Britain - Immigration and Asylum

Immigration is a major issue in British politics these days, whether you agree with mass, limited or no immigration, I think we can all agree something needs to be done.

First of all we need to realise that Immigration and Asylum are different:

Link to Original Source

*Asylum is to seek short to medium term refuge from oppression which could include war, famine, natural disaster etc...
*Immigration is to seek permanent settlement in country, to live and work and too add to the long term population
These two are often confused and mixed up, leading to racial and population problems.

Immigration has a single purpose, to provide Britain with new positivly focused people who wish to contribute to Britain.

Link to Original Source

*There should be a maximum limit of 9,000 people permanently settling in Britain each month.
*Immigration rights can only only be granted when the person / people are in their home country, through either a embassy or consul office.
*Immigration rights should be granted via a points system (similar to that used in Canada), the people / person need a certain number of points to be granted Immigration rights, this way people will not be granted immigration rights on the bias of their national or ethnic origin (a fair and equal way of doing things by not favouring certain ethnicities):
- Points should be added if family relations or friends already live in Britain, they have no criminal record, proof of job in near past, a accepted job already in Britain, a proven trade, proof of education, knowledge of the English language.
- Points should be deduced if they have a criminal record, no job history, failed asylum in past.
*Those caught sneaking into the country should be immediately be deported and refused immigration rights, due to the fact they are illegally entering the country.
*Those caught staying in Britain without permission should be automatically deported to their home country.
*Those that commit an illegal activity should be deported rather than be housed in a jail or prison facility.
*They should receive information on British culture to help them integrate into British society rather than forming ghettos where anti-racial tension is high. In Canada, Blacks, Whites and Asians all live side by side united by their patriotism and love of their country, that's the kind of thing we need to aspire to here in Britain.
*Those who immigrate to Britain should not receive any form of benefits for a minimum of 3 years, this is to deter those who wish to abuse the British benefits system. - This would not apply to things like the NHS.

It is our responsibility to aid and offer shelter to those who are need of our help.

Link to Original Source

*Asylum can only be claimed if they have not claimed Asylum in another country.
*Asylum seekers will stay at a designated Asylum facility while they are seeking refuge.
*Families and Couples seeking Asylum will not under any circumstance be split up.
*If their country is not under a list of designated countries they will automatically be refused Asylum.
*They will not be sent back to their country if it is still on the list of designated Asylum countries.
*They will be deported to the last country they came from if they commit a crime.

I hope my ideas and point of view have in some way drawn members attention to the immigration problem that Britain faces.

75% of British cizitens think that there is too much immigrants in this country. Immigration is a major problem now in the UK and it needs to be sorted out asap.

Originally posted by infinite
75% of British cizitens think that there is too much immigrants in this country. Immigration is a major problem now in the UK and it needs to be sorted out asap.

Immigration is proberly the number one issue at the momment, the problem is politicians don't want to talk about it as the parties differ on the solutions to the problem.

Immigration also has an effect on other areas of British life:
Law and Order
Transport
Housing
Education
Population
etc...

'75% of the people' might express a concern over immigration but whether that is grounded on sound reasoning or not is an entirely different matter.

.....as is whether that '75%' actually do think there are too many immigrants here right now.

It seems very unusual that if such an enormous % of people really do think that that they do not vote in a way that expresses that supposed 'concern' and never have done.

I think this immigration stuff is being very overdone.
I remember the NF (National Front, a British fascist party) mass marches in the UK and rioting in the 1970's, the late 1960's major strikes in protest at immigration in London etc etc.
There was a time when British fascists had far more open and vocal support.

We are seeing nothing like any of that now - and don't let anyone tell you different.
(.....those fascist idiots are always trying to imply they have massive 'hidden' support; they don't, but that doesn't stop their idiotic claims).

Most so-called 'racial trouble' these days seems to centre around asian lads fighting back when picked on these days - or indeed, yes, some of them now picking on and attacking the occassional innocent local white lad(s) - and people trying to jump on an anti-Muslim 'bandwagon' and blow the 'problem' out of all proportion.



