Immigration and Asylum (11 Viewers)

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
@chiefdave spoke about the need for ‘integration’ without considering the willingness of some groups to ‘integrate’ and whether or not there are any cultural differences that may be irreconcilable.
If you don't want to work to integrate people then what other option do you have unless you want to ignore our international obligations and just not allow anyone into the country?

Even then the chances of a 100% success rate of stopping illegal immigration is unlikely to say the least.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
So if they are here legally how do you solve it. Deport all those that you consider in that category of "Dr's and Engineers" which we know what you are getting at?
Recently I've seen a big increase in talk about 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants. People talking of how that demographic has higher crime rates and therefore there should be mass deportations.

The question then is through what legal process are you deporting British citizens born and raised here, and once you get past that where are you deporting them to.
 

mmttww

Well-Known Member
The elephant in the room is there are a large proportion of Pakistani Muslim men who are racist towards white girls and view them as white trash fit only for their sexual gratification. Most people are terrified to admit it.

this feels like a tough one to back up. You gonna quantify the 'large proportion' part of the post? because I'm confident the same statement applies to a big chunk of the white British population.
 

Ccfcisparks

Well-Known Member
Recently I've seen a big increase in talk about 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants. People talking of how that demographic has higher crime rates and therefore there should be mass deportations.

The question then is through what legal process are you deporting British citizens born and raised here, and once you get past that where are you deporting them to.
Exactly my question.
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
With respect Pete, this is drivel. Wherever data is collected, migrants from the Middle East and Africa are always overrepresented in crime statistics and welfare dependency.

It’s not the ‘right wing press’, it’s the BBC reporting this on a daily basis. Who, btw, were found to be underrepresenting push notifications about migrant crime on the smartphone apps.


Yes. What a stupid question, btw.

Frankly, anyone who cannot pass a Public Benefit Test, should be deported. Right now, we can’t even deport the criminals and that’s an obvious to start. If you go 10-20 years without proper enforcement, then of course there will be a massive job for an incoming government to tackle, this is the result of allowing 100s of thousands of people to arrive year on year.

On a whim here, I don’t think there will be anyone who thinks foreign criminals shouldn’t be deported.

The immigration system should make things as easy as possible for high income, high skill migrants. Frankly, if it’s low skill and low income, as difficult as possible. To make it absolutely clear, this is irrespective of one ethnicity or nationality.
Would you accept that if someone is born in Britain they are not a foreign criminal they are just a criminal
I think there is a debate about deporting foreign criminals (people whose nationality is not British). This is to make sure that criminals are punished for their actions rather than not and some won’t serve time after deportation if they’re just sent back on conviction

whats drivel? Are you genuinely saying that if we removed all people who aren’t British born then we’d have no crime?
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
The doctors and engineers quote isn't meant at all as a smear on those who are here law abiding, it's actually in reference to those British, mostly white people, who use it as a backdrop to justify even those who are committing crime (mostly on the cesspit X rather than here tbf) by suggesting that we need them because of the doctors and engineers and keep reminding everyone it's only a small percentage. Tell that to the families of the victims and see if they think it was worth it.

If you're increasing risk how can it be good? Yes it might only be 2% or 3% or whatever the real number is, but of the current average is 1% (and that's 1% too many victims) then we shouldn't be increasing that risk.
Not just the doctors and engineers, but all the jobs we can't or won't fill otherwise in big chunks of the workforce. If we cut it all off tomorrow, we'd have more than one job sector become grossly understaffed.

What you're suggesting is punishing the 97% because of the 3%, and not bothering to screen or vet people, just use nationality alone to decide. Even when you're trying not to smear people you're at it again there. Maybe come along to our junior club on a Saturday morning where the vast majority are from backgrounds you wouldn't want in the country and tell their parents they aren't welcome because on balance they're probably a criminal.

Sorry, it's just really hard to hold a reasonable conversation on this when you keep judging people by their worst rather than their best.
 

rob9872

Well-Known Member
Not just the doctors and engineers, but all the jobs we can't or won't fill otherwise in big chunks of the workforce. If we cut it all off tomorrow, we'd have more than one job sector become grossly understaffed.

