to UK-born children. The reason for including them is that they are an addition to the population and therefore a direct consequence of the asylum system. This discussion is primarily about numbers, as I recall.
Unity,
Well done again. It is going to be obvious when you tell me, but why is Cyprus up there? I’d have thought that Greeks fleeing from Turkish rule (I’d assume) don’t really count as asylum seekers. They count as migrants.
No?
It’s so plain to see from being here in Dubai for the last six days that if people from poor countries are given the chance of an opportunity for a better life overseas they will jump at it. The poorest labourers from India and Pakistan are here in their tens of thousands. They make up a majority of everyone that you see on the street.
And they have brought their culture with them wholesale. The old town and market area is just like an Indian city. They sit out on the street at night drinking tea and chatting, because so many are living in cramped dormatory conditions.
All over the city there are notices for ”bed spaces” in a particular house. They nearly all specify the kind of person who would be suitable, by region of India, or nationality and religion. ”Keralan muslim bachalors only” is a typical sign.
Or ”Filipinas Only”.
This might not have much to do with Asylum, though I have been told that there are people who are using Dubai as a staging point to get to Europe.
And so I wasn’t that happy at first, when my cheap downtown hotel insisted on hanging on to my passport till I checked out. For the first couple of days I asked to see it a couple of times when I came back in the evening. A European passport could be worth a lot of money to someone desperate to get to the UK.
I’m sure there are forgers who wouldn’t have any trouble changing the photo.
Enough to get the new owner of a fake passport on a plane to England at least.
The UK isn’t going to be ”overrun” Dubai style anytime soon, but I could see a Daily Maill story coming out of the situation here. About the ”perils” of too many immigrants from the least developed countries.
It was funny on Russian beach last night just before sunset. It’s a public beach, and being a friday it’s the only day that many of the labourers have off. So they flock to the parks and beaches, and to the creakside downtown.
There was a lifeguard on the beach blowing his whistle furiously at these large groups of Indian labourers, and trying to shoo them away from the regualr bathers by the sea. He told me that they were surrounding women in bikinis and taking photos of them.
He thought they were being pests, but the poor lads might never have seen such displays before. (And there wasn’t even that much on display in the first place).
And I don’t mean to be too unkind here, or to show a perjudice against Indian men, but the hacking and spitting is quite phenomenal.
It’s the first thing I hear in the morning from ajoining rooms at my hotel, and as soon as you step outside it’s just spit spit spit, all day. It actually doesn’t bother me in the slightest, and I like a spit myself sometimes. But the pavements and kerbs and at the bases of walls and lamposts are all marked with the red splashes of betel nut spit. And the worst are the ash trays on the top of litter bins. They are the favourite place to deposit betel spit.
I only say this, as this is something that some people would rather ignore, and other people might bring up in a racist way (by suggesting similar spitting is common in parts of London and Birmingham).
I think living conditions like people sharing rooms with people from their home country do exist in the UK. and it’s a mixture of legal people and illegal people, all on the bottom rung of the ladder. And when you’re in that situation in the UK, you are only marginlly better off than similar people in Dubai.
damon,
Is it your life ambition to go to every country in the world? 
damon,
Is it your life ambition to go to every country in the world?
I’d quite like a delete facility, lest damon thinks I’m taking the piss,which I am not.
Else a double post – stop you right there sir – would be kind of wonderful.
I seem to recall that some of that technology was here or hereabouts?
How and why did it all disappear?
@ 20
Ref your comment -
“The UK isn’t going to be ”overrun” Dubai style anytime soon”.
Dubai isn’t ever going to be “overrun” since none of the south asians in Dubai will ever be given Emirati citizenship. They are guest workers to be treated as second class, abused and deported when work contracts finish.
The UK on the otherhand will inevitably be “overrun” since the UK authorities don’t hold UK citizenship with any value whatsoever and give it away as freely as the NHS gives away free health care.
Most comments on this website are stomach turningly naive and unworldly. The simple fact is;
5 billion poor and hungry people in a cruel world
+ 60 million wealthy people in small naive island
+ relaxed border controls
= naive people in small easy going island overrun by outsiders that mostly hold local traditions and culture in contempt and are in it for what they can get.
A great outcome – applause please for New Labour!
Now , where did I put that New Zealand visa application?
I am getting a bit annoyed about the way this is going.
Unity has posted facts, as far as I can tell.
It seems to me that we ought to be discussing that, rather than going off on one, rather like TP has done ^.
I think what Unity has to say has merit, but if the ‘opposition’ has evidence to the contrary, they should present it. It is noticeable that they don’t seem to have any evidence, only polemic.
Douglas
“opposition” ? are we really on opposing sides? The more I read comments and articles on this webside the more worried for Britain’s future I become.
Anyone having read The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck will understand why the ruling elite promote mass immigration and use the likes of you to their ends.
As for the facts ref the article above – why don’t we get real and hear the truth from a world leader, the truth the media elite prevented us from seeing – see attached link;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFJMdSyFiAI&feature=player_embedded
Gadaffi?!
Ga-fucking-daffi?!
You’re having a laugh, a tyrannical dictator with blood on his hands and a country kept in poverty despite its massive oil wealth on his conscience? He claims that there are no reasons to seek asylum from Africa’s regimes. Good one. Its as tough you’re a parody of yourself.
Try this latest post of mine, it might educate you some.
@4 Dan Dare:
Should we then pursue that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, do away with the asylum system entirely, and just open the doors to anyone from such countries who wishes to join us?
The wider question is what is the asylum system — and the immigration system in general — trying to achieve? It seems to me there are two conflicting goals, a humanitarian one of helping people fleeing from countries that aren’t nice places to live, and a more inward-looking goal of looking after the interests of British people, as opposed to foreigners.
These goals are to some extent contradictory, and it would be nice if politicians came right out and admitted it, instead of trying to be all things to all voters.
There are only two good reasons for allowing immigration into Britain (A) when it’s in the interests of the British, and (B) when its in the intersts of the immigrants.
As to what the policy should be trying to achieve, in a democracy that question can only be answered by asking the people. I suspect that most voters would broadly favour type A immigration and disfavour type B; and if that’s the case then immigration policy should be focussed in achieving that goal.
TP,
Hmm…
Anyone having read The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck will understand why the ruling elite promote mass immigration and use the likes of you to their ends.
I have read The Grapes of Wrath, although it was a long time ago. Was it not really about poor white farmers and their exploitation by bankers, or some such? It might also have been about climate change, at a stretch….
I fail to see how it is directly relevant, but am willing to hear your arguement.
However.
Who exactly is the likes of me, and what joint and several ends do we/me agree on?
I have never met anyone that see’s the world in exactly the same way as me. It would be a doppelganger moment were it to occur.
@ Philip Hunt
The justification for mass immigration from the third world is generally based on one of or a combination of the following memes:
1. The humanitarian argument, as you have noted, which which often seeks to play on feelings of guilt and post-colonial remorse.
2. The economic argument, which these days is practically dead, although the variant which holds that immigrants will fund our old age pensions still holds some sway
3. The enrichment argument that extols the benefits of multiculturalism and maintains that diversity is strength.
I don’t think that the objective of this series of posts is to explore these in any depth although #1 has been given a run out in the original post at the head of this page.
Dan Dare:
3 is a loaded point, there are those of us that wish for diversity, and those that wish for multiculturalism, they are two very separate things.
But you miss point 4. The globalisation argument, that allowing immigration helps to bring countries up to the level that we are at, that it is a great leveller on the world stage
“I can only comment that that’s somewhat similar to saying to a squaddie who’s just had his leg blown off by the Taliban “Stop bloody whingeing – look at ‘im over there. He’s got no ‘ead left and ‘e’s not complaining.””
More like saying to a squaddie that has injured himself by dropping his gun on his foot that he shouldn’t be complaining because someone else has just come in with a wound caused by enemy gunfire more like.
minus one “more like”, grrr edit feature…
“But you miss point 4. The globalisation argument, that allowing immigration helps to bring countries up to the level that we are at”
No it won’t – it will bring us down to their level – something that has already started to happen. Equality “levells” downwards, if it pulled upwards, communism would have worked.
I think a lot of middle class liberals will change their positions on migration once their jobs start being outsourced, or under-cut through migrant professionals prepared to work for a lot less than the established middle class think they are entitled to earn.
I view point 4 as a sub-category of point 1, the humanitarian argument.
Levelling-up vs levellin-down is an interesting theme, of which there is yet another variant – fair shares for all. If we were to implement the last today it would entail a global per-capita gdp of around $9,000. In 2008 the UK had a gdp/capita of around $36,000 at PPP. So fair shares for all would require everybody in the UK to accept a 75% drop in income. Think it would fly.
As for levelling-up, a favourite topic of immigration enthusiasts, that would necessitate a four-fold increase in global gdp. Apart from the practical challenges in doing that, imagine what western-style consumption on a global scale might mean in terms of resource depletion and environmental degradation.
The remaining option is levelling down.
@34 “Equality “levells” downwards” That makes no sense. What do you mean, why are you comparing communism to increased levels of migration?
@Dan Dare I appreciate the link you left me over at Left Outside but I hope you’ll appreciate its quite lengthy and I haven’t had a chance to look but do you really consider the economic argument in favour of migration dead in the water?
@30 Dan Dare,
I do think there is an economic argument for immigration, or at least some immigration. For example, 25% of startups in Silicon Valley are founded by immigrants to the USA.
But some immigrants are better quality than others, and therefore if there is going to be a policy of encouraging economic immigration — something I’m in favour of — it’s best to be highly selective about who we let in.
Right so the poor should stay poor so that they don’t consume much so you can continue to eat McDonalds? That’s one of your arguments??? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again that is a morally repugnant idea.
And the definitive study on global migration predicts a doubling of world GDP if all border controls were dropped. Give it a few more years and a four fold increase may well be possible.
@38
‘Morally repugnant’. Still a student, are we?
As for Hamilton and Whalley (1984), have you actually read their paper? Amongst other things they state that: :…Wage rates [will] increase in labor-losing regions and decline in labor-receiving regions, dramatizing the incentives for labor unions in high-wage countries to oppose liberalization of immigration restrictions.”
Once you actually start work, will you still be lobbying for open borders and willing to accept half or a quarter of the going rate to show solidarity with your third-world brethren?
No, I thought not.
@Left Outside
“… do you really consider the economic argument in favour of migration dead in the water?”
It’s not just a humble blogger like oneself who thinks it’s dead on its perch, how often do you hear the NuLabor regime traying to make the case for it these days? Or even Blulabor for that matter.
Not to mention Immigration Industry luminaries like Philippe Legrain who now totally shies away from the subject.
@Philip Hunt
Yes, I agree there is a case for some migration, particularly balanced migration between countries that are culturally compatible and at similar levels of economic and human development. That was the situation within the EU prior to 2004.
The problem is that in any discussion on migration its more partisan proponents fail to distinguish between American investment bankers and Somali goatherds. They are both migrants of equal value according to their calculus, and this mindset is reflected in all the attempts that have been made to offer an economic justification for migration..
@ 36 – I would have thought it was obvious – someone was suggesting that if you allow net migration to rise you somehow improve everyones (existing populance and new arrivals) wealth. There is no evidence to support that assertion. What actually happens is that the standard of living of the existing populance is gradually eroded, whilst the wealth generated by the migrants is largely lost to leakeage. In fiscal terms, the necessary increases in public spending consume more resources than are raised by the tax the increased population pays. A true “lose/lose” situation in which only the rich win (they get cheap labour and pay minimal tax anyway).
Net increases in migration only work in economic terms if you operate a quaota/points syetem where only high earners were allowed in (you are a net drain on the public purse until you earn circa £26K) and/or you have minimal state and no public services. Maybe that’s why so many countries operate them ?
@ sevillista
Regarding your spurious claim that most asylum seekers have arrived directly in the UK by airplane:
We know only 1 in 3 claims at the port of entry and that the rest claim when they are already in the UK.
The figures I gave in the previous thread show that the ONS and Home Office detected 47,000 illegal entries in 2001 and the figures since seem to average out around 15,000 detected illegal entries. Compare those figures with number claiming asylum.
Also consider just how many civilian airlines are actually operating out of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia direct to the UK and what visa the traveler would need to board the flight to the UK.
In fact, for the past 10 years there have been no direct flights between Afghanistan and the UK so that wipes out your plane theory for the 5th biggest claiming group, and for obvious reasons, it also wipes out the boat theory.
Can you see the implications?
Accepting asylum seekers who actually turn up in the UK in person is a bit of ”game” isn’t it? We force them to extraordinary lengths to get here and make their case, but wont hear it from outside the UK. Even in Calais.
Surely all a person should have to do is to be able to get a note to a menber of a British embassy or consulate anywhere in the world saying ”Help me, I need asylum in the UK” for their case to be taken on.
Or if that’s not the case, then why?
Why should a young Afghan be given asylum in the UK when his family and brothers (who paid thousands of dollars for him to be sent away) are all still living in Afghanistan?
It does seem like a total racket, as reading this Zimbabwe blog which gives advice to asylum seekers seems to show.
http://www.newzimbabwe.com/blog/
When people want to leave their country and go to Europe, fleeing war or persecution is just one of the driving forces …. as the authorities in the Canary Islands know all too well. When they intercept the boats laden with would-be refugees, they have difficulty working out who is from where, as many say they are from some place they are not.
Here is the personal experience of two Zimbabwian women at the Home office immigration center in Croydon.
http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/news/4716015.Asylum_influx_could_put_up_council_tax__warns_Croydon_councillor/
How on earth are people in Croydon to know if this woman really was at her newspaper’s office when it was bombed and threats were made against its staff?
They told her they thought she was lying. Is that them just being overly cynical?
