NationStates Jolt Archive

So I'm an American, and I'm dissatisfied with my country. In the previous election, I tried my hardest to show the people the evils of George W. Bush's ways, but I failed. They supported him because Americans tend to want to hold on to the old, outdated ways rather than embrace the change that the rest of the world is going through.
I am dissatisfied because of the vehement hatred towards the homosexual. Did the sixties teach us nothing? Just because someone is different doesn't mean they are 'immoral'. I think it's disgusting that good men and women are scorned and reprimanded because they make some housewife in Kansas feel icky.
I am dissatisfied because the people care not for the future of our very race. They choose to get the immediate reward rather than ensure that their descendents are provided for.
I am dissatisfied because the very Constitution, the foundation on which this nation was formed, is being violated by our current society. People are scorned for "unamerican" activity, when such behavior is allowed by the Constitution. The people's privacy is violated by the government in the interest of "safety", and minority groups are viewed with the utmost suspicion. I am not a Communist, though I do not disrespect those beliefs, but I see these hipocrits moving towards a more Communistic society right after "defeating" Communism in the Cold War.
I have given up hope in my country, so I seek assylum in a more elightened nation. I seek to immigrate to the nation of Great Britain. However, I have recently learned that non-citizens must either be employed by a foreign company or demonstrate a skill that no British citizen posesses. This is what concerns me. I do not want to wait for years, living in poverty, while my application for citizenship sits in some office. This is why I come to you, good people of the United Kingdom. I wish to know how long it would usually take a US citizen with no criminal record to immigrate to Britain and, barring that, if it would be possible to defect, seeking political assylum.

Thank you.
Feazanthia/Neo Asrend/Gaia Rodina

why not check out the country with a visum? Gives you about three months to arrange the formalities and to find out wheter the UK is the right place to live.

I guess you'll really appreciate the new laws they have on the plate in the UK. You know, the anti-terror laws. Good luck with even less civil rights than the Patriot Act.

The weather in Great Britain sucks ass and everything is expensive.
Go to Australia instead.

I guess you'll really appreciate the new laws they have on the plate in the UK. You know, the anti-terror laws. Good luck with even less civil rights than the Patriot Act.

erm dont know what the hell youve read about it but i think you'll find that the anti-terror laws are considerably less infringing then the patriot act.

In rsponse to the orginal post:
1) you wont be able to claim asylum. Your not under threat in your own nation.

2) As far as i know none of the requirements you have stated actually exist. It wouldnt take long for you to get intergrated. The main thing is having enough money to sustain yourself untill you get a job. I would advise coming over here a few times to see whether you actually want to come here.

Don't forget that Tony Blair is George Dubya's best friend as well!

erm dont know what the hell youve read about it but i think you'll find that the anti-terror laws are considerably less infringing then the patriot act.


Apparently the writers at the Guardian would not agree with you. Here, it would seem, our Supreme Court has said that we'll have to try even the prisoners at Guantanamo - sorry, we can't hold them forever on no charges.

But there will be no restriction in the UK anymore. They don't have to say anything other than, "you've been arrested under the provisions of..."

and you'll fucking disappear. They don't even have to notify anyone that they have you. Or ever try you. Or ever let you go.

In our last attempt at legislation, we couldn't even get in a provision that said that we would be able to deport suspected terrorists without a hearing. So they'll still get a PUBLIC, not SECRET hearing.

The weather in Great Britain sucks ass and everything is expensive.
Go to Australia instead.

Totally aggree.

Australia:
Weather: Awesome
Economy: Good
People: Laid Back and Curteous
Food: Horrible
Beer: Nasty, but the wine is good and they import good scotch
Snakes: Deadly but calm
Freedom: Good
Government: Decent, though probably not to your particular liking at the moment.
Immigration policy: A Bitch and a half, but worth it.

If I could only convince the wife.

But there will be no restriction in the UK anymore. They don't have to say anything other than, "you've been arrested under the provisions of..."

and you'll fucking disappear. They don't even have to notify anyone that they have you. Or ever try you. Or ever let you go.


/me would like some of what Mr. Gun has been smoking...


Where did you dig up that trash? If a piece of legislation appeared in the Commons to make that sort of thing the law, then it would be blocked by whatever means necessary. The only people who would vote for it would be Blunkett, Blair, and the BNP, and I'm not sure about the last two.

DONT COME HERE! GO TO FRANCE INSTEAD!

now, you may think im being nasty, but no, im saying it for your sake. the UK is becoming more and more like america every day. only a few days ago, there was a national spell-a-thon on the teevee. i couldnt believe it. with georges bestest friend in the whole world at number 10, pennsylvania avenue, im afraid this place is almost as dangerous and sickening as the US. you wont find that there are much more lefty pinkos here than there are where you live, and we have a blood crazed right wing too, in the form of the tabloid press.

so please, save yourself and go to mainland europe.

oh and another reason why you wont be able to come here, theres UKIP (far right anti-black people party) snipers at all the air and sea ports waiting for immigrants.

/me would like some of what Mr. Gun has been smoking...


Where did you dig up that trash? If a piece of legislation appeared in the Commons to make that sort of thing the law, then it would be blocked by whatever means necessary. The only people who would vote for it would be Blunkett, Blair, and the BNP, and I'm not sure about the last two.

Some of it has been law since 2001. Perhaps you slept through it.

From the Guardian:

"Nine men held without charge or trial for almost three years under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, passed after the September 11 atrocities in the US, are seeking to overturn a court of appeal ruling which backed the home secretary's powers to detain them indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism."

Free are we? More free than the US? I don't think so.

I feel like MKULTRA...
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/terrorism.shtml

Some of it has been law since 2001. Perhaps you slept through it.

From the Guardian:

"Nine men held without charge or trial for almost three years under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, passed after the September 11 atrocities in the US, are seeking to overturn a court of appeal ruling which backed the home secretary's powers to detain them indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism."

Free are we? More free than the US? I don't think so.

I'm aware of that law.

They weren't simply told they were under arrest and then detained, and your post said the law would soon be. Their imprisonment under the Act was ruled by a court, not by a government agency or anything clandestine.

We're much more free than U.S. citizens.

I feel like MKULTRA...
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/terrorism.shtml
I feel like Chicken Tonight.

*shudders at the fact I just posted that*

*shudders at the fact I just posted that*
Have a drumstick dude, it makes it all better *munch*

I'm aware of that law.

They weren't simply told they were under arrest and then detained, and your post said the law would soon be. Their imprisonment under the Act was ruled by a court, not by a government agency or anything clandestine.

We're much more free than U.S. citizens.

It was the Home Secretary who ordered them detained. Indefinitely. Without charge. And the court just validated that power. So those guys have effectively disappeared, and now the Home Secretary can do it at will.

Here in the US, the Supreme Court just told the military that they can't do that in Guantanamo, and must hold trials - public ones, with lawyers. So that's more free?

Have a drumstick dude, it makes it all better *munch*

Evidence if evidence were needed that we are becoming more like the US all the time, "dude".

Evidence if evidence were needed that we are becoming more like the US all the time, "dude".

indeed.

Have a drumstick dude, it makes it all better *munch*
*munch* Dude! You're right! My worries are gone.

Evidence if evidence were needed that we are becoming more like the US all the time, "dude".
Eat your chicken.




























Dude.

It was the Home Secretary who ordered them detained. Indefinitely. Without charge. And the court just validated that power. So those guys have effectively disappeared, and now the Home Secretary can do it at will.