[edit on 20-12-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

I think this immigration stuff is being very overdone.

I think not, Britain is a small Island, we already have a high people to square mile ratio, do we really want to raise that level much higher??


www.migrationwatchuk.org...

In 2002 net foreign immigration was nearly 250,000 while 91,000 British citizens left the UK. If immigration continues at these levels
our population will grow by 7.6 million by 2031 - equivalent to seven times the population of Birmingham, of which nearly 90% will be due to immigration.

But I'm guessing you'll find some massive hidden flaw in the source...as you always do

Originally posted by UK Wizard

I think this immigration stuff is being very overdone.

I think not, Britain is a small Island, we already have a high people to square mile ratio, do we really want to raise that level much higher??

- Well what I was actually getting at there Wizard was the notion that todays 'racial problems' are increasing to some kind of new dangerous level.

This is simply not true. 'Immigration' has been a much bigger and far more pressing general issue than it is now. 'Racial tensions' have been much much higher in the UK within the last 40yrs.

But I'm guessing you'll find some massive hidden flaw in the source...as you always do

- (You tell me Wizard, how reputable are this organisation? Who funds them and who do they work for and with?)

In any event the 'flaw' here is not so much the source but the blythe assumptions behind their claims and the 'cherry-picking' of a year of high immigration and using that to build a 'case' which entirely depends on that high point being sustained for many years.

They also seem to down-play the benefits of immigration on their web-site although I suppose one should be grateful they recognise any at all what with us having such an aging population and all.

It's not that long ago that there was - sustained for many years - a net migration from the UK, I don't see a case being made on that basis, eh?

The idea that the UK is an over-crowded island running out of space is ust nonsense.
We have plenty of room......provided we all stop trying to cram into the SE of England.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- (You tell me Wizard, how reputable are this organisation? )

They are reputable, I've seen them on both Skynews and BBC News, giving opinions and suggestions on immigration.

Who funds them

Response from Migration watch web site
Quote:
We receive no Government funds and have no intention of seeking any. We rely entirely on public donations.

and who do they work for and with?

Response from Migration watch web site
Quote:
MigrationWatch UK is a voluntary, independent immigration and asylum monitoring organisation with no affiliation with any political party.

They also seem to down-play the benefits of immigration on their web-site

Not true, they explain the benefits:
Response from Migration watch web site (FAQ)
Quote:
Do migrants add to economic growth?
Yes. But they also add to population. The Prime Minister recently claimed that growth would be nearly 0.5% per year less if there was no net immigration. The correct figure is 0.4% and immigrants add 0.25% to the population every year. So the benefit is only 0.15% per head per year - a trivial amount compared to the extra congestion involved.


Response from Migration watch web site (FAQ)
Quote:
Do migrants account for 15% of economic growth?
Trend growth is 2.75% per year. 0.4 is 15% of 2.75 so this is the same claim - it takes no account of the extra population.

although I suppose one should be grateful they recognise any at all what with us having such an aging population and all.

The Myth
"Britain needs migrant workers to help pay for our pensions"
The Facts
False. Immigrants themselves grow older. To maintain the present population of working age to pensioners would require over 1 million immigrants a year up to 2050. That would double the population to 120 million and leave us with the same problem.


note: sorry for the mass of quoting


edit: more answers can be found on the FAQ section of their website:
www.migrationwatchuk.org...

[edit on 21-12-2004 by UK Wizard]

Originally posted by infinite
75% of British cizitens think that there is too much immigrants in this country.

And the other 25% are immigrants

It is a large and growing problem in the uk and it shows no signs of stopping.

Originally posted by shorty
And the other 25% are immigrants

It is a large and growing problem in the uk and it shows no signs of stopping.

LOL

I think its about time we stop it now, we should just freeze immigration and prevent more coming to our country.

Originally posted by UK Wizard
They are reputable, I've seen them on both Skynews and BBC News, giving opinions and suggestions on immigration.

- That's hardly a definition of completely 'reputable' Wizard.
It depends what they said and were commentating on.

