Immigration. Is it time for the right, to REALLY piss off the left?

[cybertect]

Well apparantly, I even know the cunts shoe size now. Every third thread I post on.....

...but hey, it's my fault for having similar views.

[goes back and re-reads earlier posts in the thread]

<light bulb>

Ah, I thought you'd been called a Layabout

 

[TonkaToy]

[goes back and re-reads earlier posts in the thread]

<light bulb>

Ah, I thought you'd been called a Layabout

Funnily enough, so did I all those months ago.

* Que random accusations that TonkaToy and cybertect are one in the same.

 

[Firky]

Over the years debate on here about race and immigration has become more and more incoherent. From the left and the right. But this thread takes some beating.

Layabout was rather famous for his uber right wing views - IIRC he ran a webhosting and design service.

 

[TeeJay]

There are no border controls to prevent me moving from, say, Scotland to England. They both have different legal codes and taxation regimes, but there's no suggestion that either of them has disappeared or ceases to be able to deliver services as a result.

They don't have different tax systems - its the same one.

As for legal codes - there is a clear border between England and Scotland, with the law of each applying on either side of the line.

You are right about needing to define what is meant by 'no borders'. Obviously my comments are aimed at the ultra-internationalists, fair number of whom do post on u75.

While having no border controls wouldn't 'dissolve the state' in the same way as 'scrapping borders' per se, it would still have important consequences for the operation of services such as health care, education and criminal law. If anyone anywhere in the world could simply take a plane to Heathrow and stay in the UK as long as they wanted with no need for any visa, then there would need to be a reassessment of who was eligable for free services (eg health, education etc).

If you travel through large parts of Africa for example, every city has vast areas of self-built shacks made from plastic sheets, wood and corragated iron - people simply turn up and build a shelter. These areas are often several times bigger than the the built area itself. If people were allowed to turn up in the UK, stay as long as they liked and could not be removed then the UK would be covered in large areas of shanty towns populated by people fleeing the poorest parts of the world. Literally millions of people could turn up.

Why would poor people have any reason *not* to relocate to the UK, if the UK continued to have systems of health care and education, along with jobs and money?

Realistically, the UK population is not ready to either massively redistribute its wealth to billions of people in the developing world nor is it ready to live literally next door to these people. In theory I am in favour of the first (if shared equally people would have a weekly income of around £77 per week - including all rent, food, health care, education and all other goods and public services), and given the first, the second becomes less problematic. However, I don't accept that simply unilaterally scrapping all UK border controls is either the best (or even a feasible) way of approaching this in the short or medium term.

Having said that, I am in favour of immigration, but this (in terms of the current debate in the UK) isn't really the same thing.

 

[cybertect]

They don't have different tax systems - its the same one.

Yes, but I did carefully use a different word to system - the Scottish Parliament has powers to raise revenue independently through the taxation system, which doesn't apply to Wales or any English region.

The legal framework already exists to address the specific shanty towns question - we have the Town & Country Planning Acts to control precisely this type of development.

Thanks for the clarification of your meaning. I was just a little taken aback by the idea that the state could not logically exist without border controls

 

[TeeJay]

...The legal framework already exists to address the specific shanty towns question - we have the Town & Country Planning Acts to control precisely this type of development...

If several million of the poorest people turned from, for example, West and Central Africa I somehow doubt that the Town & Country Planning Acts would "control" anything.

The more usual way in some of these countries is to call out the army onto the streets, followed by bulldozers, although typically the slum is simply moved a mile down the road.

There is already fairly free movement within developing countries - you can see how many people move towards the cities across south america, africa and asia. With no border controls in the UK/EU we would most likely see similar movements towards cities here from poorer parts of the world.

In some ways it would simply serve to bring existing poverty and problems 'closer to home' - they wouldn't be hidden away in developing countries but would be right up in the faces of richer people.

There is nothing wrong with this in principle. In practise, however, it could mean that systems that current just about function would then completely stop working. It would also be politically complex - for example if you had millions of people relocate to your country would they get any kind of voting rights or welfare rights? Would you have some kind of two-tier citizenship, with one set of people entitled to first-world welfare and givernment services and with full political rights, but another not entitled to anything at all, left to starve and die in the gutter and without any kind of political representation at all? Would people who choose to come to a country be allowed to work - and of so would they be covered by national insurance and other schemes?

My point is that even if someone is a "no borders" (no border controls) supporter, there are a lot of questions they need to answer as a result.