When a terrorism suspected is arrested, there is a limit to how long they can be held without charge. If a court can be shown sufficient evidence that they should be detained further for investigation, then the court can allow an extension of the detention.

The link posted by Andaluciae shows some of the ways in which this new law has been ill-checked and even ill-written. Whilst the law provides for measures that most people would find acceptable, there are holes poked in this law and used to detain suspects for inordinate periods of time. These detainees have by no mean 'disappeared', however. They are detained in the same fashion that any other detainee would be under standard criminal law.

I'm a liberal. No one has to convince me that the anti-terror laws are over-repressive. In Britain, however, we are a far cray from people disappearing from public life at the demand of the government. Reports of this have came from America for a long time, however, but are mainly filed by the Right in the 'conspiracy whack-job anti-american commie pinko enemy propaganda' section. We have repressive anti-terror laws, which I disapprove of, but we are still more free than U.S. citizens.

DONT COME HERE! GO TO FRANCE INSTEAD!

now, you may think im being nasty, but no, im saying it for your sake. the UK is becoming more and more like america every day. only a few days ago, there was a national spell-a-thon on the teevee. i couldnt believe it. with georges bestest friend in the whole world at number 10, pennsylvania avenue, im afraid this place is almost as dangerous and sickening as the US. you wont find that there are much more lefty pinkos here than there are where you live, and we have a blood crazed right wing too, in the form of the tabloid press.

so please, save yourself and go to mainland europe.

oh and another reason why you wont be able to come here, theres UKIP (far right anti-black people party) snipers at all the air and sea ports waiting for immigrants.

Why France?? Even worse than Britain..France's goverment live in the past, are subtly racist, the goverment are cowards and would stab in the back under threat of scorn..The food's horrible, too much garlic! It's a nice place, nice scenery etc Nice museums, monumenst places to visit etc..But the goverment are one of the worse in europe (Except Germany's whose economy is just terrible...)

What have you been somking?? The UKIP?? It's a tiny party, it's the Nf which are worse and blatenly racially motivated..Britains has the best civil rights in the world IMO. Much better than america's, frances, Germany's and most of the world..

It was the Home Secretary who ordered them detained. Indefinitely. Without charge. And the court just validated that power. So those guys have effectively disappeared, and now the Home Secretary can do it at will.

Here in the US, the Supreme Court just told the military that they can't do that in Guantanamo, and must hold trials - public ones, with lawyers. So that's more free?

If you hadn't noticed no-one likes David Blunkett because of allegations about giving his ex-money or something! And plus his sexual diaries...Blunkett's not going be around for much longer...

Why France?? Even worse than Britain..France's goverment live in the past, are subtly racist, the goverment are cowards and would stab in the back under threat of scorn..The food's horrible, too much garlic! It's a nice place, nice scenery etc Nice museums, monumenst places to visit etc..But the goverment are one of the worse in europe (Except Germany's whose economy is just terrible...)
France is also full of french people.

I think I need some of that chicken...

I think I need some of that chicken...
*hands MGNY some chicken*

I'm a liberal. No one has to convince me that the anti-terror laws are over-repressive. In Britain, however, we are a far cray from people disappearing from public life at the demand of the government. Reports of this have came from America for a long time, however, but are mainly filed by the Right in the 'conspiracy whack-job anti-american commie pinko enemy propaganda' section. We have repressive anti-terror laws, which I disapprove of, but we are still more free than U.S. citizens.
You mean, the late MKULTRA style stuff?

I know a radical leftist who got pulled over for speeding, but he swears it's because he is against Bush.

But seriously, I am for a more liberal Pat. Act. It's too repressive, and there do need to be reforms. I'm probably not being very coherent right now, so, don't write me off as a retard.

*hands MGNY some chicken*
*munch much*

Hey this is pretty good. How much do you think I'll have to eat until I believe everything my party tells me? And how much until I believe everything the government tells me?

Canada is nice, and closer, and you could probably just slip past the border and get a job tending bar under the table in Banff or something. Our weather is cruddy but the people are super nice and our government has the New Democratic Party (yeah! Socialism). bring mittens though. maybe hockey sticks.

who cares if the American president is cronicaly retarded, at least your country is proud of its history and proud to be what it is.
Britain is contantly trying to dumb it self down so that it can be accepted in Europe all because of the stupid dumbass who we call Primeminister

one last word VOTE TORY

Why France?? Even worse than Britain..France's goverment live in the past, are subtly racist, the goverment are cowards and would stab in the back under threat of scorn..The food's horrible, too much garlic! It's a nice place, nice scenery etc Nice museums, monumenst places to visit etc..But the goverment are one of the worse in europe (Except Germany's whose economy is just terrible...)
France... beautiful language, great nation football side, very interesting history.

What have you been somking?? The UKIP?? It's a tiny party, it's the Nf which are worse and blatenly racially motivated..Britains has the best civil rights in the world IMO. Much better than america's, frances, Germany's and most of the world..
I agree. UKIP are virtually single-issue; keep Britain out of Europe so that we keep our national sovereignty. The BNP and National Front are racists and fascists. Scum. Britain has wonderful civil rights, I couldn't agree more.

The best thing about civil rights in Britain is that we don't have an actual condified piece of legislation defining our rights. Whilst that looks like a bad thing, it means that we can do what we like as long as we aren't breaking the law.

The best thing I remember about Canada is the laid back attitude (well, for the most part).

Anyplace that can put on four simultaneous curling competitions on TV is pretty laid back. Toronto seemed a bit anal, but Ottawa was very nice.

The police in Edmonton are humorless. Don't go there, especially if you're not white. They have a habit of driving people out of town and dropping them off fifty kilometers from the nearest human habitation in the dead of winter.

who cares if the American president is cronicaly retarded, at least your country is proud of its history and proud to be what it is.
Britain is contantly trying to dumb it self down so that it can be accepted in Europe all because of the stupid dumbass who we call Primeminister

one last word VOTE TORY

Hehe :D funny guy.

oh dear to both those people who seemed to take my UKIP quip seriously, it was a humourous invention on my part, ok?

I'd rather not go to France, as I have only rudimentary training in French language and they tend to dislike all Americans (that is, if I choose to believe the increasingly controlled media here in the USA). I like French food, however. Regardless...

So my plan now is to finish college and then apply for citizenship, which I'm assuming requires me to move to the UK. What possible complications might arise from this?

Oh, BTW
I'm a white male of Irish and German descent and Buddhist

Why do Americans infact, the rest of the world have this preconception that the UK has bad weather all the time??

I mean, it rarely rains that badly where i live (Kent) and most of the time it's just cloudy more than rainy =/

Why do Americans infact, the rest of the world have this preconception that the UK has bad weather all the time??

I mean, it rarely rains that badly where i live (Kent) and most of the time it's just cloudy more than rainy =/

Every time I've gone to England, it has rained nearly the entire time.

It reminded me of Pittsburgh, with extra rain. Of course I was looking at Manchester, so maybe that was it.

I'm going to london for two weeks in january to see if i can't find an immigration sponsor and get paperwork and stuff.

Will be there from the 28th of dec to the 10th of jan.

Aussie? Try New Zealand.

Few dangerous animals, people are less psychotic about immigrants (Unless you are an Algerian leader of a party in peaceful opposition to a tyrannical government, but no-boby's perfect) and the hegemonic white European descendant power class are less unpleasant to the indiginous types.