I was listening to a BBC radio programme a couple of weeks ago, and it was about failed asylum seekers in Dundee. Even though some of them had been told to leave the country, they were receiving support from a church group, who also exchanged the vouchers given to them by the government for cash. One man from Zimbabwe (I think) was determined to continue to fight deportation.
Amd now his wife was pregnant, he had to see the doctor about that, make hospital appointments, keep in contact with his immigration solicitor etc.
If his child was born in the UK that would help his case I thought.
“Surely all a person should have to do is to be able to get a note to a menber of a British embassy or consulate anywhere in the world saying ”Help me, I need asylum in the UK” for their case to be taken on.
Or if that’s not the case, then why?”
Yes that is the case. Asylum applications are accepted at any British mission around the world. In the 50s and 60s it was not unknown for western embassies to accommodate prominent political refugees, the case of Cardinal Mindszenty who lived for 15 years in the US embassy in Budapest being a case in point.
But it never happens nowadays, rather defeat the object of the exercise, wouldn’t it?
@ 43
Before I retired as a psychiatric nurse in 2005, teams in Birmingham started to get referrals for people who had been refused asylum. Most were depressed, understandably, but not so clinically depressed that they needed the help of a specialist psychiatric team or in-patient treatment, and there was the occasional one or two who were obviously
simulating symptoms. It was obviously their last desperate try. And there were those in the YMCA who were there one minute, and next day, lo and behold, they weren’t. They had gone back to their home country, wherever, their friends said, shrugging their shoulders.
We had colossal expenditure on interpreters, some of whom had to travel up from London for unusual languages, such as Tadzhik. As often as not the client was not in, as these were people living in the community, whom we had no power to compel to stay at home for an appointment. Another of the many benefits of diversity.
@curious
“Regarding your spurious claim that most asylum seekers have arrived directly in the UK by airplane”
I haven’t claimed this anywhere. Find a quote where I say “most asylum seekers arrive directly by aeroplane”. You can’t.
I HAVE said:
* On the most recent data I can find, a majority of those claiming asylum at “port-of entry” arrived by aeroplane. Out of just under 24K asylum seekers for whom we know the means of entry in 2000/01, 12,000 came by plane. This blows your argument that saying many asylum seekers arrive by plane is “surreal nonsense” out of the water (or out of the air)
* We also know that many – though we don’t have any data – arrive legally on tourist/student visas or using false documents and go on to claim asylum.
* Your assertion that most of those who did not claim asylum at the port-of-entry all arrived from mainland Europe is just that – an assertion based on little data and your gut feeling.
“In fact, for the past 10 years there have been no direct flights between Afghanistan and the UK so that wipes out your plane theory for the 5th biggest claiming group, and for obvious reasons, it also wipes out the boat theory.”
Right. Aeroplanes fly from the UK to most other countries (and from other countries to the UK).
I’ve gone through the lists of asylum seeker origins and seeing if there is a direct flight from Heathrow or Gatwick to the capitals of these countries to define possibility of flying. I’ve used direct flights as you would say asylum should be claimed in the first country passed through, even if someone can legally gain entry to the UK not as an asylum seeker (e.g. on a tourist visa).
This shows that of the 23,695 asylum seekers which we have stats on a named country of origin on, 13,900 come from countries with which there are direct flight links. So a majority (59%) can – provided they can get a visa – travel directly by air between their country of origin and the UK.
But these facts must be “surreal nonsense” right, as your gut feeling trumps the facts.
Afghanistan – 3,505 (impossible to fly direct)
Zimbabwe – 3,165 (possible to fly – e.g. route from Harare to Gatwick)
Iran – 2,270 (possible to fly e.g. route from Tehran to Heathrow)
Eritrea – 2,255 (impossible to fly direct)
Iraq – 1,850 (impossible to fly direct)
Sri Lanka – 1,475 (possible to fly e.g. route from Colombo to Heathrow)
China – 1,400 (possible to fly e.g. route from Beijing to Heathrow)
Somalia – 1,345 (impossible to fly direct)
Pakistan – 1,230 (possible to fly e.g. route from Islamabad to Heathrow)
Nigeria – 820 (possible to fly e.g. route from Abuja to Heathrow)
India – 715 (possible to fly e.g. route from Delhi to Heathrow)
Bangladesh – 455 (possible to fly e.g. route from Dhaka to Heathrow)
Algeria – 345 (possible to fly e.g. route from Algiers to Heathrow)
Dem Rep of Congo – 335 (impossible to fly)
Sudan – 265 (possible to fly e.g. route from Khartoum to Heathrow)
Jamaica – 240 (possible to fly e.g. route from Kingston to Heathrow)
Vietnam – 230 (possible to fly e.g. route from Hanoi to Heathrow)
Turkey – 195 (possible to fly e.g. route from Istanbul to Heathrow)
Albania – 160 (possible to fly e.g. route from Tirana to Heathrow)
Syria – 155 (possible to fly e.g. route from Damascus to Heathrow)
Kenya – 150 (possible to fly e.g. route from Nairobi to Heathrow)
Ghana – 140 (possible to fly e.g. route from Accra to Heathrow)
Ethiopia – 130 (possible to fly e.g. route from Addis Ababa to Heathrow)
Uganda – 130 (possible to fly e.g. route from Kampala to Heathrow)
Gambia – 125 (impossible to fly direct)
Cameroon – 115 (impossible to fly direct)
Angola – 80 (possible to fly direct e.g. route from Luanda to Heathrow)
Ivory Coast – 70 (impossible to fly direct)
Sierra Leone – 55 (impossible to fly direct)
Russia – 50 (possible to fly e.g. route from Moscow to Heathrow)
Libya – 45 (possible to fly e.g. route from Tripoli to Heathrow)
Ukraine – 30 (possible to fly e.g. route from Kiev to Heathrow)
Columbia – 25 (impossible to fly direct)
Congo – 25 (impossible to fly direct)
Tanzania – 25 (possible to fly direct e.g. route from Dar Es Salaam to Heathrow)
Moldova – 20 (impossible to fly direct)
Liberia – 20 (impossible to fly direct)
Rwanda – 20 (impossible to fly direct)
Ecuador – 15 (impossible to fly direct)
Burundi – 15 (impossible to fly direct)
EU Accession States – 5 (possible to fly direct)
Other Middle East – 620 (possible to fly direct from all middle east except Iraq)
Other Africa – 600 (mixed bag e.g. can fly direct from Casablanca (Morocco), Cairo (Egypt), Cape Town (S Africa))
Other Asia/Oceania – 535 (mixed bag – can fly direct from many Asian locations)
Other Former USSR – 180 (mixed bag)
Other Europe – 95 (can fly direct)
Other/Not Known – 75 (unclear)
OECD data suggests that 1 in 10 now living in the UK were born overseas?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1555677/One-in-10-people-living-in-Britain-born-overseas.html
According to the same report;
“The 4.3 million foreign-born Britons at the time of the 2001 census was itself an increase of about one million compared to 1991. The OECD said the total rose another 1.5 million in only five years – the fastest rate of growth in British history”.
And this from a local school;
‘X Community School serves a very diverse community with over 90% of students coming from an ethnic minority background. The three largest groups are of students with Black Caribbean, Black African, or Turkish/Kurdish
heritage, each representing one fifth of the students. Two fifths of students speak English as an additional language, of whom 30 are at an early stage of learning it. About 40 are refugees or asylum seekers. Almost two thirds of students are eligible for free school meals’.
In my mind all roads on the immigration debate invariably lead to the pace and scale of change (short and extensive, respectively).
Even so the effects of globalisation and technology (enabling different workforce configurations such as call centres in India, etc) are an inevitable international phenomena?
Surely the key is for the UK to try and exploit these demographic changes so that we can stay ahead of the game – put another is there really much to be gained from crying over spilt milk (assuming the 1 in 10 stat bothers you)?
@dandare
“I assume you’re referring to UK-born children. The reason for including them is that they are an addition to the population ”
I am English and am married to a foreign national.
Are my children not, in your view, English?
Or are they foreigners who should be sent back to my wife’s country and who should, in your view, be included as part of the negative impact of immigration? Should they be denied British citizenship?
@Sevillista:
Invariably during any discussion on immigration such questions get raised and emotive reactions soon follow. I believe that state policy should not be predicated on boundary cases like yours.
FWIW, I wouldn’t call for your children to be denied citizenship,however they are not,of course, ethnically English. You don’t mention your wife’s ethnicity so its possible that they could be considered to be “… closely related and ethnically assimilated or assimilable aboriginal members of the European race also resident in Britain” and as such eligible to join the BNP if they wish to.
An interesting twist to this theme comes in cases where the family lives in the homeland of the non-British partner. Are the children then perceived by the locals to be ethnically Chinese, or Nigerian or whatever the case may be? I think perhaps not.
My own wife is of Welsh ancestry so I take a fairly liberal line on such matters.
@48
“Surely the key is for the UK to try and exploit these demographic changes so that we can stay ahead of the game – put another is there really much to be gained from crying over spilt milk (assuming the 1 in 10 stat bothers you)?”
It depends what you perceive the ‘game’ to be.
As for the 1 in 10 foreign born stat, that doesn’t concern me half as much as the latest one from the DCSF that reveals that 1 in 4 of all primary school-children are now BME.
@Dan
“I believe that state policy should not be predicated on boundary cases like yours.”
These aren’t boundary cases.
Studies suggest one in ten children are of “mixed race” – this is equal to the proportion of the whole population that is from an ethnic minority http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jan/18/race-identity-britain-study
Those who espouse a ethnically-based definition of nationality need to be quite clear what they would do with those of mixed-race.
What about those who have one grandparent from an ethnic minority? If my children married ethnically English partners, would their right to English nationality still be “tainted”? What about their children? Would their ethnic purity still be “tainted” by my wife – their great-grandmother?
“You don’t mention your wife’s ethnicity so its possible that they could be considered to be “… closely related and ethnically assimilated or assimilable aboriginal members of the European race also resident in Britain” and as such eligible to join the BNP if they wish to.”
When you say “ethnicity” and whether people are “assimilable” do you mean “what colour is their skin?”. If not, what are the determinants of this.
Can I have a list of who the BNP thinks are “assimilable”?
And no. It’s a shame, but the BNP would not admit my children into their party. If my children choose to be vile racists when they grow up, I am sure they will be bitterly disappointed.
“An interesting twist to this theme comes in cases where the family lives in the homeland of the non-British partner. Are the children then perceived by the locals to be ethnically Chinese, or Nigerian or whatever the case may be? I think perhaps not.”
Yes – they would be. Part ethnically Chinese, or Nigerian or whatever, and part ethnically English. They would be accepted as Chinese, Nigerian or whatever nationals if they wanted to be.
Ethnicity isn’t the issue – it’s whether my children would be discriminated against through bizarre ethincally-determined definitions of nationality.
If every country took this view that nationality is ethnically defined, my children would be stateless. If they had to “go home” where would they go to?
@Sevillista
It’s always challenging to debate immigration and race with someone like yourself who has some ‘skin in the game’, as it were. Frankly, it would be irrational for you to adopt a restrictionist attitude (much less an exclusionary one) since that runs counter to your personal interest, and few people can argue against themselves.
“These aren’t boundary cases.
Studies suggest one in ten children are of “mixed race” – this is equal to the proportion of the whole population that is from an ethnic minority http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jan/18/race-identity-britain-study”
‘Studies’ are ten a penny, especially ones which advocate miscegenation, subtly or otherwise. In fact the one cited in the Guardian does not suggest that one in ten children are mixed-race, it states that that 1 in 10 live in a mixed-race household, an important difference.
As a matter of fact, the DCSF statistical report that I alluded to above, which is based on the January 2009 Schools Census, indicates that 4.1% of children in primary school and 3.3% in secondary school are of mixed-race.
“Those who espouse a ethnically-based definition of nationality need to be quite clear what they would do with those of mixed-race.”
In my view the numbers are so small as to be inconsequential. I’d hope that if a future patriotic government were to implement a Powellite-style Ministry of Repatriation, in which families like yours would be eligible for attractive financial grants to relocate to the ancestral homeland of the non-European partner, it would err on the side of generosity and permit the offspring of such unions to remain if they wished to. As of course would you and your wife.
“What about those who have one grandparent from an ethnic minority? If my children married ethnically English partners, would their right to English nationality still be “tainted”? What about their children? Would their ethnic purity still be “tainted” by my wife – their great-grandmother? “
Yes, predictably, we always end up chasing down this particular rathole. I don’t think there is any value in being mulishly absolutist about it. After all, even officer candidates for the SS only had to show pure Aryan descent back to the fifth generation, and the Nuremberg Laws only considered Jewishness back to the grandparents.
Obviously as time goes on, the contribution to the indigenous gene pool becomes progressively smaller with each successive generation. Somebody who is 1/128th Ibo is rather different to somebody with a Nigerian parent. There were a considerable number of Africans present in late 18C London, but there was little physical evidence of their presence in the general population only a century later. The bottom line is that once the inflow is staunched, the problem is self-correcting over time.
“When you say “ethnicity” and whether people are “assimilable” do you mean “what colour is their skin?”. If not, what are the determinants of this.
Can I have a list of who the BNP thinks are “assimilable”?
I was quoting from the BNP’s Constitution, so the questions would be better put to them. If you are asking for my personal view, then I’ll be happy to give it.
“And no. It’s a shame, but the BNP would not admit my children into their party. If my children choose to be vile racists when they grow up, I am sure they will be bitterly disappointed.”
It’s all rather moot now, since the BNP will be be obliged to change its membership rules in the very near future, or wind itself up as a political party.
“Yes – they would be. Part ethnically Chinese, or Nigerian or whatever, and part ethnically English. They would be accepted as Chinese, Nigerian or whatever nationals if they wanted to be.”