 

[cybertect]

I don't think I can disagree with you on the practicalities.

A completely open borders policy in an age of mass global travel would open a whole can of worms. On a unilateral basis, it would only be more difficult.

And then there's the question of our treaty obligations with the rest of the EU...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well apparantly, I even know the cunts shoe size now. Every third thread I post on.....

...but hey, it's my fault for having similar views.

You don't have "similar" views.

You have near-identical views, you share the same spelling and punctuation mistakes and you have rexourse to the same lines of drivel when the argument heats up.

And of course, Layabout would be savvy enough/have enough low animal cunning to mask his IP address so that he couldn't get rumbled on it.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Layabout was rather famous for his uber right wing views - IIRC he ran a webhosting and design service.

You missed the best bit, firky.

You left out the fact that he claimed to have joined the BNP while ignorant of the fact that the main plank of their ideology was racist.

 

[TonkaToy]

You don't have "similar" views.

You have near-identical views, you share the same spelling and punctuation mistakes and you have rexourse to the same lines of drivel when the argument heats up.

And of course, Layabout would be savvy enough/have enough low animal cunning to mask his IP address so that he couldn't get rumbled on it.

VP, you have never presented an argument. ALL you ever do is follow me around, accusing me of being Layabout.

WHats it to be? :

A) You fucking shut up.

B) I get banned

C) You get banned

Which one do you want?

 

[TonkaToy]

............because...........I am not changing my views on anything.........just because you think I'm a returning poster.

 

[TeeJay]

B)

anyone else?

 

[cybertect]

No TeeJay, I'm not Layabout either

 

[ViolentPanda]

VP, you have never presented an argument. ALL you ever do is follow me around, accusing me of being Layabout.

I've given you plenty of argument, but I've noticed that you tend to "forget" any facts that challenge your syphilitic worldview.

WHats it to be? :

A) You fucking shut up.

Nah, don't think so.

B) I get banned

Why would you get banned if you're not Layabout?

It's only if you're a wankstain low-down smegma-munching arsehole of a returned poster who's tried to creep in under the radar that you get banned. Is that it, are you afraid of being found out, diddums?

C) You get banned

Which one do you want?

Like it's in your power to make any of them happen.

Do carry on embarrassingyourself though, it's very entertaining.

 

[Astramax]

The strange thing about the current governments immigration policy is that is tends to have had a far greater negative impact on the poorer (generally labour voters) than the more affluent (tend to vote Tory) who in many ways benefit from immigration.

 

[ViolentPanda]

............because...........I am not changing my views on anything.........just because you think I'm a returning poster.

Has anyone asked you to change your views?

They haven't, have they?

What people have done, of course, is point out the difference between the whimsical moonshine that masquerades as political opinion in your pointy little head, and reality.

So isn't it more a case of you wanting others to change their views so you don't suffer the cognitive dissonance of having your opinions shown up for the reality-free piles of steaming crap they are?

 

[danny la rouge]

Thankyou for your contribution. I look forward to your next post in 3 months time, but hey, if I've dragged you out from lurkerville, it's at least some achievement.

I've not been lurking, I've been elsewhere. But I have contributed in the last week to a thread on this very topic. And was disappointed at the level of debate.

The very first thread I contributed to on here was on asylum and migration, and featured an (actual) racist troll called "rosbyf", who later re-emerged as "rumble". Sadly it's been downhill since then.

 

[TonkaToy]

Has anyone asked you to change your views?

They haven't, have they?

What people have done, of course, is point out the difference between the whimsical moonshine that masquerades as political opinion in your pointy little head, and reality.

So isn't it more a case of you wanting others to change their views so you don't suffer the cognitive dissonance of having your opinions shown up for the reality-free piles of steaming crap they are?

OK, my apologies...you don't just accuse me of being Layabout, everynow and then, you swap baseless allegations for "bottom line summaries" without any debate or discussion.

Sooooooooo.

This this the point where I say, that you are talking bollocks because you are.

 

[pbowie]

Immigration -governments never listen !

No government has listened to its people re Immigration
they all have to be shown as freedom seeking , open armed, and non racist.

however as we know and as its been proved -immigration causes problems.
And Im going to say it although it wont be nice-its mostly muslims that causes problems here.

A recent trip back to my childhood days living in Leyton,east London, looked more like a Karachi Ghetto than anything else.

I am ashamed at this and past governments for letting in so many foreigners that its got like this.