Rugby team is currently #1 in the world! Cricket team not doing so well just now, but American's don't care for either game ... Hey, our basketball team beat the Yankies!

Most important, from the opening post - New Zealand is in he process of passing Civil Union legislation which gives homosexual couples legal recognition.

A final word in defence of the American electorate: in exit polls, voters canvassed for their opinion on the topic of homosexual law reform expressed opinion as 40% absolutely against, 35% in favour of civil union type recognition and 25% in favour of marriage rights ... so the majority favoured some form of recognition! Hang in there, sane Americans!

Every time I've gone to England, it has rained nearly the entire time.

It reminded me of Pittsburgh, with extra rain. Of course I was looking at Manchester, so maybe that was it.
My wife, who has a degree in Geography, insists that the UK has a semi-arid climate. Presumably, they excluded Manchester from the sample when they made the study (because it does indeed always rain in Manchester).

I can offer no proof of the semi-arid status of Britain. It just amuses me to repeat it at every available opportunity.

uhh asylum? Hell, come to Portugal and get a job. After that, get yourself legalized. (it should be the other way around, but it can be done ;) ). After you are legal in Portugal, you can effectively go around every other EU country, since there is a freedom of circulation in force.

my A level geography teacher tells me the UK is in the fastest changing zone of weather in the world. this means we get short bursts of rain and sun, instead of a rainy reason and dry season.

Do come to the UK. It is far more free than a lot of Guardian readers have been calling it.

There are too many Guardian readers on this site. Read a man's newspaper: the Telegraph where you can have some decent Tory home truths planted into your ignorant, left winged skulls

Do come to the UK. It is far more free than a lot of Guardian readers have been calling it.

There are too many Guardian readers on this site. Read a man's newspaper: the Telegraph where you can have some decent Tory home truths planted into your ignorant, left winged skulls

My secret is out! I've been trying to scare Democrats into staying here in the US where we can force them to live in gulags in the Red States...

Do come to the UK. It is far more free than a lot of Guardian readers have been calling it.

There are too many Guardian readers on this site. Read a man's newspaper: the Telegraph where you can have some decent Tory home truths planted into your ignorant, left winged skulls

whats this? a tory saying 'come to our country'? are you not afraid theyll steal your job?

im a gaurdian reading pinko, but i think we have a reasonably free country at the minute. but unfortunately, its not going to stay that way for long.

and please dont call left wing people ignorant, i think youll find most of us are a lot more intelligent than the majorityof the right.

If you dont like the cold move to BC or better yet Vancouver Island or vancouver.

Vancouver was voted the 2nd best place to live in the world. If you want money move to Calgary or Toronto. If your so very left wing, lots of hippies live off vancouver Island and Toronto is one of the most left wing areas in Canada.

Why would you move all the way to Aussie or NEw Zealand.

If you have a good trade skill or education move to canada if not the aussies can have you....

The best thing I remember about Canada is the laid back attitude (well, for the most part).

Anyplace that can put on four simultaneous curling competitions on TV is pretty laid back. Toronto seemed a bit anal, but Ottawa was very nice.

The police in Edmonton are humorless. Don't go there, especially if you're not white. They have a habit of driving people out of town and dropping them off fifty kilometers from the nearest human habitation in the dead of winter.


that was Regina man LOL


from Calgary here, so I warn you DO NOT move to edmonton, its a shit hole nicknamed DEADmonton.... But hey it has a HUGE MALL!!

I would be inclined to say that the torygraph, as we like to call it, generally caters to selfish rich people who want to stay as rich as they possibly can, no matter whos expense it is at.

So I'm an American, and I'm dissatisfied with my country. In the previous election, I tried my hardest to show the people the evils of George W. Bush's ways, but I failed. They supported him because Americans tend to want to hold on to the old, outdated ways rather than embrace the change that the rest of the world is going through.

It wouldnt have made a difference if Kerry would have won, The Business Party were the real winners, securing 99% of the vote. Oh and don't come to Europe, I don't want another fucking yank to start accusing me of 'anti americanism', because to tell you people the honest truth, we're sick of it over here.

I am dissatisfied because the people care not for the future of our very race. They choose to get the immediate reward rather than ensure that their descendents are provided for.
I am dissatisfied because the very Constitution, the foundation on which this nation was formed, is being violated by our current society. People are scorned for "unamerican" activity, when such behavior is allowed by the Constitution. The people's privacy is violated by the government in the interest of "safety", and minority groups are viewed with the utmost suspicion. I am not a Communist, though I do not disrespect those beliefs, but I see these hipocrits moving towards a more Communistic society right after "defeating" Communism in the Cold War.
I have given up hope in my country, so I seek assylum in a more elightened nation. I seek to immigrate to the nation of Great Britain. However, I have recently learned that non-citizens must either be employed by a foreign company or demonstrate a skill that no British citizen posesses. This is what concerns me. I do not want to wait for years, living in poverty, while my application for citizenship sits in some office. This is why I come to you, good people of the United Kingdom. I wish to know how long it would usually take a US citizen with no criminal record to immigrate to Britain and, barring that, if it would be possible to defect, seeking political assylum.

Thank you.
Feazanthia/Neo Asrend/Gaia Rodina

Look, on the whole I have no problem with you coming. I just want to forewarn you people are really beginning to despise America. And it's not the fact its just been going on, its the fact it's been going on for 60 years or more. Over half a century of utter brutalization and killing by the United States. People can put a face to that evil now, and thats the Bush Administration. But they would be wrong in thinking a Democrat President would change it, things would continue like they always have done, killing, maiming, supporting despotic regimes, overthrowing those that don't agree with them. Thats America, and only Bold Europe stands in its way.

whats this? a tory saying 'come to our country'? are you not afraid theyll steal your job?

im a gaurdian reading pinko, but i think we have a reasonably free country at the minute. but unfortunately, its not going to stay that way for long.

and please dont call left wing people ignorant, i think youll find most of us are a lot more intelligent than the majorityof the right.

I'm with Taverham. If the Tory idiots would actually look at the stats they would see we actually need immigration. It's just this little Englander inbuilt mentality that disuades them. Anyways, good to see a British leftie on the forum Taverham.

On a lighter note, I would say that Britain is very Liberal compared to a lot of countries, it's up there with Switzerland (who have referenda every 5 minutes, ultra liberal). But Britain passes a lot of laws out of the public eye that could be viewed as very Liberal. As Liberalism is based on the provision of basic civil rights and the protection of the minority, laws like *finds some old newspaper* a part of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill, which would make the 'incitement of religious hatred' illegal, would show Britain as very Liberal. On the other hand, a major argument to that law is that it could infringe upon free speech, specifically people like Rowan Atkinson and other academics have spoken out against it. But then of course you have to ask whether free speech is an inherrent right of a liberal democracy (which in Britain it is, more or less, even though we have no constitution). So. You better decide for yourself just how liberal we are.