I think you are conflating ethnicity and nationality, something that you chastise me for doing below. Having lived and worked for a number of years in Asia (and several other places outside the UK) I would actually seriously doubt that mixed-race children would be considered ethnically Chinese in China. Or Japan, or India for that matter.
“Ethnicity isn’t the issue – it’s whether my children would be discriminated against through bizarre ethincally-determined definitions of nationality.
If every country took this view that nationality is ethnically defined, my children would be stateless. If they had to “go home” where would they go to?”
I don’t think you have much cause for concern. These days few countries base their citizenship law on jus sanguinis, even Germany caved in a few years ago under EU pressure to ‘harmonise’. All the more then to be very choosy about who is permitted to enter in the first place, right?
@ sevillista
**“I haven’t claimed this anywhere. Find a quote where I say “most asylum seekers arrive directly by aeroplane”. You can’t.”**
You really are just a bare faced liar sevillista with all of the attendant nastiness of your political creed.
Here is a direct quote from you from just a few days ago:
“I was pointing out a major flaw in your argument – I am sure most asylum seekers arrive by air.”
Comment#48
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/11/26/the-truth-about-immigration-asylum-part-1/#comments
After which you call me a “big twat” as well for daring to point out the absurdity of what you were saying.
Like to admit you are a liar and were most certainly wrong, and perhaps apologise?
Not likely! Cue some pretty desperate digging for some possibly minor technical way out all the while lashing out with some hysterical malicious insults!
That pretty much sums up you and your fellow so-called Liberals. You are far from being actually Liberal when faced with any dissent to your lunacy; and lunacy it is backed up with reams of waffle, tons of lies and enforced with smears and threats.
Even the unsourced list of countries and direct flights to the UK you produce shows that 3 out of the top 5 claiming asylum in the UK could NOT have flow here and at least one could not have taken a direct non-stop sea route here as in the other fantasy you espoused.
Which means under the convention and the law their claims should be referred back to the first safe country they arrive in. i.e. they are bogus; they are not genuine refugees but more likely economic migrants selecting countries.
And of course, what you again fail to address is the visas the other travellers to the UK from countries that can fly direct must obtain to gain legal admittance.
Wonder why that might be?
@52 Dan Dare. Frankly, I found your post refreshing. I don’t actually agree with any of it, but you clearly have the courage of your (racist?) convictions, and the ability to construct an argument without descending into abuse. I found a fair bit of what you said rather offensive, but I do admire the fact that you are open about it.
Ahh, Mr F finds other people “opinions quite offensive” well what a suprise; and he also hypocritically admires “the ability to construct an argument without descending into abuse.”
An ability, of course, he is lamentably lacking himself unfortunately, with this little gem as the opener to me on the last thread followed by the second riposte:
“Well I’m sorry, Mr Clark, but I really must take issue with your choice of words, here. I feel that “Curious Freedom, you’re a total fucking moron” would have been far more apparopriate.”
“You’re a cunt.”
@55 Yes, but you are a cunt.
Well done Douglas Clark, erm, sorry Mr F.
@curious
“You really are just a bare faced liar sevillista with all of the attendant nastiness of your political creed.”
I meant to say “many” rather than “most”. The point was in response to you claiming that very few asylum seekers came by plane.
The later stats I’ve produced show that at least 12,000 did in 2000/01, with a further 12,000 coming by other means, and 50,000 for whom we do not know how they arrived.
And what is “my political creed”? Except one that likes to consider facts as more important than gut feeling and xenophobia in terms of setting policy?
“After which you call me a “big twat” as well for daring to point out the absurdity of what you were saying.”
I called you a “big twat” to highlight the fact that suggesting (admittedly in a sarcastic way) that it was perfectly feasible for asylum seekers to come by plane was not “insulting” – and an insult would be something like calling you a “big twat”.
And how exactly is saying that it is possible for asylum seekers to arrive by air absurd?
It looks to me like the statistics I have shown have illustrated the absurdity of what YOU are saying – the stats show that a) most asylum seekers could have directly flown to the UK; b) most asylum seekers for whom we have data on the mode of entry did directly fly here.
You said saying people arrive by plane to claim asylum was “surreal nonsense”. The data I have uncovered that you, Mr Curious, are the one spouting nonsense.
“Even the unsourced list of countries and direct flights to the UK you produce”
It is sourced from departures information from the websites of Heathrow and Gatwick airport. I derived them myself, by searching for the capital cities on the departures list.
Which ones do you disagree with? Please do tell me, as it sounds like you think I made them up.
“shows that 3 out of the top 5 claiming asylum in the UK could NOT have flow here”
Oh. I see. Only asylum seekers from the top 5 countries are relevant to the debate now, as your myth that a majority of all asylum seekers could not have directly flown here has been explored, and you need something to cling on to.
If I said, “in 2008, there were only 13,000 asylum seekers” (so long as you only include the top 5 countries), you would accuse me of ignoring 50% of asylum seekers to suit my argument.
Maybe you can base arguments on asylum seekers by looking at the characteristics of those seeking asylum from countries beginning with A, or countries with 6 letters if you want to irrationally exclude statistics from data to twist the facts to suit your argument.
Keep on shifting those goalposts.
“at least one could not have taken a direct non-stop sea route here as in the other fantasy you espoused.”
Erm, that 3,505 Afghani asylum seekers with no direct sea route your talking about, right.
Which leaves 22,000+ who could, in theory, have arrived directly by sea.
Do you understand the meaning of “majority” and see how the second number (those who could have arrived directly by sea) is bigger than the first (those who are from landlocked countries), meaning that the statement “a majority of asylum seekers could, in theory, have arrived by sea” is correct.
“Which means under the convention and the law their claims should be referred back to the first safe country they arrive in. i.e. they are bogus; they are not genuine refugees but more likely economic migrants selecting countries.”
So your point is that Afghani asylum seekers have no place seeking asylum in the UK. They should go to Pakistan to seek asylum, right?
But don’t we have a moral duty to grant Afghans (and Iraqis) asylum based on the fact that we started a war in that country, and the fact we did this is the reason that many have been displaced or are fleeing because of threats of their life.
“And of course, what you again fail to address is the visas the other travellers to the UK from countries that can fly direct must obtain to gain legal admittance.”
Firstly – we are talking about the feasibility of entering the UK by air, so people entering on fake documents to claim asylum should be included.
Secondly, more people obtained visas from these countries in 2008 then claimed asylum.
For example, to take your top 5 countries-of-origin of asylum seekers (they’re the only ones that count in Curious world it seems), table 1a of the 2008 Home Office Control of Immigration Statistics http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration-asylum-stats.html show that:
Afghanistan – 12,000 Afghans admitted (compared to 3,505 claiming asylum)
Zimbabwe – 35,700 Zimbabweans admitted (compared to 3,165 claiming asylum)
Iran – 59,200 Iranians admitted (compared to 2,270 claiming asylum)
Eritrea – No data on Eritreans unfortunately – they are subsumed in 70,200 from “other Africa”
Iraq – 12,200 Iraqis admitted (compared to 1,850 claiming asylum)
Looks like it is quite possible to get a visa from these countries to the UK to me.
“Wonder why that might be”
No reason – other than I was exploding your “impossible to fly direct” myth in the previous points.
The further stats you wanted to explode your “impossible to get visas” myth are given in this post.
Where are the goalposts moving to next? Maybe it’s time to take your ball and run home crying about those nasty people who are trying to bring facts into the argument?
@curious
…unless of course you want to dazzle us with some statistics that, for example, prove that – say – none of the 12,000 Iraqis legally granted entry to the UK in 2008 have gone on to claim asylum?
That would prove my point wrong.
I look forward to you doing this.
@DanDare
“It’s always challenging to debate immigration and race with someone like yourself who has some ‘skin in the game’”
Why does it make any difference?
The points I raise are valid ones, and you shouldn’t be afraid of hurting my feelings. My individual circumstances are unimportant, and I gave them by way of example of some of the thorny issues that someone who wanted to define nationality in an ethnically-based way would face in the modern UK.
“Frankly, it would be irrational for you to adopt a restrictionist attitude (much less an exclusionary one) since that runs counter to your personal interest, and few people can argue against themselves”
But you can argue the case for one if that is what you believe.
I’m curious as to what your policy prescription would be. I won’t take offence, honest.
“the DCSF statistical report that I alluded to above, which is based on the January 2009 Schools Census, indicates that 4.1% of children in primary school and 3.3% in secondary school are of mixed-race”
Ok. But that is a hell of a lot of people, you concede that. If a government was to adopt a definition of nationality that includes only “ethnically pure British” (which is a weird concept in itself given the history of the UK and the mixed ethnic backgrounds we came from even before post-war immigration), they need to state what will happen to these children.
“In my view the numbers are so small as to be inconsequential”
There are 227,000 mixed race children in maintained schools in England, according to DCSF. There are a further 920,000 children from ethnic minorities – most of home are second or even third or fourth generation English. You would need to decide what to do with them.
And of course there’s many second and third generation adults from ethnic minorities in the UK.
It’s not “inconsequential” is it – this is a major policy that will require a hell of a lot of effort (including arrest for deportation to places unknown if they won’t go voluntarily – or holding in detention in perpetuity if there is no country that will take former-British citizens whose grandparents moved to England in the 1950s)
“I’d hope that if a future patriotic government were to implement a Powellite-style Ministry of Repatriation, in which families like yours would be eligible for attractive financial grants to relocate to the ancestral homeland of the non-European partner”
So you think it’s undesirable that my family stay in England, because my children’s blood is not pure enough for you?
What would you be trying to achieve with this? What is the goal of your policy? What are the benefits this would bring about?
It certainly isn’t about integration by the sound of it.
“it would err on the side of generosity and permit the offspring of such unions to remain if they wished to. As of course would you and your wife”
That’s jolly nice of you.
You’d let my family stay if we insisted on doing so? Even if this is not really a good outcome for you. Thankyou.
“Yes, predictably, we always end up chasing down this particular rathole. I don’t think there is any value in being mulishly absolutist about it. After all, even officer candidates for the SS only had to show pure Aryan descent back to the fifth generation, and the Nuremberg Laws only considered Jewishness back to the grandparents”
So – again – what are you trying to achieve with the “pure blood” policy?
“There were a considerable number of Africans present in late 18C London, but there was little physical evidence of their presence in the general population only a century later. The bottom line is that once the inflow is staunched, the problem is self-correcting over time”
So – the problem is those damn people whose skin is not white. Is that it? Why not go the whole hog and make sure that people’s exact shade of skin matches your preferences?
“I think you are conflating ethnicity and nationality, something that you chastise me for doing below”
No.
Ethnicity refers to your ethnic background, and is a quite seperate concept to nationality in most places (other than the “pure” UK that seems like your ultimate goal).
“I don’t think you have much cause for concern. These days few countries base their citizenship law on jus sanguinis, even Germany caved in a few years ago under EU pressure to ‘harmonise’.
It sounds like that is what you are saying.
If the policies you espouse are to make any difference, citizenship to all who do not have pure British blood would need to be revoked.
“All the more then to be very choosy about who is permitted to enter in the first place, right?”
And what are your criteria?
Is it someone measuring the tone of your skin tone against a chart to check if you are white enough to pass for “indigenous”?
It seems a strange basis for an immigration policy – you would let unskilled and idle Dutchmen who want to claim benefits in, but would deny entry to Indian doctors.
@ sevillista
Having been caught out as a liar you then moved into exactly what I predicted. (and of course no apology or recognition of your lie.)
When you thought your were getting away with it, you slipped in your claim “I am sure most asylum seekers arrive by air” and when I bothered to spend just 2 minutes looking into it and showed that it wasn’t so you then “change the goalposts” and claim you didn’t mean to say that at all!
What a load of shite.
As is the rest of your gibberish.
As clearly demonstrated 3 out of the top 5 groups claiming asylum (and there is a damn sight more then the 3000 Afghanis you put forward) CANNOT have come here other then passing through a safe country and so are bogus. The British people didn’t start any wars, they were wholly opposed to it and we have no obligations whatsoever on the basis of the actions of a corrupt lying socialist government who has also deliberately engineered the demographics of the UK to rub “the rights nose in diversity” and gerrymander.
The figures I gave in the previous thread show that the ONS and Home Office detected 47,000 illegal entries in 2001 and the figures since seem to average out around 15,000 detected illegal entries. Compare those figures with the numbers claiming asylum.
Take them, and have a look at photos like this one in Sangatte:
http://infidelsunite.typepad.com/.a/6a0111685b4b71970c0120a5f31467970c-800wi
And the methods of entry:
http://www.noborder.org/textimages/sangatte.jpg
And tell me just how fucking stupid you really think we all are?
(That is the normal British people who are not ideologically indoctrinated into the bizarre and insane world of the lying diversity brigade.)
That is how the vast majority are coming into the UK: Illegally, having travelled through many different countries and often having paid a fair sum to gangsters.
The majority of ordinary Britons know this to be the case despite the desperate attempts to tell us it isn’t so.
And that’s why you don’t want to talk about visas for the rest of the countries that could fly direct to the UK and claim asylum: Because you know they would have to lie through their back teeth to gain entry.
The asylum convention and law was designed for applicant to take it to the first safe country and in most cases that would countries bordering them so lets not cry about how ‘unfair’ it is that they just cannot get to the UK legally. They are not supposed to.
Like I have said, if and when Western Europe erupts in civil war and oppressive regimes, then the UK will have to honour its international obligations and take in genuine asylum seekers just in the same way as these other countries else where are now honouring their international obligations.
-
@ sevillista
**“only “ethnically pure British” (which is a weird concept in itself given the history of the UK and the mixed ethnic backgrounds we came from even before post-war immigration”**
Ah, there it is!
That disgusting and highly offensive “mongrel” race lie. No delusional socialist / Liberal rant is complete without it.
