Migrant watch (merged topic)

[johnhemming2]

The problem here is that if someone else posts something that one considers to be wrong or just plain bollocks, then the proper response is to take specific issue with said post/s and be clear about what it is that is being objected to or criticised. On the other hand, to make a sweeping statement loaded with cultural baggage and to no-one in particular is guaranteed to rile up everyone and is, to my mind, a form of intellectual cowardice.

Agreed.

[johnhemming2]

However, when one says something specific that someone else doesn't like one tends to get a load of personal abuse. Kinda removes the incentive for attempting to engage in rational discussion.

Also true, but we should still aim to engage in rational discussion.

[johnhemming2]

I am with Biff on the issue of how to argue although i disagree with him about having no controls on migration.

[biffvernon]

Thanks John, but note that I've never said that we should have no controls on migration today. Rather that is a policy we should move towards by international agreement amongst a large proportion of the worlds nations so that one day there will be free movement for all. If that involves a more equal distribution of global resource consumption then let's welcome it.

Meanwhile I think we should apply the rules currently agreed by the United Nations regarding refugees and asylum and not take advantage of the geographical quirk that Britain happen to be an island. If poor countries such as Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey can take a million and more then a rich country like the UK could easily manage that scale of support, and if all the other rich countries of the would made a proportionate contribution the current problem would be solved.

What happens when global warming creates much greater push factors than are currently being experienced is something we need to get prepared for now, while we still have the luxury of planning time.

How we react to these issues determines whether we deserve to be called civilised.

[johnhemming2]

I do take the view that freedom of movement is a nice thing to have tempered by realities. However, the realities that exist today mean that there need to be tight limitations on economic migration particularly migration implicitly subsidised by the state.

That is for a number of reasons not excluding the cost.

For example I am a fan of the idea of The Big Issue as a mechanism for taking people who are excluded from society and enabling them to become part of society and to some extent economically independent.

However, I see no merit in encouraging people who live abroad to come and stand outside supermarkets selling very few copies of The Big Issue in order to get Tax Credits as a self-employed person.

I cannot see the public benefit in this and I see it as an abuse of the benefits system that should be prevented by those that set the rules.

[johnhemming2]

If poor countries such as Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey can take a million and more then a rich country like the UK could easily manage that scale of support, and if all the other rich countries of the would made a proportionate contribution the current problem would be solved.

The UK has been supportive financially of Syrian Refugees. That is the best way to deal with the situation rather than taking people into the UK and putting them into the system.

[biffvernon]

However, I see no merit in encouraging people who live abroad to come and stand outside supermarkets selling very few copies of The Big Issue in order to get Tax Credits as a self-employed person.

And neither can I. Is this not a straw-man argument? I've not heard anyone suggesting that people should be encouraged to come here to sell Big Issue and I rather doubt that such a plan is foremost in the minds of those arriving from Syria, Eritrea, Sudan and Somalia.

[biffvernon]

The UK has been supportive financially of Syrian Refugees.

That's good to know and doubtless you can tell us just how supportive financially of Syrian Refugees the UK has been. And when they are so supported, where should they live?

[johnhemming2]

However, I see no merit in encouraging people who live abroad to come and stand outside supermarkets selling very few copies of The Big Issue in order to get Tax Credits as a self-employed person.

And neither can I. Is this not a straw-man argument? I've not heard anyone suggesting that people should be encouraged to come here to sell Big Issue and I rather doubt that such a plan is foremost in the minds of those arriving from Syria, Eritrea, Sudan and Somalia.

It is part of the wider question affecting migration. It mainly relates to the EU and in fact Romanians. I think there are about 5,000 Romanians who have come here to sell The Big Issue.

[johnhemming2]

That's good to know and doubtless you can tell us just how supportive financially of Syrian Refugees the UK has been. And when they are so supported, where should they live?

https://www.gov.uk/government/world/org ... s-response

£900,000,000 is the figure quoted.

Best that they live close by in Lebanon, Turkey etc. The idea is that this should be a temporary status.

[jonny2mad]

However, I see no merit in encouraging people who live abroad to come and stand outside supermarkets selling very few copies of The Big Issue in order to get Tax Credits as a self-employed person.

And neither can I. Is this not a straw-man argument? I've not heard anyone suggesting that people should be encouraged to come here to sell Big Issue and I rather doubt that such a plan is foremost in the minds of those arriving from Syria, Eritrea, Sudan and Somalia.

" The extra costs for unemployed immigrants are particularly important because on average immigrants are more likely to be economically inactive compared with the UK average. For example, compared with the UK average of 22% of the working age population being economically inactive, Somali, Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Iranian immigrants are likely to be 81%, 56%, 55% and 48% economically inactive respectively."