What you're suggesting is punishing the 97% because of the 3%, and not bothering to screen or vet people, just use nationality alone to decide. Even when you're trying not to smear people you're at it again there. Maybe come along to our junior club on a Saturday morning where the vast majority are from backgrounds you wouldn't want in the country and tell their parents they aren't welcome because on balance they're probably a criminal.

Sorry, it's just really hard to hold a reasonable conversation on this when you keep judging people by their worst rather than their best.
Please don't ever misquote me on that. It's not at all what I'm suggesting, that's your own misinterpretation of my post. I'm on record of saying no more net migration, I've never said no migration and I've never talked about remigration. I use the E&D examples as those are the two as I stated clearly, on X that are used for the reverse purposes, well aware of other professions that have shortages and have relied on immigration too.

My post is about grooming gangs, nothing to do with whole ethnicity, race or anything else. If you don't think there is a problem with Muslim grooming gangs then there is nothing I can do to make you believe it.


And you can really get fucked with this bit "vast majority are from backgrounds you wouldn't want in the country and tell their parents they aren't welcome because on balance they're probably a criminal" You know that's not what I've ever said and it's this kind of dangerous narrative that means we can't ever hold a sensible conversation without someone shouting racist.
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Oh we can all see what the crime statistics say, and I'm not going to argue with officially recorded data. Where I disagree with you is in using it to smear entire countries and people looking to move here from those places. I find that a very ugly thing to do that will lead to us refusing entry to people coming here to work hard and contribute to society.

@rob9872 sarcastically goes on about 'doctors and engineers' too. Putting it as respectfully as I can, why keep making that sarcastic point as though we don't have huge numbers of immigrants here in those and other professions where we don't have enough home grown labour or people prepared to do undesirable work on low wages?

I put it to you both that the vast majority of immigrants are law abiding people wanting to contribute to society. The numbers bear that out also. Stop smearing entire groups of people and we can have a balanced conversation on sustainable immigration.
It’s sarcastic because people like Darren Jones goes on BBC QT to trot out the line that small boat crossings are full of ‘women and children’.

The vast majority are law abiding. But are they economically productive? There are some nationalities of migrants where 30-40% of them end up on benefits… firstly, the welfare state cannot sustain that. More pertinently, that isn’t morally correct.

A westerner to migrate anywhere in the world you’d expect the following:
- proof of funds to sustain themselves
- proof of employment / sponsor
- proficiency in the native language / English

The T&Cs of entry is that they remain in employment and if not, you’re out.

We’re in large agreement on what needs to be controlled and how. When building an immigration system, you obviously need to positively discriminate for ‘desirable’ characteristics a negatively towards ‘undesirable’. This will invariably favour middle-class migrants from developed countries. These types of migrants integrate v easily and not many people will have issues with this.

Yep really difficult questions
The increase in intolerance and violence is not just linked to second generation immigration or those coming on boats
And …. No one is even focusing on these issues.
Disenfranchised people
Lack of opportunity
Lack of value
Lack of self worth
Lack of hope
Easy answers that point fingers of blame at certain groups and once they have gone all will be idyllic
Maybe it’s time to get off this crazy planet and admit defeat

Or lack of cultural compatibility? There are people in this world

Look up Sayyid Qutb. To summarise: came from a decent background in Egypt, was secular and upon visiting the USA was disgusted by the materialism in capitalist societies and became a forefather for modern day terrorist groups.

Not everyone shares a liberal worldview Pete.

The irony in the doctors and engineers comment is that in my last few years of going to different hospitals and GP's the vast majority are from ethnic minority backgrounds.

We just arent producing enough "British" Dr's to meet our demand.

Obviously this isnt to say we dont have an immigration problem, but there seems to be no balance.

The same posters went quiet on the train attack when it came out the hero in the situation was a migrant.
The treasury has systemically defunded healthcare training places because it has outsourced this to imported labour. It’s cynical.

On the Huntingdon train example, he is one hero and deserves all the public praise. It’s not a valid justification for mass migration.
 

Ccfcisparks

Well-Known Member
It’s sarcastic because people like Darren Jones goes on BBC QT to trot out the line that small boat crossings are full of ‘women and children’.

The vast majority are law abiding. But are they economically productive? There are some nationalities of migrants where 30-40% of them end up on benefits… firstly, the welfare state cannot sustain that. More pertinently, that isn’t morally correct.