The nasty politically motivated lie has been thoroughly exposed by the research of an eminent genetics expert, Bryan Sykes who is a Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Wolfson College; Professor Sykes published the finding of his decade long study in the 2006 book Blood of the Isles:
* The genetic makeup of Britain and Ireland is overwhelmingly what it has been since the Neolithic period, and to a very considerable extent since the Mesolithic period, especially in the female line.
* The contribution of the Celts of continental Europe to the genetic makeup of Britain and Ireland was minimal.
* The Picts were not a separate people: the genetic makeup of the formerly Pictish areas of Scotland shows no significant differences from the general profile of the rest of Britain.
* The Anglo-Saxons made a substantial contribution to the genetic makeup of England, but in Sykes’s opinion it was under 20 percent of the total, even in southern England.
* The Vikings (Danes and Norwegians) also made a substantial contribution, which is concentrated in central, northern, and eastern England – the territories of the ancient Danelaw. There is a very heavy Viking contribution in the Orkney and Shetland Islands, in the vicinity of 40 percent. Women as well as men contributed substantially in all these areas, showing that the Vikings engaged in large-scale settlement.
* The Norman contribution was extremely small, on the order of 2 percent.
* There are only sparse traces of the Roman occupation, almost all in southern England.
* In spite of all these later contributions, the genetic makeup of the British Isles remains overwhelmingly what it was in the Neolithic: a mixture of the first Mesolithic inhabitants with Neolithic settlers who came by sea from Iberia and ultimately from the eastern Mediterranean.
This is the same Professor Sykes who studied ‘Chedder Man’ and had some very interesting findings there too:
“In 1996, Bryan Sykes of Oxford University first sequenced the mitochondrial DNA of Cheddar Man, with DNA extracted from one of Cheddar Man’s molars. Cheddar Man was determined to have belonged to Haplogroup U5a, a branch of mitochondrial haplogroup U. U5a, the specific haplogroup of Cheddar Man, is known to be the oldest truly modern human (not Neanderthal) mtDNA haplogroup in Europe…
As a means of connecting Cheddar Man to the living residents of Cheddar village, he compared mitochondrial DNA taken from twenty living residents of the village to that extracted from Cheddar Man’s molar. It produced two exact matches and one match with a single mutation. The two exact matches were schoolchildren… The close match was a history teacher named Adrian Targett.
Sykes argued that this modern connection to Cheddar Man (who died at least three thousand years before agriculture began in Britain) makes credible the theory that modern-day Britons are not all descended from Middle Eastern migratory farmers…”
But what you fail to point out is that, if memory serves me correctly, the evidence you cite looks at mitochondrial DNA.
This is the DNA passed on down the maternal line.
When the various invading groups swept through this country they tended not to bring women with them – all they want to do is window pillage and they really get in the way of all the rape.
Once the men folk had arrived they set up with the local women and hey presto, if you’re only looking at mitochondrial DNA the population looks a lot less diverse than it is.
We’re all mongrels in a way, but in a much more significant way we are all one race. So as academically interesting as the study of DNA and migration is, its not much of a guide to policy.
@curious
How can I argue with someone who consistently ignores the facts?
“As clearly demonstrated 3 out of the top 5 groups claiming asylum (and there is a damn sight more then the 3000 Afghanis you put forward) CANNOT have come here other then passing through a safe country and so are bogus.”
1. On what basis are you claiming only the top 5 groups matters? There are another 13,000 asylum seekers from other countries. It makes as much sense as looking only at countries that begin with A – it is an irrational way of filtering the statistics.
2. My figure of 3,505 Afghani asylum seekers (not 3,000 – do you struggle to read?) comes from “Control of Immigration Statistics, United Kingdom, Home Office, 2008″. You can find it http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration-asylum-stats.html. Table 2a reveals that, in 2008, there were 3,505 Afghanis who applied for asylum in the UK.
“The British people didn’t start any wars, they were wholly opposed to it and we have no obligations whatsoever on the basis of the actions of a corrupt lying socialist government”
The British people were not opposed to war with Afghanistan, which was considered a justified and correct response to 9/11. Neither were they opposed to war with Iraq when we first invaded. And, if you remember, the US government who are leading both wars were not socialist on invasion, the Tories voted enthusiastically for both wars, and to describe the current Labour government as “socialist” is laughable – we should be so lucky.
But all that is irrelevant to our moral duty. The UK state has a responsibility to clear up the mess we created by engaging in war.
” who has also deliberately engineered the demographics of the UK to rub “the rights nose in diversity” and gerrymander”
Right.
I’ll take the “gerrymander” point first. Labour’s cunning plot is, I think, rather foiled by the fact that foreign nationals are unable to vote in general or local elections. Doh!
And on what evidence are you saying that the key reason for the Government’s immigration policy is to “rub the rights nose in diversity”? Really? Are you seriously suggesting that while demanding your argument is taken seriously and not the ramblings of a nutcase?
“The figures I gave in the previous thread show that the ONS and Home Office detected 47,000 illegal entries in 2001 and the figures since seem to average out around 15,000 detected illegal entries. Compare those figures with the numbers claiming asylum”
The figures you cite come from MigrationWatch http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/9_3_PresentFutureScaleofImmigration.pdf
The reference to the figure you cite is “White Paper para 5.3″. It’s a fairly vague reference, and not one that is really checkable until you give me more to go on. At the moment, all it is is just some stat in an anti-migration pressure group document that is unverified. Can you show me where the source of the stat is?
“Take them, and have a look at photos like this one in Sangatte”
A photo of 12 people taken in France holding a banner saying “we want asylum in Europe where we can get our human rights but we don’t want to go home even if we die here”. They all look fairly unhappy
What is the point you are trying to make with the photo? That there are 11 people somewhere in France trying to claim asylum?
“And the methods of entry”
Two dozen people running across a railway line – again I guess in France. What point are you trying to prove?
“And tell me just how fucking stupid you really think we all are?”
Well, I’m not certainly “fucking stupid” enough to say:
* There’s a photo of 11 people in France are holding a banner saying they want asylum in the EU
* There’s also a photo of a couple of dozen people running across a railway line in France
* Therefore, every single asylum seeker to the UK sneaks over the border from France
It sounds to me like you are.
Surely if you were interested in controlling immigration to this country, you would be interested in getting the best facts on how they get into the country rather than basing it on a “gut feeling”. I know trying to make up statistics and use anecdote to try and demonstrate “all asylum seekers are bogus” must be an attractive goal for you, but your argument simply is not supported by facts.
For example, you would say people arriving by air is unimportant and “surreal nonsense”. I have shown that a) At least 12,000 asylum seekers arrived by air in 2000/01; b) The UK has direct flights with the countries from which 59% of asylum seekers come; c) We give tens of thousands of visas each year to citizens from countries where asylum seekers come from.
“That is the normal British people who are not ideologically indoctrinated into the bizarre and insane world of the lying diversity brigade”
LOL.
It seems like you are ideologically indoctrinated, as you cannot accept that the facts point to many asylum seekers fly directly to the UK by air, and so cannot be thought of as “bogus” as you would hope.
What have I said that is “bizarre and insane”? I am merely pointing out the facts.
And is the “diversity brigade” like the “fire brigade”, trying to put out the flames of diversity where it arises? Surely that makes you a member? How can you join?
“That is how the vast majority are coming into the UK: Illegally, having travelled through many different countries and often having paid a fair sum to gangsters.”
How many more times – this is an assertion. If you keep asserting it it does not make it true.
You have no statistics supporting your assertion that “the vast majority” are coming in through many different countries. I could equally assert “the vast majority” are coming in by air. 59% of asylum seekers certainly have the opportunity to do so if they can get a visa or false papers – and if I was an asylum seeker I’d certainly prefer a seat of my own on a plane to a cramped journey stuffed with dozens of others in the back of a lorry risking death.
“And that’s why you don’t want to talk about visas for the rest of the countries that could fly direct to the UK and claim asylum”
No. I’d love to talk about it. Which is why I provided you with some statistics about this topic in my last post. You must have missed them, so I’ll post them one more time.
- – - – - – — – - – - – - — – - — – - – - – — – - – - – - — – - — – - – - – — – - – - – - — – - -
For example, to take your top 5 countries-of-origin of asylum seekers (they’re the only ones that count in Curious world it seems), table 1a of the 2008 Home Office Control of Immigration Statistics http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration-asylum-stats.html show that:
Afghanistan – 12,000 Afghans admitted (compared to 3,505 claiming asylum)
Zimbabwe – 35,700 Zimbabweans admitted (compared to 3,165 claiming asylum)
Iran – 59,200 Iranians admitted (compared to 2,270 claiming asylum)
Eritrea – No data on Eritreans unfortunately – they are subsumed in 70,200 from “other Africa”
Iraq – 12,200 Iraqis admitted (compared to 1,850 claiming asylum)
Looks like it is quite possible to get a visa from these countries to the UK to me.
- – - — – - – - – - – - – - – — – - – - – - – - – - – — – - – - – - – - – - -
Now, the ball is back in your court to prove that none of these people who legally entered the UK applied for asylum after arriving here
I fear you’ll just be back for another rant ignoring these facts and questions, if you’re previous form is anything to go from, as you are constrained through your idelological need to “prove” that every asylum seeker is bogus by definition, and so are unable to engage with the facts, which disprove your ideological standpoint.
@curious
“That disgusting and highly offensive “mongrel” race lie. No delusional socialist / Liberal rant is complete without it.”
If you mean “ethnically pure” in the sense that “I can trace my parents, my 4 grandparents, my 8 great-grandparents, my 16 great-great-grandparents, my 32 great-great-great grandparents, my 64 great-great-great-great grandparents, my 128 great-great-great-great-great grandparents and so on back to the Neolithic Age, and they were all 100% English, then no-one in England is ethnically pure.
I’m sure that even if you stopped at great-grandparents, a huge chunk of English people who appear “white English” on the outside are actually an evil, festering nightmare of diversity within.
Take the Queen for example. Her great-great-grandfather was German (Albert), and her great-great-grandmother (Victoria) was also really German.
It’s amusing that the Queen would not pass your test of being “ethnically English”.
@curious
One more thing – what is your ideal endpoint if you were put in charge of immigration/ethnicity policy (through a coup, as it is clear that only a tiny minority agree with your thinking).
How much immigration? From where?
What about people who are currently legally English but who come from immigrant stock (say they had an Indian parent or grandparent)? What is your definition of ethnic purity?
What policies will you put in place to achieve your goals?
To my mind you would need North Korea style restrictions on travel and trade, and strong political police to ensure deviants who think diversity is a good thing are crushed to prevent this sentiment from spreading.
You would also need a mechanism to get rid of all who are not “ethnically pure”. How do you determine this? What do you those who are not “pure” but refuse to leave? What do you do with those who you cannot find another country to deport them to as they are legally English?
Hopefully you’ll answer me, but I’m not holding
my breath.
@Left Outside
“We’re all mongrels in a way …”
It is a fact that the Y-DNA profile of the population of the British Isles is more varied than the Mt-DNA profile (i.e. more haplotypes are represented), but that does not mean that there are no recognisable Y-haplotypes that are representative of the indigenous population.
The oldest Y-haplogroup present in the British population is I1/I2b which was contributed by the earliest settlers who arrived during the upper Paleolithic and the Mesolithic. During the late Neolithic R1b arrived from the Continent, a flow which continued for several thousand years and included the Celts (and also many of the Germanic migrants from NW Europe). R1b with its numerous subclades is the predominant Y-DNA haplogroup in the British population, as it is in every other European countrywest of the Oder. The final major influx was from Scandinavia in the 9th and 10th centuries and this is represented by R1a.
Apart from small numbers of Jews who arrived during the 19th and early 20th century the genetic profile of the population of the British Isles remained essentially unaltered for over a thousand years until the very recent past.
But even today it is certainly feasible to determine whether someone is or is not an indigenous Briton through a combination of genealogy and genetic testing (Y- and Mt-DNA). Lefties don’t like to hear it, but Nick Griffin is correct – there is an indigenous population in Britain even though the Labour government refuses to acknowledge that fact for ideological reasons.
@Sevillista
“I’ll take the “gerrymander” point first. Labour’s cunning plot is, I think, rather foiled by the fact that foreign nationals are unable to vote in general or local elections. Doh!”
I’m unsure whther CF is intending to respond to this but I’ll risk sticking an oar in anyway.
What you claim is incorrect.
Commonwealth citizens resident in Britain can vote in all elections. Somewhere between 1 and 1.5 million people have that right, considerably in excess of the 800,000 votes by which Labour won the popular vote in 2005.
@Sevillista
“I’m curious as to what your policy prescription would be. I won’t take offence, honest.”
Very well, here it is then
1. An immediate, total and permanent prohibition on all immigration from outside the Eurosphere
2. Detection, apprehension and, where possible, immediate deportation of all illegal aliens as well as foreign criminals now in British jails, Where deportation is infeasible illegal aliens will be accommodated in detention camps in remote areas, under armed guard.
3. Immediate repeal of the Race Relations and Human Rights Act, as well as other legislation which has been amended for racial purposes, such as the Public Order and Criminal Justice Acts.
4. Immediate dissolution of all race-related quangos, including the EHRC and the total prohibition on any expenditure of public funds for diversity and equality initiatives.
5. Removal of all ethnic recruitment quotas in the public sector
6. The reservation of all public sector job openings for persons of indigenous British stock.
7. Priority for social housing to be given to persons of British stock.
8. Immediate cessation of payments of state benefits to non-citizens.
9. Restriction of citizenship to persons of British stock.
10. A full and properly funded implementation of the provisions for voluntary repatriation as set out in the Immigration Act of 1971.
