Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
TheCountOfNowhere

Tories Getting Tough On Immigration.

Recommended Posts

sky reporting government promises to take in Syrian refuges

they just love spending other peoples money.

im all for helping people but peoples 60% to 70% annualtax liability has stretched us to breaking point.

will they all be getting houses built for them...or will some lanlord getting silly amounts of our money to house them.

charity begins at home torries.

who do vote for to stop this?

Edited by TheCountOfNowhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its our 'fair share'

dunno what happened to japans 'fair share'

whats wrong with saudis taking them?

theyre closer, muslim, have plenty of space and need guestworkers

we'll see how it works out.

Kindness is the white man's burden in the modern world. On the whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sky reporting government promises to take in Syrian refuges

they just love spending other peoples money.

im all for helping people but peoples 60% to 70% annualtax liability has stretched us to breaking point.

will they all be getting houses built for them...or will some lanlord getting silly amounts of our money to house them.

charity begins at home torries.

who do vote for to stop this?

I have noticed they were saying temporary refuge, that is how it should have been for years as many " so called" war torn refugees have from what i have seen has been a bit of a trick in some cases to get a British passport.

We should help but not be taken for a fool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice in the governments statement that they intend to take in mainly women, children and disabled refugees.

That will do wonders for the UK's productivity. Meanwhile countries elsewhere will have taken all the qualified and working ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys, it seems a legitimate case of letting in genuinely vulnerable asylum seekers this time. And what cold hearted bastards some people here are.

Edited by Big Orange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no legitimate reason to let people like this in. I would give asylum to virtually nobody.

I would rather not pay for it anyway - not while there are homeless English people, old people freezing to death in their homes etc etc.

Edited by Errol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kindness is the white man's burden in the modern world. On the whole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population

I'd say the people who help out in massive refugee camps on the borders of war torn countries, or share their meagre resources with those fleeing death are kinder than us who begrudge letting a few damaged women and children in temporarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys, it seems a legitimate case of letting in genuinely vulnerable asylum seekers this time. And what cold hearted bastards some people here are.

I don't consider myself cold hearted - I just can't see why we[1] send crates of weapons to 3rd world hellholes, then accept all the people fleeing the mayhem caused by those weapons.

It feels like solving the wrong problem - that's why I'm not keen on it personally.

[1] As in: our government and its various chums, especially the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys, it seems a legitimate case of letting in genuinely vulnerable asylum seekers this time. And what cold hearted bastards some people here are.

You do know that the 21st July 2005 attacks in London were carried out by Somali refugees, don't you? How do you know that the same thing might happen again?

I am quite welcome to let genuine refugees who will not blow up the tube but not ones who might do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the truth be known for over 10 years or more...many thousands of asylem seekers came with few questions asked from all over the world.....a blind eye was taken, many all from outside the EU.......few were genuine, many were not, the target then seemed to be people/growth not circumstances more often than not for economic reasons not because of persecution........ That is why a limit on people who have a real and genuine need and assistance is not a bad thing......these people are real, in real desperate need........not at all like the many that did claim destitution that were not desperate like these people are. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys, it seems a legitimate case of letting in genuinely vulnerable asylum seekers this time. And what cold hearted bastards some people here are.

you can add me to the list

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the truth be known for over 10 years or more...many thousands of asylem seekers came with few questions asked from all over the world.....a blind eye was taken, many all from outside the EU.......few were genuine, many were not, the target then seemed to be people/growth not circumstances more often than not for economic reasons not because of persecution........ That is why a limit on people who have a real and genuine need and assistance is not a bad thing......these people are real, in real desperate need........not at all like the many that did claim destitution that were not desperate like these people are. ;)

Unfortunately the Somalis were also in genuine need - didn't stop terrorism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst terrorist atrocity in my neck of the woods was carried out by Irish Republicans. I don't remember anyone demanding a blanket ban on Irish immigration after that though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys, it seems a legitimate case of letting in genuinely vulnerable asylum seekers this time. And what cold hearted bastards some people here are.

For the amount of money that will be spent on each refugee admitted to Britain, the UK could probably support about 10 refugees if they stayed in the region (i.e. Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, etc.) given the huge difference in the cost of living.

Admitting asylum seekers into the UK will deprive children of an education, force families to live without proper housing, and increase malnutrition. If making sure that people are properly looked after carries the risk of being called a "cold hearted *******" by some of the more simple-minded and self-righteous members of society, than so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst terrorist atrocity in my neck of the woods was carried out by Irish Republicans. I don't remember anyone demanding a blanket ban on Irish immigration after that though.

Only a really stupid person would have done that as the IRA were mainly British citizens (NI is part of the UK). Syria is not part of the UK and although I would like to Christian/Atheist Syrians here, importing the rest would only cause more problems.

Of course if we carry on importing Muslims then one day you might have some more atrocities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only a really stupid person would have done that as the IRA were mainly British citizens (NI is part of the UK). Syria is not part of the UK and although I would like to Christian/Atheist Syrians here, importing the rest would only cause more problems.

Of course if we carry on importing Muslims then one day you might have some more atrocities.

The 7 July 2005 bombers (the ones who actually killed people) were also British citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst terrorist atrocity in my neck of the woods was carried out by Irish Republicans. I don't remember anyone demanding a blanket ban on Irish immigration after that though.

Probably because even if every last irishman emigrated to the UK they;d still not even equal the aggregate total of immigration from 1997-2010. On the other hand, theres about 3 billion third worlders who would want to come here.

edit SpAg

Edited by Executive Sadman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 7 July 2005 bombers (the ones who actually killed people) were also British citizens.

But unlike most members of the IRA they were British citizens because their parents (unfortunately) immigrated here. Whilst NI is part of the UK and therefore not the same thing. Can you see the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I would be slated for posting this as a topic....it seems not.

I have a great deal of sympathy for any refugee, what is happening is tragic. However, the government is borrowing £120B a year and giving a lot of it away...they are like a drunk bloke up the pub spanking his credit card trying to get into some tarts pants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I would be slated for posting this as a topic....it seems not.

I have a great deal of sympathy for any refugee, what is happening is tragic. However, the government is borrowing £120B a year and giving a lot of it away...they are like a drunk bloke up the pub spanking his credit card trying to get into some tarts pants.

I feel very sorry for them as well.

BTW this

"they are like a drunk bloke up the pub spanking his credit card trying to get into some tarts pants."

should read

"they are like a drunk bloke up the pub spanking OUR credit card trying to get into some tarts pants."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But unlike most members of the IRA they were British citizens because their parents (unfortunately) immigrated here. Whilst NI is part of the UK and therefore not the same thing. Can you see the difference?

I'm just trying to get a handle on your logic. Who exactly do you think should be banned from entering the UK on the grounds that they might carry out terrorist attacks, given that almost all of those responsible for deadly attacks to date were born in the UK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   206 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.