A westerner to migrate anywhere in the world you’d expect the following:
- proof of funds to sustain themselves
- proof of employment / sponsor
- proficiency in the native language / English

The T&Cs of entry is that they remain in employment and if not, you’re out.

We’re in large agreement on what needs to be controlled and how. When building an immigration system, you obviously need to positively discriminate for ‘desirable’ characteristics a negatively towards ‘undesirable’. This will invariably favour middle-class migrants from developed countries. These types of migrants integrate v easily and not many people will have issues with this.



Or lack of cultural compatibility? There are people in this world

Look up Sayyid Qutb. To summarise: came from a decent background in Egypt, was secular and upon visiting the USA was disgusted by the materialism in capitalist societies and became a forefather for modern day terrorist groups.

Not everyone shares a liberal worldview Pete.


The treasury has systemically defunded healthcare training places because it has outsourced this to imported labour. It’s cynical.

On the Huntingdon train example, he is one hero and deserves all the public praise. It’s not a valid justification for mass migration.
He does deserve all the public praise, but those on here what notable in their absence for the praise.
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
If you don't want to work to integrate people then what other option do you have unless you want to ignore our international obligations and just not allow anyone into the country?

Even then the chances of a 100% success rate of stopping illegal immigration is unlikely to say the least.
How is it unlikely? Australia implemented Operation Sovereign Borders and the amount of ‘irregular’ small crossings has been 0 since 2013. According to Dominic Cummings, the Royal Navy reckoned its ‘operationally easy’ to implement a turn back policy.

The only ‘political’ issues would be if the French want to leverage the Euro tunnel and energy supply over this issue.

The problem is, the HRA prevents a UK government from following suit.
 

Ccfcisparks

Well-Known Member
How is it unlikely? Australia implemented Operation Sovereign Borders and the amount of ‘irregular’ small crossings has been 0 since 2013. According to Dominic Cummings, the Royal Navy reckoned its ‘operationally easy’ to implement a turn back policy.

The only ‘political’ issues would be if the French want to leverage the Euro tunnel and energy supply over this issue.

The problem is, the HRA prevents a UK government from following suit.
Are you talking about small crossings or not? You said just it wasn't about just small boats.
 

Sick Boy

Super Moderator
Why is it that more is made of the heritage of non-white people and if white people are proud of their heritage they’re called plastics?
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
So how do you solve it then. Deport all those that aren't willing to integrate? How do you suppose we judge if someone is willing or not to integrate?
I guess the easiest there is learning English. If within say 5 years you aren't able to pass a basic English test then deportation proceedings start.

Obviously far from ideal, as there will be many other ways in which people aren't willing to integrate culturally, and need to police it so that others couldn't take the test on their behalf etc.

It's very hard to prove a person is willing to be religiously tolerant and accept certain practices are not acceptable in this country. For example, IMO anyone who makes a young girl have FGM is clearly not willing to integrate and should be considered for deportation, and arguably arranged marriage too. I find both of those practices abhorrent.
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Recently I've seen a big increase in talk about 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants. People talking of how that demographic has higher crime rates and therefore there should be mass deportations.

The question then is through what legal process are you deporting British citizens born and raised here, and once you get past that where are you deporting them to.
Change citizenship laws? Being born in France doesn’t allow you to claim French citizenship on the basis of being born there. Japan almost never grants citizenship to foreigners.

On the contrary, given how liberal Ireland’s citizenship laws are… most people on this forum probably could get Irish citizenship and an IE passport.

The government needs to look at ILR and/or possibly citizenship laws. ILR review I’m strongly in favour of, citizenship laws, less so.
 

SBT

Well-Known Member
Is Denmark an authoritarian regime?

That would be quite the admission give your admiration on their other public policy stances.
Does Denmark deport anyone who fails a public benefit test?

And can you point me to one of my posts expressing admiration for Danish public policy stances? I think you’ve made this up.
 

Sick Boy

Super Moderator
Change citizenship laws? Being born in France doesn’t allow you to claim French citizenship on the basis of being born there. Japan almost never grants citizenship to foreigners.

On the contrary, given how liberal Ireland’s citizenship laws are… most people on this forum probably could get Irish citizenship and an IE passport.

The government needs to look at ILR and/or possibly citizenship laws. ILR review I’m strongly in favour of, citizenship laws, less so.
Other European countries also allow citizenship for someone with a grandparent from that country. Up until recently Italy did for anyone with an Italian ancestor.