@ Left Outside
I love it! You just can’t let your hateful little fantasises go even when faced with the clear evidence of an eminent expert, you still have to put your twisted and erroneous spin on the facts.
Just the random matches to an at least 3000 year skeleton in the local area pretty sealed the deal anyhow on top of all of the evidence, but the book explains in much more depth and Dan Dare expands on it above too.
@ sevillista
The more your lies get exposed the longer and angrier the return rant, though it is mostly just regurgitated lies. And all just as nonsensical as your last exposed lie that your were “sure most asylum seekers arrive by air.” Your favourite tactic of attributing bogus quotes to your opponent is equally as dishonest and indicative of a false premise.
I gave you the figures of just how many have been detected to have entered illegally alone without the estimates of the real figure, and all the sourcing is perfectly clear; and those pictures represent this fact:
“Before Sangatte, which acted as a staging post for illegal immigrants and an organising point for people traffickers, shut, an estimated 60,000 immigrants crossed the Channel into Kent.”
And that is just one camp and one illegal entry route so I say again: How fucking stupid do you really think we all are?
Over all the facts the best you can come up with is that some of them manage to obtain “a visa or false papers” and fly here to ‘claim asylum’ both of which are criminal acts considering both are fraudulent and again demonstrates that they are not genuine asylum seekers seeking refugee but illegal economic migrants using and abusing laws and conventions designed to protect genuine people.
They are demeaning those laws. They should have claimed in the first safe bordering country. That is the truth of it.
As for the rest of your bilge, the scientific evidence is clear: Britain has an indigenous population whether you hate merchants like it or not; and it is also a very easy process to test for it too.
But I think Dan Dare has already adequately supplemented the facts I have already put forward on this and has adequately answered your rubbish about foreign citizens not being able to vote too; but I was referring more to the ones that Labour has brought in en masse and bestowed British citizenship on even if they cant speak English and couldn’t point out where they are on a map.
And as for the “rub the Right’s nose in diversity” revelation and your latest hysterical lie / rant of “are you seriously suggesting that while demanding your argument is taken seriously and not the ramblings of a nutcase?” well I am afraid not even your diversity celebrating buddies could have failed to heard the massive coverage on that hot potato:
“Labour ministers deliberately encouraged mass immigration to diversify Britain over the past decade, a former Downing Street adviser has claimed.
Andrew Neather said the mass influx of migrant workers seen in recent years was not the result of a mistake or miscalculation but rather a policy the party preferred not to reveal to its core voters…
“Mass migration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural,” he wrote in in the London Evening Standard.
“I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if it wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”
I said it before and I’ll say it again: You really are a bare faced liar and how fucking stupid do you really think we all are?
I keep tearing your rubbish apart every time I bother to take two minutes to look at it.
[69] I have found your comments illuminating but I fear your prescription, which by the way, I suspect would have widespread public support, is doomed to failure.
The two broad principles that mitigate against such isolationism, as I mentioned before are globalisation, or internationalisation, and technology.
You asked me earlier what I meant by ‘the game’ [50] – well, it is something to do with getting the best out of the skills and different perspectives that arise from the melting pot effect of multiculturalism.
Let’s take just on organisation, the NHS, just think how disasterous it would be if Filipino, Nigerian or Antipodean nurses were removed from the workforce (shudders).
The best nurse I ever worked with was a Filipino – she was tiny but could flip a 15stone stroke victim like a burger – honestly, she virtually re-wrote the basic rules of ergonomics.
“The more your lies get exposed the longer and angrier the return rant”
What exactly have you exposed. You have addressed none of the points are made.
And it seems like only one of us in this debate is ranting – and it’s not me.
“I keep tearing your rubbish apart every time I bother to take two minutes to look at it”
The problem with this post is you did not answer any single point I raised in my previous post.
All you have done is state that it is “regurgitated lies”, “nonsensical”, “bilge”, “You really are a bare faced liar and how fucking stupid do you really think we all are”.
You stating this does not make it true. I have based my post on published facts that I have linked to and you are able to check. You deny the facts (e.g. 3,505 Afghan asylum seekers).
Your case is entirely based on “look at this refugee camp in France” and some data from an anti-migration lobby group that is exceedingly poorly referenced and cannot be checked (forgive me, but I am not taking MigrationWatch on trust without seeing the raw data this comes from).
Now – if you would like to return to post 64 and explain why the sourced data I have is wrong, I would be grateful.
Would you, DanDare, Curious Freedom, other less vocal anti-immigrationists, be opposed to applying the same standards to those born in this country whose line has not contributed to this country for a generation?
Basically, if your parents have never worked, then you lose the right to citizenship, benefits, housing, and the like, until you’ve made a minimum contribution to National Insurance, or earned points through voluntary work.
Or should the act of being born in this country confer inalienable rights to an individual regardless of the quality of their heritage?
You are a waste of my time and everyone else’s. You do not concede error even when it is shoved in front of your nose.
I have answered all questions that were relevant and ignored the ones that you decided to ask to me by way of your favourite tactic of assigning quotes to me that I have actually said.
All the figures are clearly sourced; it is just that you are extremely dishonest.
You tried to get away with saying that most asylum seekers get here direct by plane (and many by non-stop boat rides!!!) and when that was challenged you denied you said it and when it was proved you did you lied again.
The ordinary British people know that the asylum conventions and law were never designed to be abused in this manner and that it is a purely political construct that they are.
We all know that after the 1952 convention despite the world being in the same perilous state as it is now and was up until now, this flood of asylum seekers didn’t come until recently because it just simply wouldn’t have been tolerated.
We all know about the massive people smuggling operations into the UK and about camps like Sangette and the methods used to gain illegal entry and we all know that the majority of asylum seekers have shown complete contempt for the very law and convention they use to claim asylum by not doing it in the first safe country to border them and have more often then not passed through several, making them bogus.
When I say we, I refer to ordinary Britons, remember, not the ideologically indoctrinated or the vested interests.
Above @ sevillista
@DHP (#73)
I view the two issues – demographic transformation and decadence amongst the indigenous population – as being two entirely separate issues that have at root a common cause: the misguided universalist egalitarianism that is a central characteristic of cultural marxism.
@curious
“I have answered all questions that were relevant”
Right. Any sourced fact you disagree with that conflicts with your assertion that every asylum seeker is bogus is not relevant. I see. Facts that disprove what you say = facts that aren’t relevant. What incisive argument.
You cannot provide me with a source from official data for your 47,000 stat you keep proudly waving about. It comes from anti-immigration think tank Migration Watch, and their source is “White Paper 5.3″ which means sod all to me. How can I check what you say?
And you claim the existence of photographs of asylum seekers WHO ARE IN FRANCE proves your point that every asylum seekers comes over the border from France?
You ignore the stats that show that half of asylum seekers for whom we know their means of entry come via air.
You ignore that stats that show that 59% of asylum seekers at least have the opportunity to fly directly to the UK if they can legally or illegally obtain the relevant papers to enter the UK.
You ignore that stats that show that the number of citizens from countries where asylum seekers come from issued with visas allowing legal entry to the UK far exceed the numbers who claim asylum, leaving the possibility that most asylum seekers entered the UK legally open.
“All the figures are clearly sourced; it is just that you are extremely dishonest”
You use a statistic (which you use as your trump card that apparently proves all the official stats I show to be false) that 47,000 people entered illegally in 2000/01 which you source from anti-immigration think-tank Migration Watch. They (and you) claim that it comes from official sources, yet you both seem reticent to give a reference to exactly what this official source is. How can I check this out without a reference? MigrationWatch and yourself have clear incentives to be dishonest about the statistic and what it means, and I hope you would understand why I need a verifiable source to the original data.
“You tried to get away with saying that most asylum seekers get here direct by plane (and many by non-stop boat rides!!!) and when that was challenged you denied you said it and when it was proved you did you lied again.”
Prove that most asylum seekers do not get here by plane. You just can’t do it.
I have proved that, in theory, most asylum seekers could get here by plane. Pictures of refugees in France do not disprove this theory. Maybe if it could convince you I could provide pictures of asylum seekers being detained at UK airports, if that’s the standard of proof you need?
I think the reason you don’t answer these questions is you know that you are unable to engage with the facts as to do so would be to admit that, yes, most asylum seekers come directly by plane and so may not be bogus, even accepting your definition of “bogus” (everyone who crosses more than 1 border).
I meant “most asylum seekers COULD come by plane” in the last para – I tried to italicise and it vanished….
@71
“The two broad principles that mitigate against such isolationism, as I mentioned before are globalisation, or internationalisation, and technology. “
It’s curious how such principles only ever seem to apply in western liberal democracies, and not in other advance societies such as Japan and the other Asian tiger economies.
Have you read Christian Joppke’s classic paper “Why liberal states accept unwanted immigration”? It should be required reading before participation in debates like this one.
“You asked me earlier what I meant by ‘the game’ [50] – well, it is something to do with getting the best out of the skills and different perspectives that arise from the melting pot effect of multiculturalism.”
What is the empirical evidence for the benefits of the ‘melting pot effect of multiculturalism’? Please don’t cite Silicon Valley, I lived and worked there for almost twenty years and know first hand that it wasn’t built by immigrants. I think like many people you are confusing identity-diversity (based on personal characteristics such as race, gender, sexual orientation) etc, with cognitive diversity (based on identifiable skills that are relevant to solving the actual problem at hand). I recommend you to read Scott Page’s “The Difference” if unclear on the distinction between the two.
“Let’s take just on organisation, the NHS, just think how disasterous it would be if Filipino, Nigerian or Antipodean nurses were removed from the workforce (shudders).”
A more apposite question might be: How is it that a developed country like Britain has, uniquely within Europe, come to depend upon third-world migrants to staff its health service?
misguided universalist egalitarianism that is a central characteristic of cultural marxism.
Garsh! lookidem fancy words!
But breaking it down, basically you’re saying that treating everyone morally as equals is a bad thing, right?
I mean, we could get all advanced Benthamism about it, whereas the prime aim of morality should be to reduce suffering to its lowest point before advancing a single luxury, but that’s just fudging the issue.
Your boundaries as to what constitutes “Us” seems to suffer from a woolly chimera of land boundaries, the land claimed by the Hamburgian Saxe Coburgs, including parts of Ireland, Gibraltar and the Falklands (but not the rest of Europe, natch), taxation receipts (but not the Commonwealth) and being somewhat hazy around Hadrian’s Wall.
I put it to you that as, apparently, a shameless libertarian, I couldn’t care less if you die in a fire, regardless of where your ancestors come from – unless you happen to be a fireman attending my own fire who dies trying to rescue me (cause that would suck).
[79] ‘How is it that a developed country like Britain has, uniquely within Europe, come to depend upon third-world migrants to staff its health service?’.
Is this claim really true – I would imagine both France and Germany (to cite just two countries) have very significant numbers of Africans, or Turks for example working in their system?
I must admit I have found your comments both interesting, and very well put, but probably 20 or 30 years too late?
I am willing to accept that the UK is in a fairly unique position compared to our European neighbours when it comes to immigration (although it may not be, I’m really not sure) but surely the best thing to do is the deal cards we have been dealt rather than trying to turn the clock back to Enoch’s days?
Has nothing posted by Unity influenced YOUR overall outlook?
… basically you’re saying that treating everyone morally as equals is a bad thing, right?
No what I am saying that the indigenous underclass is a separate phenomenon to the imported one, and calls for a different solution. But that said, I do feel a greater responsibility to members of my extended kith and kin than I do for people from the other side of the world with whom I share no ancestral connection. Well, maybe a very remote one, 50,000 years ago in Africa.
@ sevillista
Click on the link and read the source for yourself you boring dishonest fucking time thief; it is their in black and white for fucks sake.
I haven’t answered your contrived and made up shit directed at me such as how I would get “rid of all who are not “ethnically pure” because once more it is pure invention by yourself complete with your favourite made up quotes too. It has nothing to do with me or reality.
I haven’t answered your questions about what I would do with immigration because it is irrelevant, unless you agree that asylum seekers ARE just another source of immigration; and in any case I have repeated time and time again my remedy to that issue.
You even end on your mindlessly repeated obvious fucking lie “yes, most asylum seekers come directly by plane and so may not be bogus” and then make up another obvious fucking lie when you spot it and realise that has been exploded by claiming you tried to italicise a word and it failed!
Like I keep saying: How fucking stupid do you think we all are?
@curious
“Click on the link and read the source for yourself you boring dishonest fucking time thief; it is their in black and white for fucks sake.”
How many more times?
I have clicked on your link. It is to a document from anti-immigration pressure group MigrationWatch. They claim the data is from an official source, yet only reference the data as “White Paper 5.3″. I cannot verify it – it is a useless reference.
Your continual failure to provide a source leads me to believe that it is not, as you claim, official Home Office/ONS data, but a lie printed by an anti-immigration think-tank with an incentive to lie about such things.
Provide a reference for it, and I will re-consider this standpoint.
“I haven’t answered your contrived and made up shit directed at me such as how I would get “rid of all who are not “ethnically pure” because once more it is pure invention by yourself complete with your favourite made up quotes too. It has nothing to do with me or reality.”
Right.
So all people who are not of English ethnic origin to stay in the UK then. That’s good to here. All you want to do is close the door to new immigration.
“I haven’t answered your questions about what I would do with immigration because it is irrelevant”
It is relevant. Maybe you are embarassed about it or think it would detract from your arguments.
I prefer the approach of DanDare, who is at least honest about what he wants, even if I fundamentally disagree with him on every point.
“You even end on your mindlessly repeated obvious fucking lie “yes, most asylum seekers come directly by plane and so may not be bogus” and then make up another obvious fucking lie when you spot it and realise that has been exploded by claiming you tried to italicise a word and it failed!”