So with somalis 81% migrants just living on the benefits system which is paid for by the people who go out to work everyday . with more than half muslim men in the uk on the dole and 75 % of muslim women

You have people like the anjem choudhary joking about jobseekers actually being jihad seekers, they can see how dumb you are and are laughing at you while you go out to work to pay for your own destruction .


https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/20 ... st-decade/


you should read this one

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9875954 ... wance.html Anjem Choudary was secretly filmed mocking non-Muslims for working in 9-5 jobs their whole lives, and told followers that some revered Islamic figures had only ever worked one or two days a year.

“The rest of the year they were busy with jihad [holy war] and things like that,” he said. “People will say, ‘Ah, but you are not working’.

“But the normal situation is for you to take money from the kuffar [non-believers].

“So we take Jihad Seeker’s Allowance. You need to get support.”

He went on to tell a 30-strong crowd: “We are going to take England — the Muslims are coming.” Ridiculing the daily lives of UK workers, Choudary said: “You find people are busy working the whole of their life. They wake up at 7 o’clock. They go to work at 9 o’clock.

“They work for eight, nine hours a day. They come home at 7 o’clock, watch EastEnders, sleep, and they do that for 40 years of their life. That is called slavery.”

Choudary, a father-of-four, claims more than £25,000 a year in benefits, £8,000 more than the take-home pay of some soldiers fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, according to the Sun, which covertly filmed the preacher at three meetings.

At another meeting in Slough infiltrated by the Sun, Choudary was filmed proclaiming that Islam was taking over Europe.

“Now we are taking over Birmingham and populating it,” he said.

“Brussels is 30 per cent, 40 per cent Muslim and Amsterdam. Bradford is 17 per cent Muslim.

“These people are like a tsunami going across Europe. And over here we’re just relaxing, taking over Bradford brother. The reality is changing.”

Choudary, who has been banned twice from running organisations under the Terrorism Act, told an audience at a community centre in Bethnal Green, East London, that David Cameron, Barack Obama and the leaders of Pakistan and Egypt were the devil (shaitan) and should be killed.

“What ultimately do we want to happen to them?” asked Choudary. “Maybe I’m the only one who wants the shaitan to be killed. The shaitan should be finished. There should be no shaitan.

“Democracy, freedom, secularism, the parliament, all the MPs and the Presidents, all the kuffar’s ideas, everything the people worship, we have to believe that they are bad and we have got to reject them.

unlike you I talked to british muslims for decades and they think like this allah as made you so stupid so they can win

[biffvernon]

That's good to know and doubtless you can tell us just how supportive financially of Syrian Refugees the UK has been. And when they are so supported, where should they live?

https://www.gov.uk/government/world/org ... s-response

£900,000,000 is the figure quoted.

Best that they live close by in Lebanon, Turkey etc. The idea is that this should be a temporary status.

Thanks for that link. This is of course exactly what we should be doing and, in my view, we should do more of the same.

It would, of course, be good if the camps currently housing a couple of million Syrians in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey were to be temporary and that the people will soon be able to return to their farms and homes in Syria. But a year is a long time in the life of a child and I can imagine these camps remaining as a stain on our civilisation for many years to come. How long have the Palestinian camps existed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_refugee_camps

So when, John, you say "Best that they live close by in Lebanon, Turkey etc. " I feel that solution as currently enacted, is a long way short of best.

The people coming from Eritrea, Somalia, and Sudan are in a different situation. Where might they best stay?

[3rdRock]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... ip-hammond

'Marauding' migrants threaten standard of living, says foreign secretary

Senior Labour figures accuse Philip Hammond of scaremongering after he claims Europe ‘can’t protect itself’ if forced to take millions of migrants.

Labour leadership candidate Andy Burnham criticised the prime minister’s phrasing, tweeting: “Cameron calling Calais migrants a ‘swarm’ is nothing short of disgraceful. Confirms there’s no dog-whistle these Bullingdon Boys won’t blow.”

Kendall said: “The Tories should focus on policy solutions not ramping up the rhetoric. We should not lose sight of the human tragedy these stories represent and Britain should always take its fair share of refugees and asylum seekers.”

Corbyn urged politicians to “explicitly recognise the contribution of Africans and other migrants to our society, not speak in these disgraceful terms.”

[Little John]

There no f***ing hope.

On the one hand, there are the idiots on the left who insist that there should be no border controls and that all will be well in a world of endless optimism. On the other hand, are the idiots on the right who would like to portray all immigrants, illegal or otherwise and particularly the brown skinned ones, as lazy, disease ridden scroungers who want to eat our babies.

Jokers to the left of me, jokers to the right of me........

[biffvernon]

And on Radio 4 Today Programme we have just heard James Jones Bishop of Liverpool, reminding us of the words of St. Paul, "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."