The Italian one was denying citizenship to those born to foreign parents while giving it out to Americans who’d never visited the country and couldn’t speak Italian.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Please don't ever misquote me on that. It's not at all what I'm suggesting, that's your own misinterpretation of my post. I'm on record of saying no more net migration, I've never said no migration and I've never talked about remigration. I use the E&D examples as those are the two as I stated clearly, on X that are used for the reverse purposes, well aware of other professions that have shortages and have relied on immigration too.

My post is about grooming gangs, nothing to do with whole ethnicity, race or anything else. If you don't think there is a problem with Muslim grooming gangs then there is nothing I can do to make you believe it.


And you can really get fucked with this bit "vast majority are from backgrounds you wouldn't want in the country and tell their parents they aren't welcome because on balance they're probably a criminal" You know that's not what I've ever said and it's this kind of dangerous narrative that means we can't ever hold a sensible conversation without someone shouting racist.
If you turn off all net migration you'll suddenly leave a lot of sectors understaffed, because most people who migrate legally are doing so for work or study. There's no misquoting going on there. The Home Office reported on grooming gangs under the previous government and concluded that the data linking their prevalence to ethnicity was weak i.e. more robust studies needed to be done.

As for your last bit, it's the conclusion I came to from your earlier posts. 'People from certain countries are overrepresented in certain crime statistics, and even if it's at just 2 or 3% we can't afford the risk of increasing it from the 1% we already have.' Most of our 'regulars' are from families from those same countries. What other conclusion was I meant to come to? We can't hold a sensible conversation because it keeps coming back to attempts at smearing huge numbers of people. Just stop doing that and there will actually be a lot of overlap in what we want the solutions to look like.
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Are you talking about small crossings or not? You said just it wasn't about just small boats.
To you, it was on migration more broadly.

To @chiefdave it was a specific mentioned on illegal migration which is primarily driven by small boats. To broaden the scope of my answer, they should deny asylum requests to people who originally arrived on another visa e.g. student visa. This makes up a substantial % of asylum claims, the figure is c. 15% of all asylum claims or the % of student visas holders moving to asylum.

It’s in Parliament’s power to amend/pass any laws to close some of the ridiculous loopholes.
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Other European countries also allow citizenship for someone with a grandparent from that country. Up until recently Italy did for anyone with an Italian ancestor.

The Italian one was denying citizenship to those born to foreign parents while giving it out to Americans who’d never visited the country and couldn’t speak Italian.
It’s a legacy of countries with massive flows of net negative migration. The Irish and Italian diasporas led to huge population declines in those countries. At a guess, I’d assume Albania has a similar law because its diaspora outnumbers the population of Albania itself*.

In the context of massive net migration, where arrivals are in the hundreds of thousands, that seems no longer tenable.

*to make it football related, how Albania tapped into its diaspora to strengthen the national team is an interesting read.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
It’s sarcastic because people like Darren Jones goes on BBC QT to trot out the line that small boat crossings are full of ‘women and children’.

The vast majority are law abiding. But are they economically productive? There are some nationalities of migrants where 30-40% of them end up on benefits… firstly, the welfare state cannot sustain that. More pertinently, that isn’t morally correct.

A westerner to migrate anywhere in the world you’d expect the following:
- proof of funds to sustain themselves
- proof of employment / sponsor
- proficiency in the native language / English

The T&Cs of entry is that they remain in employment and if not, you’re out.

We’re in large agreement on what needs to be controlled and how. When building an immigration system, you obviously need to positively discriminate for ‘desirable’ characteristics a negatively towards ‘undesirable’. This will invariably favour middle-class migrants from developed countries. These types of migrants integrate v easily and not many people will have issues with this.
Well there's something. As for economic productivity, if say 40% end up on benefits, 60% aren't. Even there, the majority is getting smeared by the minority.

But anyway, I've largely agreed with your other posts on the criteria that should be applied to admit economic migrants. I don't even really disagree with wanting more people with 'desirable' characteristics. I just disagree with someone's nationality being held against them because it's out of their control.
 

rob9872

Well-Known Member
If you turn off all net migration you'll suddenly leave a lot of sectors understaffed, because most people who migrate legally are doing so for work or study. There's no misquoting going on there. The Home Office reported on grooming gangs under the previous government and concluded that the data linking their prevalence to ethnicity was weak i.e. more robust studies needed to be done.