Just because you are unable to find facts to support your assertion that the vast majority of asylum seekers are definitionally bogus as they enter at least one safe country before the UK, and cannot disprove the hypothesis that most arrive by air, you seem to think that saying the word “fucking” a lot and calling me a “liar” is a valid argument. It’s not. It doesn’t hide from anyone reading this that you are unable to respond to the statistics I cite.
All that anger, sheesh.
@81
Although I don’t have comparable stats to hand, I don’t believe it’s the case in either France or Germany for two reasons.
First their health systems are based on a hybrid public-private model rather than a monotithic state enterprise as in the UK. This fragmented structure precludes the kind of centrally-orchestrated global hoovering up of human resources like those that the NHS has conducted in recent years. One such exercise in 2002-3 culminated in the recruitment of 50,000 nurses from the Philippines alone (I got the supporting data following a FoI request).
The second reason is that neither country has anything resembling the work permit system that has been in operation in the UK since 1997. A few years ago Germany did introduce a tentative “It Green Card” scheme but this has been quietly dropped since.
“Has nothing posted by Unity influenced YOUR overall outlook?
Not really, but then I think that proselysation has not been one of Unity’s objectives in preparing this series. Apart from a little minor heartstring-tugging in the last segment on asylum he has tended to focus on the numbers and not the benefits accruing from immigration itself (I discount the students episode since stuents are not immigrants in any real sense).
Perhaps that might come later, we’ll have to wait and see.
@ sevillista
You really are just dishonest flotsam. Beyond the pale with your lies and inventions. A waste of time.
You are really telling me that you couldn’t find the white paper and para 5.3 being referred to?
What use are you to anyone?
But I do like how your own failings give you the confidence to go straight to the bold lies you favour:
“Your continual failure to provide a source leads me to believe that it is not, as you claim, official Home Office/ONS data, but a lie printed by an anti-immigration think-tank with an incentive to lie about such things.”
So stick this up your learn hole and choke on it:
http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/terrorism/library/uksecureborderssafehavens.pdf
**“So all people who are not of English ethnic origin to stay in the UK then. That’s good to here. All you want to do is close the door to new immigration.”**
You see there you go again making up your own fucking story; I didn’t say that either fucknut; I haven’t said fuck all on it at all you lying fucking idiot. Not a fucking word. You lying fucking twat.
And its “hear” in English fucknut, not “here.”
**“It is relevant. Maybe you are embarassed about it or think it would detract from your arguments.”**
This is a thread and a supposedly a debate about asylum seekers, so once again just so that it sinks in through your fat head, if you accept that asylum seekers are really just another stream of immigration then it might be relevant.
**“I prefer the approach of DanDare, who is at least honest about what he wants”**
The word ‘honesty’ would not even have passed muster through your hands if it were not in Words dictionary.
@curious
“You are really telling me that you couldn’t find the white paper and para 5.3 being referred to?”
It’s a vague reference, given that there are thousands of White Papers that have been produced by the Government.
But thanks for finally being able to provide a reference to it, as I can now assess you claims (and as I suspected, they do not say what you asserted):
“5.3 There are no reliable estimates of the scale of organised immigration crime within the UK or EU as a whole. One indication of the scale of the problem is the number of people detected trying to evade border controls. This has risen from 3,300 in 1990 to over 47,000 in 2000– although this partly reflects the increasing effectiveness of the Immigration Service”
So 47,000 people were detected trying to evade border controls in 2000.
My response:
1. 47,000 people were detected trying but failing to evade border controls to enter the UK. There are 47,000 people who were unable to gain access to the UK and who did not claim asylum here.
2. It is possible that many of these were detected in airports. Only 8,725 (see below) of those detected trying to evade border controls were trying to gain entry not as a “passenger” (i.e. hiding in lorries, boats or planes). The remaining 38,275 were trying to gain entry as a passenger and were turned away by border control.
3. Most of this 47,000 were not seeking asylum.”Control of Immigration Statistics 2000 Table 2.1″ on page 15 of http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb1401.pdf shows this. Of 38,275 people recorded in these statistics as “passengers refused leave to enter and removed”, 5,440 were trying to claim asylum. The remaining 8,725 who were detected were trying to gain entry through clandestine means – and I assume all trying to gain asylum.
Above, you suggested (and I will carefully quote you otherwise you might call me a “fucknut” again or something like that – I guess you will regardless though) that “The figures I gave in the previous thread show that the ONS and Home Office detected 47,000 illegal entries in 2001″..
However, looking at the statistics reveal that these people did not enter after all. They were trying – and failing – to gain entry. Do you see the difference between “trying to evade border controls” as the Home Office say, and “detected 47,000 illegal entries”?
“You see there you go again making up your own fucking story; I didn’t say that either fucknut; I haven’t said fuck all on it at all you lying fucking idiot. Not a fucking word. You lying fucking twat. And its “hear” in English fucknut, not “here.”
How can I respond to such an elegant argument? You say “fuck” or a variant of it lots of time so you must be right – the stats are unimportant so long as you say “fuck” enough times right?
I’m annoyed by CuriousFreedom’s posts here, partly because of their bigoted lunacy and cavalier disregard for data, but chiefly because they appear to validate a proposition I’ve strongly opposed in the past “if someone swears a lot in an argument, it’s because they’re a moron with nothing to say”.
“if someone swears a lot in an argument, it’s because they’re a moron with nothing to say”.
I tend to agree. It’s often the case as well that when someone finds that an adversary’s argument is too awkward, disagreeable or simply difficult to counter there is a tendency to resort to sloganeering and the use of terms like ‘racist’, ‘fascist’ or ‘Nazi’ in an attempt to divert or shut down the discourse.
@Dan
“It’s often the case as well that when someone finds that an adversary’s argument is too awkward, disagreeable or simply difficult to counter there is a tendency to resort to sloganeering and the use of terms like ‘racist’, ‘fascist’ or ‘Nazi’ in an attempt to divert or shut down the discourse”
But I have not called CuriousFreedom a “racist”, “fascist” or a “Nazi” in this thread or at any point in my exchanges with him.
But you are right my argument is “awkward” because it is completely right. Based on the statistics we have, it is entirely plausible for most asylum seekers to have arrived here on direct flights, and entirely plausible for most asylum seekers to have arrived in the UK legally.
CuriousFreedom has nothing except 47,000 people (14,165 of whom were asylum seekers) who were prevented from entering the UK in 2000 ,turned back at the border and who were not even able to apply for asylum, a few photos of some asylum seekers in France, and copious use of the word “fuck” on his side.
I don’t doubt that there has been some illegal immigration into the country via the routes he says. But he has no basis at all to assume that it is the “vast majority”. This is only wishful thinking on his part, informed by his desire to be able to call all asylum seekers “bogus” based on his definition of the term.
I think he realises this, hence the delightful language he has expressed himself in in his previous few posts and his need to insult me for continually pointing these inconvenient facts out to him.
[85] “Has nothing posted by Unity influenced YOUR overall outlook? – Not really”.
An obvious question then – given that many of your fears have already been realised (see influx of Filipino nurses, etc) should we;
*revert to an updated form of ‘Powellism’?
http://www.sterlingtimes.co.uk/powell_press.htm
*or seize our pre-eminence as a tolerant and diverse country, a kind of New York vs Iowa, if take an American analogy.
Think how many films are made dealing with the drama of New York (all that is good and bad about the city) now how many films are made about about Des Moines, eh?
For Douglas Clark. I flew into Kuala Lumpur last night. It looks this might end up being one of my favorite cities in the world.
It seems (on the surface at least) to be a successful multi-cultural city.
The Tamil origin taxi drivers I was talking with last night (and were blatantly drinking beer in the street) said it was a good country. And apart from the warning on the plane as we came into land that the death penalty would be carried out on anyone found bringing drugs into the country, it all seems really laid back and easy going.
I’m sure Dan Dare must hate places like this.
On asylum, I’m still not sure how obliged a country is to take everyone from an oppressed minority or group that does have a genuine fear of persecution.
Can asylum cases not be made on a group basis?
For example, the displaced Hutus of Rwanda?
They were clearly the losers in that civil war, and have been stateless and causing all kinds of trouble (and at times themselves have been victims) inside Congo.
Should the EU be obliged to take in anyone from Rwanda or Congo who says they fear for their safety in the region? And that all they should have to do to gain asylum is to be able to prove that they are from one of those countries?
If that seems farcical, I’d say that it wouldn’t be so much worse than the system we have today that encourages lying …… which damages the whole UK asylum system. As without ‘your story’ you really have no case.
So, it seems that nothing the people at a place like the Croydon immigration center hear from would-be refugees can be taken at face value, as ”everyone” lies (or so it might seem if you worked there).
Turkish Kurds have claimed asylum all over Europe. And yet millions of Kurds continue to live in Turkey.
Istanbul and Ankara have sizable Kurdish populations. If things were bad for you in the Kurdish south east, unless you were a wanted PKK supporter or activist, you could just move to a city outside of the Kurdish area. There was no real need to be living in Frankfurt or London as a refugee (perhaps)?
As usual, I’m not really sure.
@ sevillista
My delightful language is down to the fact that you haven’t stopped lying and attributing quotes to me that I haven’t said on just about every subject including “ethnic purity” and then demanding to know my mechanisms to evict the non-pure i.e calling me a Nazi, a racist and all the rest of the shit you now try to deny.
That’s what my colourful language is all about. That you are bare face liar and at time and time again.
That and the fact that you are so desperate to spin your shit to suit your own vested interest that you will create any implausible fantasy to supplement.
You tried to get away with saying that most asylum seekers get here direct by plane (and many by non-stop boat rides!!!) and when that was challenged you denied you said it and when it was proved you did you lied again.
And now you want to play games with figures and spin another dishonest story, as the figures do not show the 47000 people detected trying to evade border controls just in 2000 failed at all; It just shows that they were detected; even the police are trained not to intervene with illegal immigrants as routine but to direct them to the nearest reception facility.
What we do know that in 2000 alone 47,000 people tried to illegally enter the country and that they may have done on the occasion they were detected or they may have done later; the certainly didn’t give up and go home. And those are just the ones we know about.
Over all the facts the best you can come up with is that some of them manage to obtain “a visa or false papers” and fly here to ‘claim asylum’ both of which are criminal acts considering both are fraudulent and again demonstrates that they are not genuine asylum seekers seeking refugee but illegal economic migrants using and abusing laws and conventions designed to protect genuine people.
The ordinary British people know that the asylum conventions and law were never designed to be abused in this manner and that it is a purely political construct that they are.
We all know that after the 1952 convention despite the world being in the same perilous state as it is now and was up until now, this flood of asylum seekers didn’t come until recently because it just simply wouldn’t have been tolerated.
We all know about the massive people smuggling operations into the UK and about camps like Sangette and the methods used to gain illegal entry and we all know that the majority of asylum seekers have shown complete contempt for the very law and convention they use to claim asylum by not doing it in the first safe country to border them and have more often then not passed through several, making them bogus.
When I say we, I refer to ordinary Britons, remember, not the ideologically indoctrinated or the vested interests.
But the main reason I call you a ‘fucknut’ and so on is your lies and your nasty little underhanded bogus quote assigning games.
@ john b
You are annoyed because you do not agree with me and that’s all there is to it; lets no dress up as some sort of noble thing.
Not the supposedly noble expletive thing, because if it was morality based you would have to pull up sevillista on her constant lies and games that sparks such a response and not statistics based otherwise you would be able to point out your issue.
To thine own self be true.
@Damon (#92)
“… I’m sure Dan Dare must hate places like this.”
Yes I do hate KL. It’s hot, sticky, smells of drains and infested by all manner of nasty creepy-crawlies. I’ve had the misfortune to visit literally doens of times on business. There’s nothing to do there except shopping, go to the mosque (or temple) or, for expats, slowly booze yourself to death. It’s dull, dull DULL!
If you get a chance ask your new Tamil pals what they they think about the affirmative-action style privileges enjoyed by the majority Bumis. Or better yet, ask one of the local Chinese. They probably won’t tell you but you can try. Ask them to tell you about the local censorship as well.
There are a couple of redeeming features I suppose. The colonial-era railway station is nice, and some of the food, the beef rendang for example, is quite good. And their immigration system is world-class. Not as good as Singapore’s but pretty effective all the same at keeping out the unwanted and at getting rid of those who sneak in illegally. As you note, there is almost no drugs trade and therefore practically zero drug-related crime.
@ Damon
***“it all seems really laid back and easy going”**
Tell that to the model Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno who is going to be smacked hard six times just for drinking a beer!
the a&e charge nurse [91]“…should we;
*revert to an updated form of ‘Powellism’?
*or seize our pre-eminence as a tolerant and diverse country, a kind of New York vs Iowa, if take an American analogy.”
I expect you’re offering NY as a metaphor for the enriching vibrancy that is said to derive from multiculturalism and diversity, while Iowa stands for boring white-bread conformity, mediocrity and monotony. I suppose that nowadays Inner London and, say, Macclesfield might serve just as well. It’s true that many more films have been set in London and practically none in Macclesfield – the only one which comes to mind is “Control” – but is that really such a key criterion in deciding the sort of society in which you’d prefer to live. Couldn’t one live in placidly-boring Macclesfield and enjoy films about London, taking a vicarious thrill in the many exciting goings-on there without necessarily wanting to be a part of the ‘action’? I’d even labour the point in suggesting there have (probably) been many more films recently about excitingly interesting Iraq than about dull old Switzerland, but in which one would you rather live. Be honest now.