So I'm an American, and I'm dissatisfied with my country. In the previous election, I tried my hardest to show the people the evils of George W. Bush's ways, but I failed. They supported him because Americans tend to want to hold on to the old, outdated ways rather than embrace the change that the rest of the world is going through.
I am dissatisfied because of the vehement hatred towards the homosexual. Did the sixties teach us nothing? Just because someone is different doesn't mean they are 'immoral'. I think it's disgusting that good men and women are scorned and reprimanded because they make some housewife in Kansas feel icky.
I am dissatisfied because the people care not for the future of our very race. They choose to get the immediate reward rather than ensure that their descendents are provided for.
I am dissatisfied because the very Constitution, the foundation on which this nation was formed, is being violated by our current society. People are scorned for "unamerican" activity, when such behavior is allowed by the Constitution. The people's privacy is violated by the government in the interest of "safety", and minority groups are viewed with the utmost suspicion. I am not a Communist, though I do not disrespect those beliefs, but I see these hipocrits moving towards a more Communistic society right after "defeating" Communism in the Cold War.
I have given up hope in my country, so I seek assylum in a more elightened nation. I seek to immigrate to the nation of Great Britain. However, I have recently learned that non-citizens must either be employed by a foreign company or demonstrate a skill that no British citizen posesses. This is what concerns me. I do not want to wait for years, living in poverty, while my application for citizenship sits in some office. This is why I come to you, good people of the United Kingdom. I wish to know how long it would usually take a US citizen with no criminal record to immigrate to Britain and, barring that, if it would be possible to defect, seeking political assylum.

Thank you.
Feazanthia/Neo Asrend/Gaia Rodina

*nods in silent agrement*

France is also full of french people.
No shit Sherlock

I'm with Taverham. If the Tory idiots would actually look at the stats they would see we actually need immigration. It's just this little Englander inbuilt mentality that disuades them. Anyways, good to see a British leftie on the forum Taverham.

thanks dude, but theres many more! cherry bakewell is well known to me to be a stinking commie. and, to all those republicans out there, his address is....

oh yeah, youre right about us needing immigration. dont you find it humerous that the daily mail, express et al moan about the pensions crisis, then wont allow immigration? the mind boggles.

I would suggest moving to Cuba for
all americans who want to move
to another counry-nation because
President Bush won and they think
President Bush is an evil dictator etc.

thanks dude, but theres many more! cherry bakewell is well known to me to be a stinking commie. and, to all those republicans out there, his address is....

oh yeah, youre right about us needing immigration. dont you find it humerous that the daily mail, express et al moan about the pensions crisis, then wont allow immigration? the mind boggles.

*Le Sigh*

I read the Daily Mail (along with other papers) and for the most part, no they don't.

Some of the Writer's Opinions pages are sometimes like that, but for the most part the view is:

Immigration = Good.
Illegal, Unchecked Immigration = Bad.

thanks dude, but theres many more! cherry bakewell is well known to me to be a stinking commie. and, to all those republicans out there, his address is....

oh yeah, youre right about us needing immigration. dont you find it humerous that the daily mail, express et al moan about the pensions crisis, then wont allow immigration? the mind boggles.

Hehehe, it's funny how people are using the 'Liberal Media' excuses over here too. 'Liberal'? There are only 2 Newspapers in the whole of the country that are relatively Liberal, The Independent and The Guardian. Who cares about the Tories anyway, their in long term decline.

*Le Sigh*

I read the Daily Mail (along with other papers) and for the most part, no they don't.

Some of the Writer's Opinions pages are sometimes like that, but for the most part the view is:

Immigration = Good.
Illegal, Unchecked Immigration = Bad.

Oh I'm getting really sick of having to cite the same figures over and over again, do some reading, serious reading you anti european little englander.

Way to practise first-class debating skills. Really, top notch :rolleyes:

Thanks to my education, I know better than quite a few exactly why immigration is a very GOOD thing.

Immigration, amongst other things, strengths the genetic and racial diversity of the country, adds diversity to our work force, and can provide the manpower to make up for a lack of numbers in any field of jobs.

What I do not support are the people, however few they be, and yet they do exist, that move to Britain solely because they want a better life, and do not want to work for it. We have people born here who are like that, there are some immigrating who are like that, but abuse of the welfare system helps no-one. If a family does not work, does not produce children who work, and gets all their money + property from the Government, that is a loss to everyone who pays into the system.

Don't assume, and don't jump to conclusions without evidence. You insult us all.

Don't forget that Tony Blair is George Dubya's best friend as well!
best friend, how can you tell where one ends and the other begins????

Britain is contantly trying to dumb it self down so that it can be accepted in Europe all because of the stupid dumbass who we call Primeminister

one last word VOTE TORY

I see the dumbing down is working, basic arithmetic seems to have gone out of the National Curriculum.

Rugby team is currently #1 in the world!

You had me worried for a moment there. But, no, my mate in Twickenham checked and the World Cup's still there.

The best thing about the UK, IMHO, is Page Three.

You're kidding, right? :p

That's what the Internet is for.

The best thing about the UK, IMHO, is Page Three.

*whispers* It's gone.

Where did you dig up that trash? If a piece of legislation appeared in the Commons to make that sort of thing the law, then it would be blocked by whatever means necessary. The only people who would vote for it would be Blunkett, Blair, and the BNP, and I'm not sure about the last two.


Anti-Terrorism Crime and Securities Act 2001.

UK derogated from article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Was, I believe, debated for seven hours on Sept 12th.

"s.30 Legal proceedings: derogation

(1) In this section "derogation matter" means-



(a) a derogation by the United Kingdom from Article 5(1) of the Convention on Human Rights which relates to the detention of a person where there is an intention to remove or deport him from the United Kingdom"

So it refers mainly to foreign nationals. Hence the dozen or so people held in Belmarsh at the moment.

well if you want my opinion, the best place for dis-satisfied Liberals and Dems to move to is New Zealand.
Check out the latest headlines from the NZ herald:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/

Civil Union Bill is passed (65 to 55), allowing same-sex couples to have similar rights to married couples.

Ahmed Zaoui finally freed on bail, after 2 years in prison for illegally entering the country and asking for refugee status. Too long a story to go into here.

Banning Smoking in Bars is coming into effect tomorrow.

4 German tourists who had their van stolen with all their belongings in it have received offers of money, clothes and free entry into tourist attractions from the Public. Someone even bought them a car so they could continue their trip. Last week an Israeli couple who had their car stolen experienced similar public help and offers (though they were only lent a car, which does raise questions about how which side did the Kiwis really support during WWII ;) )

Also unemployment is at 3.8%, inflation is 2.5%, Secondary teachers were given another big pay rise this year (nearly 14% over 3 years), Nurses will probably get a big pay rise soon and the Government may bring in legislation to make four weeks minimum annual leave for workers. Also the Government is investing several hundred million $$ a year in order to guarantee a Superannuation by 2050.

So come on down - it's a Liberal's Paradise!! :p

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Blair's party be the rough equivolent of the Democrats in the US? Does that mean if Blair gets voted out, the people might get a anti-war person, but someone who is more conservative on social issues?

I guess you'll really appreciate the new laws they have on the plate in the UK. You know, the anti-terror laws. Good luck with even less civil rights than the Patriot Act.
Doesn't matter what they say. Unlike the US, there is neither the will, nor crucially, resources, to enforce them.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Blair's party be the rough equivolent of the Democrats in the US? Does that mean if Blair gets voted out, the people might get a anti-war person, but someone who is more conservative on social issues?
No. Both New Labour and Conservatives are pro-war, and conservative on social issues. The Liberal Democrats are both anti-war and liberal on social issues. They are unlikely to win power any time soon, though.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Blair's party be the rough equivolent of the Democrats in the US? Does that mean if Blair gets voted out, the people might get a anti-war person, but someone who is more conservative on social issues?
I don’t know the actual party standings but people cant differentiate (over here) between republican democrat liberal and conservative its silly really

Personally I am a slightly conservative democrat (though almost dead center )

How about Canada? As much as americans hate it, it really isn't too bad a place.