As for your last bit, it's the conclusion I came to from your earlier posts. 'People from certain countries are overrepresented in certain crime statistics, and even if it's at just 2 or 3% we can't afford the risk of increasing it from the 1% we already have.' Most of our 'regulars' are from families from those same countries. What other conclusion was I meant to come to? We can't hold a sensible conversation because it keeps coming back to attempts at smearing huge numbers of people. Just stop doing that and there will actually be a lot of overlap in what we want the solutions to look like.
I've said before on net migration, you can't keep bringing more in because as they age you'll need more. It's an ever increasing circle and the nurse who comes that brings someone or has kids, then need more to satisfy that demand in education or care. Keep it net neutral and increase pay in the professions that are underpaid, but only until equilibrium to satisfy the current demand.

With the 3% for the 97% what does that have to do with people at your chess club? It has nothing to do with the little boy who my wife looks after or any of our friends too who are law abiding but readily accept there isa problem. The only people who fail to acknowledge it are generally white middle Englanders pretending to be liberal, but only to those who agree with them.

Arguably I'm preventing 97% more innocent people arriving, but not 97% innocent here like you and I. If your recently born child has a 1% chance of being groomed when she grows up, then I hope that never happens, but it's 1% too high. Are you happy to keep welcoming everyone because most people are ok, even if that increases the risk that she's 3 times more likely to be groomed?
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Does Denmark deport anyone who fails a public benefit test?

And can you point me to one of my posts expressing admiration for Danish public policy stances? I think you’ve made this up.
Have you never admired Denmark’s public services? If not, my bad.

To answer the question, yes. They also make it v clear that asylum is a temporary arrangement. In the UK, once an asylum claim is accepted, it is effectively a pathway to permanent settlement (ILR) and therefore, your children and grandchildren will be UK citizens.

This is one of many reasons Macron called Britain El Dorado for asylum seekers.

Well there's something. As for economic productivity, if say 40% end up on benefits, 60% aren't. Even there, the majority is getting smeared by the minority.

But anyway, I've largely agreed with your other posts on the criteria that should be applied to admit economic migrants. I don't even really disagree with wanting more people with 'desirable' characteristics. I just disagree with someone's nationality being held against them because it's out of their control.
Let’s be more specific… how many of those low income country migrants will be earning £35k p/a? It’s rhetorical because we don’t know answer but it’s almost definitely going to be v low %.

To be clear, anyone on a salary is less £35k p/a, you’re a net drain on the treasury. Presumably, this scales with inflation but the OBR didn’t clarify this in their reports.
 

Sick Boy

Super Moderator
Have you never admired Denmark’s public services? If not, my bad.

To answer the question, yes. They also make it v clear that asylum is a temporary arrangement. In the UK, once an asylum claim is accepted, it is effectively a pathway to permanent settlement (ILR) and therefore, your children and grandchildren will be UK citizens.

This is one of many reasons Macron called Britain El Dorado for asylum seekers.


Let’s be more specific… how many of those low income country migrants will be earning £35k p/a? It’s rhetorical because we don’t know answer but it’s almost definitely going to be v low %.

To be clear, anyone on a salary is less £35k p/a, you’re a net drain on the treasury. Presumably, this scales with inflation but the OBR didn’t clarify this in their reports.
Good luck recruiting nurses and midwives then!
 

SBT

Well-Known Member
Have you never admired Denmark’s public services? If not, my bad.

To answer the question, yes. They also make it v clear that asylum is a temporary arrangement. In the UK, once an asylum claim is accepted, it is effectively a pathway to permanent settlement (ILR) and therefore, your children and grandchildren will be UK citizens.
I’ve never said anything about Denmark’s public services, so yes you’re talking rubbish.

Where does it say that anyone who fails Denmark’s public benefit test gets deported? That is your policy suggestion for the UK - I don’t see the evidence of Denmark doing this?
 

Sick Boy

Super Moderator
In what sense?
They weren’t actually going to Italy to live and work in Italy. In a lot of cases they were being acquired by people from South America to live and work in Spain. These were people who had a distant relative going back generations.

In these cases it’s absurd that someone born to foreign parents is denied citizenship - I think Ireland is the same.
 