To some extent the answer will vary according to your stage of life and family circumstances. No doubt a younger cohort, or single metrosexuals and seekers after ‘alternative’ lifestyles of any age, might opt for the vibrant enrichment which is said to be a particular characteristic of areas like Hackney, Stepney or Brent. Others, perhaps later in life or with family responsibilties might eschew all that and seek out pastures somewhat less vibrant but reassuringly secure and familiar. If people were anxious to take advantage of the benefits of diversity wouldn’t they be flocking to places like Inner London and abandoning the Macclesfields and Tunbridge Wells’es? If diversity is so appealing why is it necessary to have laws which compel people to embrace it in so many areas of public life?
A conumdrum, it’s.
@Curious
“My delightful language is down to the fact that you haven’t stopped lying and attributing quotes to me that I haven’t said on just about every subject including “ethnic purity” and then demanding to know my mechanisms to evict the non-pure i.e calling me a Nazi, a racist and all the rest of the shit you now try to deny”
For someone who likes to accuse me of attributing to you things you have not said, you try and say that I have been “calling me a Nazi, a racist” when I have not.
Maybe you’d couch your argument (that immigration is bad, as England is for the ethnically English) in a different way. But it amounts to maintaining the ethnic purity. I have not stated that is “Nazi” (where do I accuse you of wanting to put immigrants to death for example?). I have stated you want an ethnically pure land for indigenous Brits.
Statements such as:
* “the scientific evidence is clear: Britain has an indigenous population whether you hate merchants like it or not;”
* “That is the normal British people who are not ideologically indoctrinated into the bizarre and insane world of the lying diversity brigade”
* ” corrupt lying socialist government who has also deliberately engineered the demographics of the UK to rub “the rights nose in diversity” and gerrymander”
Combined with your hostility to all immigrants suggest to me that you think diversity is an inherent bad thing, and that “indigenous” Britains are under attack by us “hate merchants”.
It’s a fair summation that you believe that Britain is for ethnically pure Brits isn’t it? It’s not like this is about population is it – where’s your cries for us to adopt a Chinese-style one-child policy, or that we need stricter controls on internal migration. No – your point is that immigration is definitionally bad.
“suit your own vested interest”
Go on, humour me. What is my “vested interest”?
“create any implausible fantasy to supplement”
Yet this “implausible fantasy” is borne out in the data.
You have proved that several thousand asylum seekers did not enter the UK (even if most of the 47,000 you keep talking about arrived legally), and have helpfully provided a few photos of asylum seekers IN FRANCE to illustrate the point that they did not enter the UK
I have demonstrated that 12,000 asylum seekers applied at airports in 2001. I have demonstrated that 59% of asylum seekers could have flown directly here from their country of origin, and there are plenty of visas issued to folk from these countries to allow the hypothesis that “the vast majority of asylum seekers arrived legally in the country via direct flights” to stand.
“the figures do not show the 47000 people detected trying to evade border controls just in 2000 failed at all; It just shows that they were detected; even the police are trained not to intervene with illegal immigrants as routine but to direct them to the nearest reception facility”
You are wrong. Read the Home Office quote again – note the use of the word “trying”, and look at the raw statistics I cited above that show at least 38,000 of these were turned away and prevented from entering the UK.
“the certainly didn’t give up and go home. And those are just the ones we know about.”
Right. We’re back to the meat of your case, which is speculative, not based in facts and driven by your assertion that the vast majority of asylum seekers are definitionally bogus.
“Over all the facts the best you can come up with is that some of them manage to obtain “a visa or false papers” and fly here to ‘claim asylum’ both of which are criminal acts considering both are fraudulent and again demonstrates that they are not genuine asylum seekers seeking refugee but illegal economic migrants using and abusing laws and conventions designed to protect genuine people.”
Are visas illegal now? I showed that we issue far more visas to nationals of every single country from which asylum seekers originate than there are asylum seekers. They enter legally, and to enter legally as a tourist on a proper visa is not fraudulent or illegal.
I agree false papers are illegal – but my point here is to show that the hypothesis “the vast majority of asylum seekers could have arrived on direct flights” is true and disprove your notion that this is “surreal nonsense”.
“We all know that after the 1952 convention despite the world being in the same perilous state as it is now and was up until now, this flood of asylum seekers didn’t come until recently because it just simply wouldn’t have been tolerated”
You don’t think that the advent of mass cheap air travel is more important? And we were begging for legal immigrants in the 1950s – there was little need for people to claim asylum when they could gain entry legally.
“When I say we, I refer to ordinary Britons, remember, not the ideologically indoctrinated or the vested interests.”
Again with this. How am I “ideologically indoctrinated” for pointing out that it is entirely feasible for most asylum seekers to have arrived by plane? I could make that statement and still share your opinions – and be suggesting that tightening up controls on visas issued to people in third world countries is a better way to go than the small beer of people arriving from France. I’m not – but wanting to use the evidence does not have anything to do with ideology.
“But the main reason I call you a ‘fucknut’ and so on is your lies and your nasty little underhanded bogus quote assigning games”
You appear to be the one lying as you say that there is a cast-iron case based in statistics for your assertion that the vast majority of asylum seekers have passed through other countries on their way here and arrive here from France using clandestine means. There is not, as I have demonstrated.
You cannot provide me with any statistical evidence on the number of people who have gained entry by this route. You can tell me how many people were detected trying to (even if you are multiplying this figure 6-fold when you talk of 47,000 in 2000). And you can make wild claims that every single asylum seekers who is in Sangatte makes there way here eventually. But you have no facts.
I think the main reason for calling me “a fucknut” and all the swearing and insults is you know you have lost the argument on facts and you think that I might be frightened away from pointing this out by the scary man on the internet typing four letter words at me.
Curious Freedom – I just googled the name Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno.
It puts a bit of a dampner on what I’m seeing as I walk about.
But I disagree with Dan Dare (as far as I’ve seen, on this, my second day).
The heat is no bother (to me). The showers (as it’s rainy season) are welcomed.
Creepy-crawlies? What’s the problem, unless you get bitten by one?
I’m going to be in the region for the next couple of months, so I’ll tell you if my opinion changes.
But more seriously, Dan Dare. Your vision for the future is really scary.
You do know that there would be a civil war (and you’d have to win) before any of your fantasies could come about?
As things are ast present, I think you’d lose badly, as I think most Brits wouldn’t be able to stomach the kind of fascism that you promote.
Sending people letters from ”The Ministry of Truth and Justice” (or whatever you might name it), advising people that they may wish to think of opportunities overseas, being that they or members of their family deviated from the ”Anglo-European ideal” (or whatever you’d call it).
My three siblings (who are white Irish) would get a letter or a doorstep visit from your goons I guess, as the three of them have been in marriages and relationships across the colour line.
It would take a hell of a lot to trust people like you (Dan Dare) …. to trust you enough, that yours would only be a ”benign” kind of race hatered, and not the genocidal kind.
And you’d really like all those regular everyday Brits who voted for Leona Lewis to win the X Factor last year, to come to the point where they were saying she didn’t belong in Britain because she had African heritage. (Her father is Guyanese and her mother Welsh).
Do you really want to get ordinary Brits hating that much?
I think you have as much chance, as Eugène Terre’Blanche has of making a comeback in South Africa.
yada yada yada
fascist …race hatred … genocidal … civil war …
Put a sock in it Damon this isn’t the sixth form debating society. If that’s the best you can come up you’ll never convince anyone about the delights of the MultiKulti.
Must try harder.
@ sevillista
I didn’t read a single word of your long winded gibberish having consistently proved to be a compulsive liar, bullshit merchant and underhanded game player.
@Curious
“I didn’t read a single word of your long winded gibberish having consistently proved to be a compulsive liar, bullshit merchant and underhanded game player”
Good to know that you are not even going to attempt to defend your untenable position that can be summarised as (I’m not quoting you directly) ‘photographs of asylum seekers in France, statistics showing that 8,000 asylum seekers tried and failed to sneak into the country in 2000, my assertions based on my ideological position and copious use of the word fuck and insulting people who disagree with me prove that the vast majority of asylum seekers arrived by sneaking in from France’ and your position (again I summarise and don’t quote) that ‘suggesting asylum seekers arrive by plane is surreal nonsense, regardless of what the statistics say’.
You are not interested in the evidence – that much is clear.
@ sevillista
I didn’t read a single word of your latest long winded gibberish having consistently proved to be a compulsive liar, bullshit merchant and underhanded game player, the last comment true to form would have merely been just more lies, bullshit and underhanded game playing.
@curious
That’s great.
It’s been tedious to keep on repeating the statistics on this over and over again for you to ignore while trotting out the same baseless assertions and insulting me for committing the heinous diversity brigade war crime of looking at the statistics instead of making stuff up based on some contrived
nonsense that I’ve read on BNP leaflets or in the Mail.
@ sevillista
Sorry, didn’t read a single word again.
No point; you lie like a cheap watch; consistently assign bogus quotes to me and generally make up anything and everything to suit your warped agenda.
@curious
There’s no point me continuing debating this if your response is to put your fingers in your ears and shout “lalala, I’m not listening”.
I’m not sure you are right that looking at the statistics rather than relying on fact-free prejudices is having a “warped agenda”.
Surely your prejudice-based argument is what’s warped – you would suggest that we need to invest heavily in sealing our borders with France if the state’s goal is to reduce the number of asylum seekers, even if the vast majority of them arrive by plane making this policy ineffective, just to suit your evidence-free preconceptions that all asylum-seekers are definitionally bogus.
Ta-ta.
@ sevillista
Oh dear, sorry; didn’t read a single word again of that long list of, well, no doubt lies.
No point at all you see: You lie like a cheap watch; consistently assign bogus quotes to me and generally make up anything and everything to suit your warped agenda.
Do come again, whilst you are busy here at least you are not practising your hatred somewhere else or shoving shit through someone’s letter box.
Dan Dare. I don’t really get you. You would like to tell people to ‘leave the country’ because of the amount of melanin they have in their skin, but don’t like that to be likened to fascism.
What is the meaning of that word then, if you don’t like it being applied to yourself?
And what’s wrong with mentioning civil war? You know how touchy some people on the left are. I don’t care for Unite Against Fascism myself, but I’m pretty sure those kinds of people would be right up there (with guns) ready to prevent any kind of society that you seem to prefer. (One that knocks on people’s doors and tells them that the wider society deems them as unwelcome aliens because of their racial characteristics).
Sixth form debating society? I think you are obfuscating Dan Dare.
If you advocate apartheid then you should at least accept that it is a kind of fascism, and not be worrying about words. Don’t you like the label ‘fascist’ or something? (I know some people who accept that they are technically fascists).
A former friend of mine (who I still bump into on ocassion and chat with for a few minutes), refers to people who are not white (as they walk past us in the high street) as ”filth”. The thing is, apart from his abhorrent disgusting racism, he’s quite a nice guy.
But I can’t be a real friend of his, because he thinks that some of my family members (and friends) are filth.
He also talks about Jews in the way your website does.
So I’d say Dan Dare … be what you are, and don’t take umbrage if people take exception to your beliefs. And if you are a fascist, say so with pride and don’t be confusing people with awkward semantics.
@ damon
I’ll answer a few points myself.
**“don’t like that to be likened to fascism”**
Never a tenet of fascism actually; in fact the Jews were protected from the Nazis.
**“What is the meaning of that word then”**
Highly contentious as even Mussolini failed to define his own movement beyond ‘the mergence of corporation and state’ but here is one definition from a leading online reference:
“Fascism is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system, and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.
Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state, with the belief that the majority is unsuited to govern itself through democracy and by reaffirming the benefits of inequality. Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement.Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalism and liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept. Fascism fashioned itself as the “Complete opposite of Marxian socialism…” by rejecting the economic and material conception of history, the fundamental belief of fascism being that human beings are motivated by glory and heroism rather than economic motives, in contrast to the worldview of capitalism and socialism.”
The practices sounds more like NuLabour to me and thier twin sisters, the Tories and the LD.
**“I don’t care for Unite Against Fascism myself, but I’m pretty sure those kinds of people would be right up there (with guns) ready to prevent any kind of society that you seem to prefer.”**
Oh don’t make me laugh!
This pathetic cowardly state sponsored political mob might have you impressed as some sort of noble army in standing but in reality they are just a bunch of spoilt, pampered, twisted hysterical misfits who would have been slaughtered at each EDL event if it were not for the police protecting them.
Here are your UAF warriors:
http://img90.imageshack.us/i/37719423.jpg/
If a nationalist party were voted in these freaks would not even merit a second’s consideration.
They wouldn’t last two seconds against Millwall FC let alone the SPG or the Para Regt.
**“If you advocate apartheid”**
I read it more that he was advocating the assertion of the right to survive and to prioritise of the indigenous peoples of the UK; the immigrants and their offspring have places to go, we do not.
**“then you should at least accept that it is a kind of fascism, and not be worrying about words”**
It is nothing of the sort; and why are you ‘worrying about the words’ then?
**“The thing is, apart from his abhorrent disgusting racism, he’s quite a nice guy.”**
The irrelevant equivalent of ‘I have black friends…’
One mans opinion; nothing more, nothing less.
**“And if you are a fascist, say so with pride and don’t be confusing people with awkward semantics.”**
And if you are a cultural Marxist hell bent on destroying Europe and its indigenous peoples you should just say so with pride and don’t be confusing people with awkward semantics about “diversity.”
@curious
“at least you are not practising your hatred somewhere else or shoving shit through someone’s letter box”
Hmm.
86. Curious Freedom 8:30 pm, November 30, 2009 http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/11/27/the-truth-about-immigration-asylum-part-2/#comment-87538
” You see there you go again making up your own fucking story; I didn’t say that either fucknut; I haven’t said fuck all on it at all you lying fucking idiot. Not a fucking word. You lying fucking twat”
http://profantasybaseball.com/uploaded_images/crazy_man_straight_jacket_hg_blk-731234.gif
-
@ sevillista
Oh dear, sorry; didn’t read a single word again of that long list of, well, no doubt lies.