I know of two Americans seeking asylum in the Rep.of Ireland.One of them is a strange case and I'm not sure why but there is a valid reason.And its nothing to do with Bush or anything like that.Of course I acknowledge that this is vague.
The other now is a dodgy one.I know the reasons but won't post them here.Anyway the person is a Grade A chancer.

thanks dude, but theres many more! cherry bakewell is well known to me to be a stinking commie. and, to all those republicans out there, his address is....

oh yeah, youre right about us needing immigration. dont you find it humerous that the daily mail, express et al moan about the pensions crisis, then wont allow immigration? the mind boggles.

Go through the Daily Mail and the Tory manifesto and find one instance where they say immigration needs to be stopped entirely. You will find noe for the very simple reason that most people do know that immigrants are needed.

However unlike socialists and Guardian readers, we realise a cap needs to be set on the amount of immigrants allowed into this country so we are not overwhelmed by the sheer influx of immigrants. Also we think that immigrants should intergrate into British society rather than British society bending over backwards to suit the needs of peole who weren't even born here. When I say intergrate I mean two things:

a) get a job. So long as the immigrants are hard working and willing to work, then the majority of people will embrace them. What we will not stand are immigrants coming in and then sitting in aslyum centres (built and ran at the cost of the taxpayer) while claiming benefits for doing absoultely nothing It's bad enough that British slobs should be granted the dole.

b) learn the language. is it unreasonable to ask that immigrants speak the national language? Why should British society accomdate for people so lazy they cannot even be bothered to learn the language.

Immigrants should intergrate with Britain, not Britain intergating with immigrants. Our society is so politcally correct it would trample our own culture in order to avoid offending the cultures of foreigners.

Oh and as for socialists being more intelligent than Tories...the last two centuries have been dominated by Tory governments. Can't be that stupid can we, if we can beat both the Liberals and Labour that many times? Or perhaps we are stupid, its just that you lefties are even more stupid than us?

*Le Sigh*

I read the Daily Mail (along with other papers) and for the most part, no they don't.

Some of the Writer's Opinions pages are sometimes like that, but for the most part the view is:

Immigration = Good.
Illegal, Unchecked Immigration = Bad.


i think that they do. i think that as they have such huge headlines often screaming out such things as '£16000 - thats how much an asylum seekers family gets a year in handouts (and its all tax free!)', the attention is drawn away from the facts in the readers head, with the focus being the outrage in the headline. tell me, are asylum seekers illegal? i acknowledge that you said 'for the most part', but i think the sensational headlines are just designed to stir up controversy, so that what the reader remembers is the 'fact' that an asylum seeker gets 16000 pounds per year.

b) learn the language. is it unreasonable to ask that immigrants speak the national language? Why should British society accomdate for people so lazy they cannot even be bothered to learn the language.

Immigrants should intergrate with Britain, not Britain intergating with immigrants. Our society is so politcally correct it would trample our own culture in order to avoid offending the cultures of foreigners.


Have you ever tryed to learn a foreign language? It's very difficult. Would you say then that if learning english is prerequisite to living in England, people, for example, fleeing oppressive regimes shouldn't be allowed into england without being able to speak english or without a job set up ready for them?

The Daily Mails (and that of most tabloid newspapers) campaign against asylum seekers is generally a method of selling newspapers by providing people with a scapegoat (there's always gypsies as well if there's a run on asylum seeker stories). The Mail often uses overstated headlines to attract readers, blowing out of all proportion events in the commons. For example, if
'How can we stem the tide?

THIS WEEK THE MAIL HAS EXPOSED THE FLOOD OF IMMIGRANTS INTO EUROPE. TODAY WE LOOK AT THE THREAT TO BRITAIN'

Is not to a certain extent rather xenophobic I don't know what is.

Ah, political correctness gone mad. The battle chant of the mail reader. Surely there is something to be said for adopting new cultures in Britain? I'm fairly sure that the 'flood' of asylum seekers is unlikely to wipe out British culture (what exactly is British culture anyway?) any time soon.

Go through the Daily Mail and the Tory manifesto and find one instance where they say immigration needs to be stopped entirely. You will find noe for the very simple reason that most people do know that immigrants are needed.

However unlike socialists and Guardian readers, we realise a cap needs to be set on the amount of immigrants allowed into this country so we are not overwhelmed by the sheer influx of immigrants. Also we think that immigrants should intergrate into British society rather than British society bending over backwards to suit the needs of peole who weren't even born here. When I say intergrate I mean two things:

a) get a job. So long as the immigrants are hard working and willing to work, then the majority of people will embrace them. What we will not stand are immigrants coming in and then sitting in aslyum centres (built and ran at the cost of the taxpayer) while claiming benefits for doing absoultely nothing It's bad enough that British slobs should be granted the dole.

b) learn the language. is it unreasonable to ask that immigrants speak the national language? Why should British society accomdate for people so lazy they cannot even be bothered to learn the language.

Immigrants should intergrate with Britain, not Britain intergating with immigrants. Our society is so politcally correct it would trample our own culture in order to avoid offending the cultures of foreigners.

Oh and as for socialists being more intelligent than Tories...the last two centuries have been dominated by Tory governments. Can't be that stupid can we, if we can beat both the Liberals and Labour that many times? Or perhaps we are stupid, its just that you lefties are even more stupid than us?

ok, i shouldnt have said 'wont allow', sorry.

do you want a cap on asylum seekers? because these people need our help.

i think the only reason there are asylum centres (built and run at the expense of the tax payer) is that there are such harsh rules and regulations to follow.

my freind cherry bakewell has dealt with the language issue i think.

but what is british culture? the british culture of different cultures mixing together? britain has been and is a multi cultural society. the only original 'britons' are people from scotland, wales and ireland. im not originally british, im probably from northern europe.

i think youll find that you beating us in elections simply means theres more of you than us.

Have you ever tryed to learn a foreign language? It's very difficult. Would you say then that if learning english is prerequisite to living in England, people, for example, fleeing oppressive regimes shouldn't be allowed into england without being able to speak english or without a job set up ready for them?

English is a very easy language to learn. The grammar is so simple that you can make a valid sentence but merely putting some words together in a certain order. E.g. "I bang my head to a wall" = :headbang:. Writing is weird, but not that hard.

The number of political refugees coming to Europe is very small compared to the "economic refugees", which just want to escape poor conditions and dictatorship instead of trying to solve the problems in their home country. It is not Europeans' fault that some countries have dismal economies or human rights. This means that solving these problems or housing people who just want to flee these countries is not the Europeans' responsibility. Granted, there are some political refugees, but there is a UN-based system for dealing with them.

The starting point should always be that problems are to be solved where you live, not by moving elsewhere. No for emigration, yes for immigration!

Moving into another country should mean these things: you want to contribute to the culture of the country, and you share their fundamental ethical values. Example: if you're a Communist with a big C, don't go to USA, because you don't share the ethics.

As for Britain; what should you bring there, and what do you share with them?

a) get a job. So long as the immigrants are hard working and willing to work, then the majority of people will embrace them. What we will not stand are immigrants coming in and then sitting in aslyum centres (built and ran at the cost of the taxpayer) while claiming benefits for doing absoultely nothing It's bad enough that British slobs should be granted the dole.


So you support allowing asylum seekers to work?

Totally aggree.