I have to say , again, it wont be liked, that indian people have assimilated and become british and are good citizens but the Pakistanis have not.

sorry, but thats how I feel.

 

[danny la rouge]

I am ashamed at this and past governments for letting in so many foreigners that its got like this.

Got like what? Want to illustrate what you think the problem is? Because "like this" is pretty vague. What, exactly, are you saying that the amount of foreigners let in is causing?

I have to say , again, it wont be liked, that indian people have assimilated and become british and are good citizens but the Pakistanis have not.

Without evidence to back up your claims, we'd be forgiven for thinking that a sweeping generalisation. What is your evidence here? And what measures are you using for things like assimilation and good citizenship? And how are you defining these phrases?

 

[ViolentPanda]

OK, my apologies...you don't just accuse me of being Layabout, everynow and then, you swap baseless allegations for "bottom line summaries" without any debate or discussion.

Sooooooooo.

This this the point where I say, that you are talking bollocks because you are.

Well, if anyone knows about talking bollocks its you.

 

[pbowie]

Got like what? Want to illustrate what you think the problem is? Because "like this" is pretty vague. What, exactly, are you saying that the amount of foreigners let in is causing?

Without evidence to back up your claims, we'd be forgiven for thinking that a sweeping generalisation. What is your evidence here? And what measures are you using for things like assimilation and good citizenship? And how are you defining these phrases?

Well read my post !

the east end, Leicester, etc are now Karachi ghettos

and incase its slipped your notice, muslim extremeists are bombing our cities, embassies, underground stations etc.

So, to be clear-we need to STOP all immigration from any muslim
country and from the new EEC countries and then use a quota system
to allow people in after a thorough background check. and any person who comes to our country that commits a crime should serve thier sentence and be permanently deported.

 

[TonkaToy]

Well read my post !

the east end, Leicester, etc are now Karachi ghettos

and incase its slipped your notice, muslim extremeists are bombing our cities, embassies, underground stations etc.

So, to be clear-we need to STOP all immigration from any muslim
country and from the new EEC countries and then use a quota system
to allow people in after a thorough background check. and any person who comes to our country that commits a crime should serve thier sentence and be permanently deported.

And what happens when you find out they are muslims born in the UK?

I agree with deportation but ONLY for foreigners who don't have UK citizenship. Once a naturalised UK citizen, always a UK citizen is best for community relations.

Also, I'm not up for discriminating against muslims as prospective immigrants. That won't help anyone.

 

[danny la rouge]

and incase its slipped your notice, muslim extremeists are bombing our cities, embassies, underground stations etc.

You may have seen the "martyr" videos of the London Underground bombers; those guys were British. Confusing the term Muslim with the term immigrant isn't going to help anyone. And neither is confusing the term Muslim with the term terrorist. Much as I dislike religion, getting your facts straight has got to be the first step here.

 

[118118]

<With working class white money of course>

Just as I think that, maybe, your not all nutcasese, it becomes obvious that this is very much an issue about race. I mean, some of the throw away comments, are, about race - not class.

I dunno, if this was sarcasm confused: ), then at least some of the stuff you say when your on the defensive appeals to racial lines - not just class.

Shrug. I'm sure your not a bad/racist(!!!111) person, though. But...

(disclaimer: did not read thread)

 

[TonkaToy]

Just as I think that, maybe, your not all nutcasese, it becomes obvious that this is very much an issue about race. I mean, some of the throw away comments, are, about race - not class.

I dunno, if this was sarcasm confused: ), then at least some of the stuff you say when your on the defensive appeals to racial lines - not just class.

Shrug. I'm sure your not a bad/racist(!!!111) person, though. But...

(disclaimer: did not read thread)

How can I take the piss out of race obsessed liberals, without making throwaway comments involving race?

 

[118118]

Not the soundest thing to do, (I would have thought), considering the BNP is doing well (?) etc.

Playing with fire/stoking the flames etc. And I doubt that many of your "constituents" are anti-immigartion to piss of liberals, either.

 

[TonkaToy]

Not the soundest thing to do, (I would have thought), considering the BNP is doing well (?) etc.

Playing with fire/stoking the flames etc. And I doubt that many of your "constituents" are anti-immigartion to piss of liberals, either.

Please elaborate, I don't understand what you are talking about. Soz.

 

[118118]

If you didn't understand, then its probably not worth saying.

 

[TonkaToy]

If you didn't understand, then its probably not worth saying.

I doubt anyone understands that last post of yours. Read it back to yourself.