No point at all you see: You lie like a cheap watch; consistently assign bogus quotes to me and generally make up anything and everything to suit your warped agenda.
Do come again, whilst you are busy here at least you are not practising your hatred somewhere else or shoving shit through someone’s letter box.
-
@ sevillista
Well, I am doing the community a service keeping you off the streets for a bit!
Oh dear, sorry; didn’t read a single word again of that long list of, well, no doubt lies.
No point at all you see: You lie like a cheap watch; consistently assign bogus quotes to me and generally make up anything and everything to suit your warped agenda.
Do come again, whilst you are busy here at least you are not practising your hatred somewhere else or shoving shit through someone’s letter box.
-
@ Curious Freedom.
Why do all fascists have to turn out to be bonkers?
It’s a pity as there really are some questions I’d like to ask.
”…. immigrants and their offspring have places to go, we do not.”
So you would be sending letters and knocking on doors trying to seperate out the people who you see as your people and those you see as ”others”?
So while most of my white immigrant Irish family might be deemed OK, my brother married a Jew (well her mother was Jewish anyway – a little brown woman from Morocco). I’d expect that you’d like them and their two childrem to leave the country? To go to Israel or Morocco or somewhere?
I said I didn’t care for UAF, but that people like them would always be around.
And I’m sure that that kind of ”anti fascist” politics would be seen on the streets if ever any of yours or Dan Dare’s kind of politics was to pick up popular support.
That’s not to be molodramatic, I just think it would happen.
And as formidable as ”Millwall FC let alone the SPG or the Para Regt.” might be, I don’t think you could bank on their reliability.
http://www.millwall.vitalfootball.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=38560&posts=8mm
Why do all communists turn out to feel the need to label their political opponents as mentally ill to discredit them? And traditionally, just before murdering them.
It’s a shame that you actually display the signs of dementia that you attribute to me in the rest of your incoherent rambling comment that has no discernable question in any case, or any discernable base in reality.
And I too would like to have asked some questions, such as just how many tens of millions of innocent people do you estimate your cult has murdered over the years?
It’s also rather sad that you clearly spent a lot of time searching for some spurious Millwall thread for what you feel as some sort of, well I don’t know really, vindication I guess, when it was clearly just an analogy and very doubtful that a nationalist government would ever actually call upon Millwall FC to squash a few idiotic pampered hysterics playing at terrorists.
(Although as a life long Millwall fan I can tell you that your hard sought after forum thread does not shed any real light on the feelings of the average fan, by any means at all!)
Just as a last note, Damon, the two other government arms cited are not actually affiliated, merged, subsidiaries or in anyway controlled by Millwall FC.
And I too would like to have asked some questions, such as just how many tens of millions of innocent people do you estimate your cult has murdered over the years?
Hmm, let’s think about that. Have more people been killed over the years by
a) Those seeking to achieve a meritocracy, protect the innocent and poor and remove obstacles between individuals and their aspirations, establishing institutions to encourage collective responsibility for the furtherment of humanity.
or
b) Those who feel no obligation to support the weak, poor, and that somehow their own race is more entitled to ‘rights’ than any other by dint of the colour of their skin and the place of their birth, and that you’ll have to prize a single penny from their cold dead hands before they give up their own selfish aggrandisement.
It’s a tricky one, I’ll tell you that.
I’ll help you out: It’s neither.
The left and their twisted ideology have been the biggest mass murderers the world has ever seen
Estimated to be around “110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987”
Woah! You’re saying everything done by a ‘government’ is now attributable to the left? That’s some fancy footwork.Of course, by sheer dint of numbers I reckon more humans have been killed by non-governmental freelancers pursuing their own enrichment at the expense of others, and the sycophantic enforcers of conquering rex talionis since – ooh, the year 2,000 BC.
@ Donut Hinge Party
You are strange little man who cannot even manage one coherent comment; what is it you are actually trying to convey here and what is your evidence?
Curious Freedom. Why turn to histronics so quickly?
You think that members of my family are tainted by having a Jewish grandparent, or being in an inter-racial relationship. And (for some sick reason) should leave the country. That doesn’t make me a communist in the way you describe.
As for the Millwall thread, it’s one I read quite often. And to be honest, there’s many on that forum that are real scumbags and racists. A few that aren’t, but it’s not exactly what you could call PC
David Haye is (I’m sure) aware that there were fans in the New Den that night after he won the world title, that would consider him like you (Curious Freedom) and Dan Dare, as an abomination. But hopefully those are ideas that will die off in due course with the passing of years.
Whether Haye is a real world champion is open to contention. I have heard it said that it wasn’t a good contest. But his lineage as a fellow south Londoner is second to none. That’s him and his mother.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/09/article-1226081-07220D79000005DC-843_634x412.jpg
@ damon
**“Curious Freedom. Why turn to histronics so quickly?”**
You have got enormous front there fella; asides labelling me a “fascist” you then go on to totally make up your next sentence using the same bogus quote assigning tactics as sevillista, in abstract form:
**“You think that members of my family are tainted by having a Jewish grandparent, or being in an inter-racial relationship. And (for some sick reason) should leave the country. That doesn’t make me a communist in the way you describe.”**
You have pulled that out of your arse and assigned it to me; nowhere have I said that you sick, lying idiot.
A proper dishonest hysterical lefty. Well, I never.
And instead of treating Millwall fans as some of patronising anthropological experiment to be observed via the internet, why not get off your arse, go to some games and actually meet some real fans?
I was brought up around it and I can tell you that average Millwall fan wouldn’t want to share a pint with you and your poisonous attitude and ideology, nor your extreme dishonesty.
You are just another total lying waste of time and not worthy of any engagement.
@damon
I wouldn’t try and argue with the BNP troll. You have no chance of a rational argument.
The thread below is interesting – the troll is being very careful not to express a commitment to any particularly party here (though it is clear it is a deeply unpleasant creature).
Some highlights:
“”that is exactly why as an indigenous English white working class heterosexual male I put my cross in the BNP box”
“nearly half the people in Britain’s capital city and biggest city “belong to groups other than white British” and that the birth rates of these different groups is much higher, that the white British have been effectively ethnically cleansed from just that one city already and will be in a minority very soon”
“I was ethnically cleansed from the East End”
And lots, lots more…
http://profantasybaseball.com/uploaded_images/crazy_man_straight_jacket_hg_blk-731234.gif
@116 “a) Those seeking to achieve a meritocracy, protect the innocent and poor and remove obstacles between individuals and their aspirations, establishing institutions to encourage collective responsibility for the furtherment of humanity.
or
b) Those who feel no obligation to support the weak, poor, and that somehow their own race is more entitled to ‘rights’ than any other by dint of the colour of their skin and the place of their birth, and that you’ll have to prize a single penny from their cold dead hands before they give up their own selfish aggrandisement.
It’s a tricky one, I’ll tell you that.”
No it’s not it’s a), by a country mile.
Far more people have been killed in the cause of equality than in any attempt to impose the opposite. The last hundred years alone have seen Stalin, Pol Pot, Amin, Mao and god knows how many dodgy marxist revolutionaries in South America/Africa murder millions.
Why can’t the left understand that “intent” is irrelevant, killing millions trying to impose something “good” is as morally reprehensible as killing millions trying to impose something “bad”.
But all I was trying to do was create a fairer society, your honour …..
@matt
Stalin, Pol Pot, Amin, Mao and god knows how many dodgy marxist revolutionaries in South America/Africa were hardly “seeking to achieve a meritocracy, protect the innocent and poor and remove obstacles between individuals and their aspirations, establishing institutions to encourage collective responsibility for the furtherment of humanity” now were they?
It’s like me trying to claim that Cameron’s moderate right-wing views (a smaller state, more tax concessions to the wealthy, less protection for the poor against big business etc) were wrong by pointing at Pinochet and saying it proves that right-wingers are evil mass murderers.
@ sevillista
Wow, I REALLY AM doing the community a service keeping you off the streets for a bit!
But once again, sorry; didn’t read a single word again of that long list of, well, no doubt lies, bullshit and false flags.
No point at all you see: You lie like a cheap watch; consistently assign bogus quotes to me and generally make up anything and everything to suit your warped agenda.
Do come again, whilst you are busy here at least you are not practicing your hatred somewhere else or shoving shit through someone’s letter box.
Curious Freedom. If you don’t like the word fascist then I’m sorry. I think that people should be allowed to view themselves as they wish. You don’t like that word, then OK. (I’m still a bit upset by being called a bigot on another website over a year ago).
But the dictionary does have to come out at times.
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/jews_lie_about_madoff_swindle/
What’s that? That’s a website that Dan Dare is a member of.
You have to say (don’t you?) that it’s full of hate.
Maybe you’re not as extreme as him, so if not, then perhaps we got our wires crossed a bit. Maybe it was you responding to a post that I had pitched towards Dan Dare.
You don’t think my (white) sister is a slut because her partner is a black man?
Sorry again – you know how these things can become overly personal.
As for football, I ”grew up” on the terraces of a south London football club.
We were once deemed to be (the coming) ”Team of the 80s”
@ damon
Fair enough.
@ 124 – Apart from the meritocracy bit I think you have pretty much quoted the begginers guide to establishing a marxist republic. I totally agree that looking at extreme maifestations of right/left is absurd, but I was responding to a poster who was stating that left is better than right because it’s intentions are more morally defensible, irrespective of the outcomes those intentions can lead to. I was simply pointing out that’s absolute cobblers.
@matt
Please explain how the despots you speak of were ““seeking to… protect the innocent and poor and remove obstacles between individuals and their aspirations, establishing institutions to encourage collective responsibility for the furtherment of humanity”.
It seems they did the opposite to me.
Reactions: Twitter, blogs
- Liberal Conspiracy
:: The Truth about Immigration: Asylum (Part 2) http://bit.ly/8Q6w3A
- Unity
RT @libcon: :: The Truth about Immigration: Asylum (Part 2) http://bit.ly/8Q6w3A – more number crunching on asylum
- maximal is me
@trixl –> RT @libcon: :: The Truth about Immigration: Asylum (Part 2) http://bit.ly/8Q6w3A
- Claire Butler
RT @libcon Liberal Conspiracy » The Truth about Immigration: Asylum (Part 2) http://bit.ly/5PyBWL
- Lee Griffin
More on the truth of Asylum Seekers @liberalconspiracy >>> http://bit.ly/8Q6w3A
- Immigration Tips
Liberal Conspiracy » The Truth about Immigration: Asylum (Part 2): Much of the problem stems, as with other immigr… http://bit.ly/7NG7Lx
- george a rettig
Liberal Conspiracy » The Truth about Immigration: Asylum (Part 2) http://tinyurl.com/yaur7sl
- law
"Liberal Conspiracy » The Truth about Immigration: Asylum (Part 2)" http://tinyurl.com/yaur7sl #immigration
- Leanne Thomas
Liberal Conspiracy » The Truth about Immigration: Asylum (Part 2): … enable some failed applicants to not onl.. http://bit.ly/7NG7Lx
- Tweets that mention Liberal Conspiracy » The Truth about Immigration: Asylum (Part 2) -- Topsy.com
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Liberal Conspiracy, Unity. Unity said: RT @libcon: :: The Truth about Immigration: Asylum (Part 2) http://bit.ly/8Q6w3A – more number crunching on asylum [...]
- uberVU - social comments
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by Unity_MoT: RT @libcon: :: The Truth about Immigration: Asylum (Part 2) http://bit.ly/8Q6w3A – more number crunching on asylum…
- Ryan Bestford
RT @libcon: :: The Truth about Immigration: Asylum (Part 2) http://bit.ly/8Q6w3A
- One of the most wrongheaded posts I have ever read « Left Outside
[...] of all as discussed here, asylum applications are closely correlated with armed conflicts. Labour could – and should [...]
- NCADC
RT @libcon: :: The Truth about Immigration: Asylum (Part 2) http://bit.ly/8Q6w3A
- Megan Redmond
The Truth about Immigration: Asylum (Part 2)
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/11/27/the-truth-about-immigration-asylum-part-2/ - Simon Parker
RT @libcon: :: The Truth about Immigration: Asylum (Part 2) http://bit.ly/8Q6w3A
- Paulo Coimbra
Liberal Conspiracy » The Truth about Immigration: Asylum (Part 2) – http://shar.es/aEWh7
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
» Do older people really need more NHS healthcare?
» There are alternatives to the reckless ‘Plan A’
» On Beecroft: it is already quite easy to sack people
» Why Cameron’s claim of 600,000 jobs created is plainly wrong
» By using age to allocate NHS funding, Lansley rewards Tory voters
» The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem
» Adrian Beecroft highlights mindset of Tory right
» The US is now a model for the Eurozone to save itself
» The IMF plan to revive the economy doesn’t go far enough
» The Boris brand is weaker than his friends think
» Nine things you can do to halt Lansley’s destruction of our NHS
|
17 Comments 69 Comments 21 Comments 45 Comments 10 Comments 24 Comments 22 Comments 69 Comments 44 Comments 25 Comments |
 |
LATEST COMMENTS » Peter Stewert posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » s cullen posted on How Newsnight demonised a single mother » cim posted on On Beecroft: it is already quite easy to sack people » steveb posted on Do older people really need more NHS healthcare? » re posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » Ben2 posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » steveb posted on UKIP higher than Libdems over May » Just Visiting posted on On Beecroft: it is already quite easy to sack people » Just Visiting posted on On Beecroft: it is already quite easy to sack people » Andreas Moser posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » Just Visiting posted on On Beecroft: it is already quite easy to sack people » Trooper Thompson posted on UKIP higher than Libdems over May » Northern Worker posted on There are alternatives to the reckless 'Plan A' » edward mark reid posted on How Newsnight demonised a single mother » Pete posted on The Boris brand is weaker than his friends think |