Australia:
Weather: Awesome
Economy: Good
People: Laid Back and Curteous
Food: Horrible
Beer: Nasty, but the wine is good and they import good scotch
Snakes: Deadly but calm
Freedom: Good
Government: Decent, though probably not to your particular liking at the moment.
Immigration policy: A Bitch and a half, but worth it.

If I could only convince the wife.

What's wrong with our food? And our beer? Coopers do great beer (if you've only ever had Fosters, it doesn't count). But the wine is excellent. And the snakes aren't that common. However the government...They suck. They're the biggest cowards - so of course they try and bully smaller nations. (I can say this - I voted against them, it's not my fault they got reelected). But it's still a great country! ;)

Have you ever tryed to learn a foreign language? It's very difficult. Would you say then that if learning english is prerequisite to living in England, people, for example, fleeing oppressive regimes shouldn't be allowed into england without being able to speak english or without a job set up ready for them?

The Daily Mails (and that of most tabloid newspapers) campaign against asylum seekers is generally a method of selling newspapers by providing people with a scapegoat (there's always gypsies as well if there's a run on asylum seeker stories). The Mail often uses overstated headlines to attract readers, blowing out of all proportion events in the commons. For example, if
'How can we stem the tide?

THIS WEEK THE MAIL HAS EXPOSED THE FLOOD OF IMMIGRANTS INTO EUROPE. TODAY WE LOOK AT THE THREAT TO BRITAIN'

Is not to a certain extent rather xenophobic I don't know what is.

Ah, political correctness gone mad. The battle chant of the mail reader. Surely there is something to be said for adopting new cultures in Britain? I'm fairly sure that the 'flood' of asylum seekers is unlikely to wipe out British culture (what exactly is British culture anyway?) any time soon.

*Head hits keyboard*

You know, a basic GCSE in History teaches you to analyse sources of information objectively. (Taking the example of a document) Who wrote it, why they wrote it, what they knew when they wrote it, their opinions on the topic as they wrote it and so on.

However much a completely objective source of news would be welcomed, that's an unrealistic goal, and I'll continue to practise the skills I was taught when I read the papers and watch the TV.

Anyone who takes a single source as the Truth should be careful before entering a debate, because their words will most likely carry less weight when held up to an objective light.

Have you ever tryed to learn a foreign language? It's very difficult. Would you say then that if learning english is prerequisite to living in England, people, for example, fleeing oppressive regimes shouldn't be allowed into england without being able to speak english or without a job set up ready for them?

The Daily Mails (and that of most tabloid newspapers) campaign against asylum seekers is generally a method of selling newspapers by providing people with a scapegoat (there's always gypsies as well if there's a run on asylum seeker stories). The Mail often uses overstated headlines to attract readers, blowing out of all proportion events in the commons. For example, if
'How can we stem the tide?

THIS WEEK THE MAIL HAS EXPOSED THE FLOOD OF IMMIGRANTS INTO EUROPE. TODAY WE LOOK AT THE THREAT TO BRITAIN'

Is not to a certain extent rather xenophobic I don't know what is.

Ah, political correctness gone mad. The battle chant of the mail reader. Surely there is something to be said for adopting new cultures in Britain? I'm fairly sure that the 'flood' of asylum seekers is unlikely to wipe out British culture (what exactly is British culture anyway?) any time soon.

They should learn English as it is spoken by the majority of the people here. How on earth do immigrants expect to get a job or get along with the rest of society if they don't know the language? Or perhaps you would like to abolish English?

The Mail is indeed a tabloid but that doesn't stop some of its stories being at least partially true. I read the Telegraph predominately but to dismiss all stories printed by the Mail purely because of its tabloid status its pure folly.

Political correctness gone mad is an unfortunate aspect of British life today. The Labour government had already attempted to impose fines on shops that display pictures of birth of Christ at Christmas. Jail wardens are dismissed from their jobs for calling black coffee 'black' rather than 'coffee without milk'. We can't discuss issues of immigration otherwise the word racist is hurled like so much stale confetti. In one town a centuries old statue of a pig was dismantled after the tiny muslim community complained about its presence. We can't use the term brain storming anymore for discussions as it is offence to epiletics (apparently). People who defend their homes against burgulars are sued for assualt and get fined more heavily than the burgular.

And as for gypsies, why not attack them? They pay no taxes, they have no jobs and all they do is increase local crime rates.

So you support allowing asylum seekers to work?

Why not?
a) That way they are helping fill empty jobs,
b) They are contributing to the economy as they pay taxes on their income and they are able to spend their income therefore boosting business.
c) If they are earning they do not need to claim benefits therefore aiding the economy as more is available.

ok, i shouldnt have said 'wont allow', sorry.

do you want a cap on asylum seekers? because these people need our help.

i think the only reason there are asylum centres (built and run at the expense of the tax payer) is that there are such harsh rules and regulations to follow.

my freind cherry bakewell has dealt with the language issue i think.

but what is british culture? the british culture of different cultures mixing together? britain has been and is a multi cultural society. the only original 'britons' are people from scotland, wales and ireland. im not originally british, im probably from northern europe.

i think youll find that you beating us in elections simply means theres more of you than us.

Of course intergration is part of British culture. That is my point. However immigrants need to intergrate for this to happen. Our society is one great mixing pot of different cultures: that has always been the British way. However what cannot be allowed is for little cultures to remain alongside totally unintergrated.

For example we perfectly accept the Islamic faith and hope that British muslims will continue to keep this religion alive within the framework provided by the British state. However Muslims should not be allowed to use their own law codes as many have been demanding. They too should be judged by English civil law. Their language, for practical reasons, should be english. This is intergration: a mixture of both established and foreign concepts.

Too many aslyum seekers will destablise the economy and the social situtuation. Hence a cap of 10,00 per year needs to be established.

Really?? What about asll the joibs there getting when there are unemployed and homneless?? What about the houses they take when there are Brits who live on the street because there goverment gives more money to emigrants!! You have to think of the poeople in the country before decided what to do with influxes of new people...

*Head hits keyboard*

You know, a basic GCSE in History teaches you to analyse sources of information objectively. (Taking the example of a document) Who wrote it, why they wrote it, what they knew when they wrote it, their opinions on the topic as they wrote it and so on.

However much a completely objective source of news would be welcomed, that's an unrealistic goal, and I'll continue to practise the skills I was taught when I read the papers and watch the TV.

Anyone who takes a single source as the Truth should be careful before entering a debate, because their words will most likely carry less weight when held up to an objective light.


*gets defensive of freind*

i can tell you now that cherry bakewell has more than a basic GCSE (plus a AS level) in history. i know this because when we do a mock or real exam, he ALWAYS gets at least a grade above me. and as i usually get As and Bs, you can tell hes pretty damn good. although you wouldnt have known this so its not your fault, he defintiely doesnt need to be told how to 'do' history.

there thats that cleared up.

Of course intergration is part of British culture. That is my point. However immigrants need to intergrate for this to happen. Our society is one great mixing pot of different cultures: that has always been the British way. However what cannot be allowed is for little cultures to remain alongside totally unintergrated.

For example we perfectly accept the Islamic faith and hope that British muslims will continue to keep this religion alive within the framework provided by the British state. However Muslims should not be allowed to use their own law codes as many have been demanding. They too should be judged by English civil law. Their language, for practical reasons, should be english. This is intergration: a mixture of both established and foreign concepts.