SBT

Well-Known Member
Good luck recruiting nurses and midwives then!
Last week: The public sector is useless and bloated and doesn’t know how to make important decisions

This week: The state should set a massive pub quiz for foreigners and if they fail then we round up their families into a big van
 

rob9872

Well-Known Member
Good luck recruiting nurses and midwives then!
Mates wife jsut retrained as a midwife. There were 16 passed for 3 positions. The others are only on the bank. Since we're told that nobody is having kids I guess they're less of an issue than general nurses. They're also paid the £35k almost at entry level so again no drain.
 

Sick Boy

Super Moderator
Mates wife jsut retrained as a midwife. There were 16 passed for 3 positions. The others are only on the bank. Since we're told that nobody is having kids I guess they're less of an issue than general nurses. They're also paid the £35k almost at entry level so again no drain.
Mine started as NQ at band 5 and was certainly not on 35 grand….unless they’ve had a 10-12 grand pay rise over the last 10 years.
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
I've said before on net migration, you can't keep bringing more in because as they age you'll need more. It's an ever increasing circle and the nurse who comes that brings someone or has kids, then need more to satisfy that demand in education or care. Keep it net neutral and increase pay in the professions that are underpaid, but only until equilibrium to satisfy the current demand.

With the 3% for the 97% what does that have to do with people at your chess club? It has nothing to do with the little boy who my wife looks after or any of our friends too who are law abiding but readily accept there isa problem. The only people who fail to acknowledge it are generally white middle Englanders pretending to be liberal, but only to those who agree with them.

Arguably I'm preventing 97% more innocent people arriving, but not 97% innocent here like you and I. If your recently born child has a 1% chance of being groomed when she grows up, then I hope that never happens, but it's 1% too high. Are you happy to keep welcoming everyone because most people are ok, even if that increases the risk that she's 3 times more likely to be groomed?
Because they come from countries over-represented in the statistics which you're saying should be used to decide who is allowed in, unless I've really misunderstood all of these posts. To then write that it's nothing to do with them is the problem, they'd be lumped in with the criminals as far as this immigration policy is concerned. They wouldn't be allowed in despite being hardworking decent people.

I try to be evidence driven in my views, I'm not denying the over-representation in crime statistics. Where it looks like you've got me wrong is in thinking that I want to welcome everyone in. I've never said that, and actually nobody on here has either. My own views are quite different and I'm on record as saying I want to cut off this country's reliance on importing both skilled and unskilled labour.

We surely can find an effective way of rejecting entry to people likely to commit such offences without resorting to country of origin. That's all I'm really saying.
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
It’s sarcastic because people like Darren Jones goes on BBC QT to trot out the line that small boat crossings are full of ‘women and children’.

The vast majority are law abiding. But are they economically productive? There are some nationalities of migrants where 30-40% of them end up on benefits… firstly, the welfare state cannot sustain that. More pertinently, that isn’t morally correct.

A westerner to migrate anywhere in the world you’d expect the following:
- proof of funds to sustain themselves
- proof of employment / sponsor
- proficiency in the native language / English

The T&Cs of entry is that they remain in employment and if not, you’re out.

We’re in large agreement on what needs to be controlled and how. When building an immigration system, you obviously need to positively discriminate for ‘desirable’ characteristics a negatively towards ‘undesirable’. This will invariably favour middle-class migrants from developed countries. These types of migrants integrate v easily and not many people will have issues with this.



Or lack of cultural compatibility? There are people in this world

Look up Sayyid Qutb. To summarise: came from a decent background in Egypt, was secular and upon visiting the USA was disgusted by the materialism in capitalist societies and became a forefather for modern day terrorist groups.

Not everyone shares a liberal worldview Pete.


The treasury has systemically defunded healthcare training places because it has outsourced this to imported labour. It’s cynical.

On the Huntingdon train example, he is one hero and deserves all the public praise. It’s not a valid justification for mass migration.
That can have a like
Respectful discourse
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Let’s be more specific… how many of those low income country migrants will be earning £35k p/a? It’s rhetorical because we don’t know answer but it’s almost definitely going to be v low %.

To be clear, anyone on a salary is less £35k p/a, you’re a net drain on the treasury. Presumably, this scales with inflation but the OBR didn’t clarify this in their reports.
As a genuine question, how has that number been arrived at?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top