Too many aslyum seekers will destablise the economy and the social situtuation. Hence a cap of 10,00 per year needs to be established.


i agreee with you that they need to integrate with us, be we also need to integrate with them. their second language should be english, yes.

i would hate it if i was the 10001st asylum seekr, wouldnt you?

Why not just wait a couple more years till GWB can't even be president?

Move to Britain, at the very least the right wing nuts arn't allowed guns. The right wing party is to the left of the democrats. And socialism isn't a dirty word.

Just learn to drive around roundabouts, and try not mention how things are small (it's not size that matters after all).

Come to Australia, the government here is so pro-American you would feel at home. We even have our own Christian Right parties in government ... and the government is full of raving Christian lunatics.

Little Johnny (PM John Howard) likes Americans especially GW Bush.
Err, hang on. Go to France ...

Come to Scotland, forget England (or any other part of GB), here in Scotland you get great weather (warm, but not too hot, in the Summer, snow in winter, great for skiing and general fun.
The people are friendly (contrary to popular media hype we are not a nation of drunks, and even the ones who do get drunk are invariably friendly), the night life in the larger towns and city's is great, as is the resturants.
Cost of living is comparably cheaper than anywhere else in Britain, house prices are cheaper (you get more for your money in Scotland than say the home counties), schools and education in general are better (my own opinion, not nessesarily that of anyone else).
Life is generally lived at a slower pace here compared to the south and there are reletively few gun crimes (in fact gun crime is almost unheard of outside major city's and large towns).
In short, life in Scotland is sweet. And we like Americans :)

You know, a basic GCSE in History teaches you to analyse sources of information objectively. (Taking the example of a document) Who wrote it, why they wrote it, what they knew when they wrote it, their opinions on the topic as they wrote it and so on.


So by this you don't have a basic GCSE in history? The Daily Mail and other tabloids use emotive language and sensationalist headlines and stories to sell newspapers. Sure, you can say they have a basis in fact but then on the other hand saying something like Tony Blair is a socialist has a basis in fact, although the statement is not true. If by the way, you want to judge my history credentials I have to date A* GCSE, A at AS Level and the very week I had an interview at Cambridge to study History.

New British Glory: Obviously it is preferable if asylum seekers can speak english, but perhaps learning to speak english should be a condition of them staying in english after they have come to the country, and it especially shouldn't be important in the case of political refugees. Incidentally, to only allow 1,000 asylum seekers into England wach year would be ridiculous. The population of Britain is approximatly 6 million, making 1,000 new people a year negligable at a percentage of 0.00167. Britain doesn't normally allow economic refugees, and in fact Germany has an increasing asylum problem due to the fact that their Grundgesetz (constitution) says they must allow economic refugees.

This:
"And as for gypsies, why not attack them? They pay no taxes, they have no jobs and all they do is increase local crime rates."
is blatant racism. The Roma both have jobs and do not on the whole contribute to crime any more than the average population. Being objective about the articles we read in newspapers, it would be correct to judge that just because every article about Roma contains details about the crimes they commit against rural communites does not mean this is the situation in the country. I suggest some reading to dislodge this view:

http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/internet_links.htm#Roma

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=591670

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=584378

Roma were persecueted to a huge extent by the Nazis. You wouldn't say you indiscriminatly hate Jews because they all run banks and have big noses would you? So why the Roma?

English is actually one of the hardest languages to learn, with a vocabulary several times that of most european languages, and many quirks in the grammar that have worked their way in over the centuries.

Especially read this:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=582746

and note, the independent is exactly what it says on the tin. It's not a left wing paper like the Guardian or right wing like the Telegraph. It's dead in the middle.

I'm laughing over this. Sure, the government may be bad for many Americans, but is it really that bad? I think that there are no more than a few thousand Americans that wish to leave the country for political reasons. It certainly isn't as bad as the Great Depression, where more people emigrated from this country than immigrated to it.

I have been trying to find out some more sources about this whole thing apart from just newspapers, so try this commons speech

http://www.neilgerrard.co.uk/Speeches%20HTML/asylum_benefits.htm

this part especially seems suitable

On the suggestion that people come to the UK because they know about the benefits system and the cash, I am sure that many hon. Members will have had the same experience as me of sitting in constituency advice surgeries and dealing with people who were born in the UK and have never stepped outside the country. They come along with the type of problem that arises from a failure to understand the benefits system, such as failing to claim for a benefit for which they are eligible, failing to know when they should have claimed something or failing to understand the consequences of a late claim for benefit.


We see such problems all the time involving people who have lived in the UK all their lives. The idea that someone sitting in the middle of another country 1,000 miles away will do a detailed calculation and say to themselves, "If I make an asylum claim in Germany, I'll get this amount, if I make one in France I'll get this and if I make one in the UK I'll get this" is ludicrous.


Mr. Lilley : Can the hon. Gentleman explain why Italy, which alone in Europe has no benefits for asylum seekers, also has the lowest number of claims, even though it is one of the main sources of entry of asylum seekers?


Mr. Gerrard : I suspect that for some years there have been very large numbers of people working illegally and living on the streets in Italy. The claim that the Italians have somehow solved the problem cannot be justified. That raises the question of why people go to particular countries.


There is a variety of reasons why people come here. People come to a country because they know someone who lives there; or there may be long-standing connections with that country. Some Commonwealth countries have been the source of significant numbers of asylum applications to this country when there have been problems there. The civil war in Sri Lanka led to significant numbers of Tamil asylum seekers coming to the UK.


People go to a country where they can speak the language, and English is probably the commonest second language in the world. I am sure that I will never be in the position where I have to flee this country because I am being persecuted—[interruption]

I would also recommend www.theyworkforyou.com which is a site in which the various workings of parliament are listed, and you can look up things by your MP or you can search by term.

So by this you don't have a basic GCSE in history? The Daily Mail and other tabloids use emotive language and sensationalist headlines and stories to sell newspapers. Sure, you can say they have a basis in fact but then on the other hand saying something like Tony Blair is a socialist has a basis in fact, although the statement is not true. If by the way, you want to judge my history credentials I have to date A* GCSE, A at AS Level and the very week I had an interview at Cambridge to study History.

New British Glory: Obviously it is preferable if asylum seekers can speak english, but perhaps learning to speak english should be a condition of them staying in english after they have come to the country, and it especially shouldn't be important in the case of political refugees. Incidentally, to only allow 1,000 asylum seekers into England wach year would be ridiculous. The population of Britain is approximatly 6 million, making 1,000 new people a year negligable at a percentage of 0.00167. Britain doesn't normally allow economic refugees, and in fact Germany has an increasing asylum problem due to the fact that their Grundgesetz (constitution) says they must allow economic refugees.

This:
"And as for gypsies, why not attack them? They pay no taxes, they have no jobs and all they do is increase local crime rates."
is blatant racism. The Roma both have jobs and do not on the whole contribute to crime any more than the average population. Being objective about the articles we read in newspapers, it would be correct to judge that just because every article about Roma contains details about the crimes they commit against rural communites does not mean this is the situation in the country. I suggest some reading to dislodge this view:

http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/internet_links.htm#Roma

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=591670

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=584378

Roma were persecueted to a huge extent by the Nazis. You wouldn't say you indiscriminatly hate Jews because they all run banks and have big noses would you? So why the Roma?

English is actually one of the hardest languages to learn, with a vocabulary several times that of most european languages, and many quirks in the grammar that have worked their way in over the centuries.

Especially read this:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=582746

and note, the independent is exactly what it says on the tin. It's not a left wing paper like the Guardian or right wing like the Telegraph. It's dead in the middle.

Actually I said 10,000 immigrants a year. Of course I don't have the statistics available to me but I would say based on current immigration figures (that need to be severly cut) somewhere in the region of 10000 to 50000 per annum is reasonable.

I don't HATE gypsies, I am just making the point that they add no benefit to our society. And of course, you fall back on the traditional left wing fail safe - the word racist. So if I critise another culture I am to be deemed a racist am I, even though my thoughts are logically backed and relatively popular among the conservative minded?

You know in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, it is virtually legal to commit honour killings on female relatives. I would call that condoning murder in a supposedly civilised society and I condemn that practice. But by your standards, I must be deemed a racist and so forced to keep my mouth closed and let these women suffer in silence.

And one final point: if the dear, poor immigrants find it so hard to speak our language then I would advise them to go to France. But wait! In France, there's no cushy benefit system or comfortable immigration centres. What a dilemma.

Why not?
a) That way they are helping fill empty jobs,
b) They are contributing to the economy as they pay taxes on their income and they are able to spend their income therefore boosting business.
c) If they are earning they do not need to claim benefits therefore aiding the economy as more is available.

Fair enough, then, I agree with you. I was just asking because I've encountered some who wil rant and rave about asylum seekers scrounging but if you suggest that they actually work while waiting for their case to be heard you inevitably hear "oh, but that'd mean they'd take our jobs!"

To clear up this point first;


Too many aslyum seekers will destablise the economy and the social situtuation. Hence a cap of 10,00 per year needs to be established.

There were 49,405 applications for asylum in 2003. ( http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1104.pdf ) So that is within your reasonable limits. As such, would you say the problems with asylum are over reported? (Consider that there are 33 million people looking for asylum worldwide ( http://www.actionchildren.org/projects_asylum_seekers_true_stories.htm ))


And one final point: if the dear, poor immigrants find it so hard to speak our language then I would advise them to go to France. But wait! In France, there's no cushy benefit system or comfortable immigration centres. What a dilemma

Here I assume you are taking France as an example rather than a specific case.

Britain is ranked 8th in the EU in terms of asylum applications in terms of the overall population (i.e. as a percentage of the population)

An adult asylum seeker (and not every asylum seeker) in Britain can only recieve around £38 a week in benefits, which is 30% below the poverty line ( http://www.tearfund.org/webdocs/Website/Enquiries/Asylum%20Seekers%20-%20jan04(1).pdf ). Asylum seekers also tend to rely on benefits less than the local population. I assume you didn't read the links I posted, as in one (a commons speech) it says

"Mr. Lilley : Can the hon. Gentleman explain why Italy, which alone in Europe has no benefits for asylum seekers, also has the lowest number of claims, even though it is one of the main sources of entry of asylum seekers?


Mr. Gerrard : I suspect that for some years there have been very large numbers of people working illegally and living on the streets in Italy. The claim that the Italians have somehow solved the problem cannot be justified. That raises the question of why people go to particular countries."

Incidentally, in finding all of this, I also found that 33% of asylum seekers have a degree or proffesional qualification compared with 15% of our population, and that 65% can speak two languages. ( http://www.tearfund.org/webdocs/Website/Enquiries/Asylum%20Seekers%20-%20jan04(1).pdf )

In relation to your other point, I wouldn't say Saudi Arabia or Jordan were civilised countries, in that violent punishments are still used for relatively small crimes (e.g. losing your hand for stealing something) I imagine (but I'm not sure) that this is because they are more fundamentalist in their religious beliefs (funny how fundamentalists are so selective, I don't know much about the Koran, but Christian fundamentalists always pick up on the bit about not being gay, but then they seem to forget about loving they neighbour... sorry, slightly different topic there)

But I would still say you were racist towards the Roma. You said that all Roma have no jobs and increase the crime rate. This is obviosuly not true. As in any population, a minority commit crime. The Roma have to have jobs - how else would they survive (they cannot claim benefits without permanent residence, although some do have permanent residence)?

"For the record, crime rates in the Romany Traveller population are exactly the same as in the wider population for car theft and burglary. For more serious crimes such as rape and murder they are lower." - The Observer

There are different groups of 'gypsies' and generally the one that causes the most problems are the New Age gypsies. The New Agers come from all backgrounds and choose to adopt a nomadic lifestyle. The Roma are tradionally nomadic and are born into their way of life. I would say that that shows that it is generally people from the same sort of lifestyle as you or me who have given the Roma a bad name. Perhaps the majority of people (not the majority of nomadic people) who choose to live like this are criminals already. As such it would be wrong to say that the Roma are criminals, instead that criminals give them a bad name as people see them as one and the same group.

The statistics on asylum are available to anyone from the home office

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/

I am dissatisfied because of the vehement hatred towards the homosexual.
You mistake hatred for the emotion to protect the sanctity of marriage.

So I'm an American, and I'm dissatisfied with my country. In the previous election, I tried my hardest to show the people the evils of George W. Bush's ways, but I failed. I am dissatisfied because of the vehement hatred towards the homosexual. Did the sixties teach us nothing? Just because someone is different doesn't mean they are 'immoral'. I think it's disgusting that good men and women are scorned and reprimanded because they make some housewife in Kansas feel icky.
I am dissatisfied because the very Constitution, the foundation on which this nation was formed, is being violated by our current society. People are scorned for "unamerican" activity, when such behavior is allowed by the Constitution. The people's privacy is violated by the government in the interest of "safety", and minority groups are viewed with the utmost suspicion. I am not a Communist, though I do not disrespect those beliefs, but I see these hipocrits moving towards a more Communistic society right after "defeating" Communism in the Cold War.
I have given up hope in my country, so I seek assylum in a more elightened nation. I seek to immigrate to the nation of Great Britain. Thank you.
Feazanthia/Neo Asrend/Gaia Rodina

Thank YOU Gaia! I haven't laughed this hard in weeks! Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Thank YOU Gaia! I haven't laughed this hard in weeks! Don't let the door hit you on the way out.


dont laugh at him mate, its his opinion.

You mistake hatred for the emotion to protect the sanctity of marriage.

What is the sanctity of marriage, in theological terms? The meeting of two lovers in the eyes of god, or is there more to it? Does it depend on what view you take of the what the bible says?

Even if you say marraige can, for religious reasons, only be extended to unions between a man and woman, then at the very least homosexuals should be able to have civil unions so that they are recognised in the eyes of the state. And what if, say, there was a homosexual couple, who both believed ardently in god, and wanted to be in a union in the eyes of god?

I'm not saying you're wrong here, I'm just thinking there lots of reasons behind peoples not wanting to legalise gay marriage, some of which are perhaps more valid than others. I could understand, say, if a fairly religious couple didn't want to fall under the same banner as homosexuals if they got married because they believed that the bible says it is wrong for homosexuals to be married in the eyes of god.

Stripe-Lovers, if you're still reading this thread, I just found an old thread where you had some nice arguments about the monarchy, I was pretty much a die hard republican before now (not really having thought about it in any great depths), but yeah, there are some good points for keeping the monarchy. The only major sticking point for me now is that it kind of makes equality amongst people a bit of a far off goal. I don't propose abolishing the monachial system, but for example in Holland (I think - definatly some littleish european country) the royals live a lot more like common people, although obviously fairly rich ones. Although we wouldn't want to remove the royals status in that they are useful diplomatically because of their prestige and riches. Perhaps if royal property became state owned (quietly)?