I'm glad I waited a little before responding to this -

A former Home Office minister has called for an independent body to be set up to monitor UK immigration.
Barbara Roche said an organisation should monitor and publish figures and be independent of government.

She said this would counter "so-called independent" groups like Migration Watch, which she described as an anti-immigration body posing as independent.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Sorry Wizard but a stack of quotes from Migration watches own site is less than completely convincing.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
She said this would counter "so-called independent" groups like Migration Watch, which she described as an anti-immigration body posing as independent.

No, they are not anti-immigration, they simply believe that immigration is too high and that people are being lied to about the positive aspects of immigration.

I wonder what would happen if this new independent body said immigration was too high.....

Originally posted by UK Wizard
No, they are not anti-immigration, they simply believe that immigration is too high and that people are being lied to about the positive aspects of immigration.

- Er, you've just described an anti-immigration organisation and the reason why they are anti-immigration Wizard.
That doesn't guarantee they are open and honest.

I wonder what would happen if this new independent body said immigration was too high.....

- I think that is the reason for the call for an independant publicly accountanble statutory body regulated by law.
That kind of public regulation and open auditing would ensure it is actually impartial and not suspect in the manner that this supposed independant mob are.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Er, you've just described an anti-immigration organisation and the reason why they are anti-immigration Wizard.

No i didn't, they have nothing against immigration, they merely want it limited , its called common sense.

I think that is the reason for the call for an independant publicly accountanble statutory body regulated by law.

There is no such thing as a completely idependent organisation

Originally posted by UK Wizard
No i didn't,

- Yes you did actually. You said they believe immigration is too high and we are being lied to regarding it's benefits, that's an anti-immigration position.

they have nothing against immigration

- What as an intellectual theory or concept for someone/somewhere else?!

they merely want it limited , its called common sense.

- No it's not. It's called a political position.

....and as for this "common sense"?
You'll find that often it's neither very common nor usually particularly sensible.

There is no such thing as a completely idependent organisation

- There are publicly accountable bodies with a genuine open scrutiny and aduting of their funding, accountancy and sources.....
.....which is a damned sight more can be said for many of these so-called 'independant groups' like 'Immigartion Watch'.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Yes you did actually. You said they believe immigration is too high and we are being lied to regarding it's benefits, that's an anti-immigration position.

Its anti-current immigration position...not anti immigration, if they were anti-immigration then they'd completely oppose immigration, which they don't.

- No it's not. It's called a political position.

Which in this case is backed up by common sense.

....and as for this "common sense"?
You'll find that often it's neither very common nor usually particularly sensible.

And why not.....

Originally posted by UK Wizard
Its anti-current immigration position...not anti immigration, if they were anti-immigration then they'd completely oppose immigration, which they don't.

- Not if they wanted people to give them the time of day they wouldn't ....unless they were particularly stupid.

Which in this case is backed up by common sense.

- "Common sense" is not defined by what you agree with Wizard. You just agree with what they are saying.

And why not.....

- Because "common sense" more often than not is a stack of well-worn prejudice shouted by Alf Garnet types who think their 'home-spun truths' just are correct, regardless of evidence.

@sminkeypinkey


I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on the subject of common sense

We've mauled my view on immigration for a while now....whats your view on immigration?

Originally posted by UK Wizard
We've mauled my view on immigration for a while now....whats your view on immigration?

- I'd say the first step is to get honest and clear about what we are talking about.

IMHO there is a dishonest tendancy to lump together asylum and immigration and they are not the same.

But basically I want an open world. I want to go where I like pretty much when I like and I think that should apply to everyone as much as possible.

The biggest wanderers the modern world has ever seen have been Europeans so I think we should calm down and get a lot more rational about this when worrying about what others are up to.

I think that in relation to this issue a lot of what people say they fear is exactly that just a fear and not something actually happening or likely to actually happen.

I certainly do not believe we are ever likely to suffer this imagined fate odf being so 'swamped' with immigrants that it will depress our living standards, quite the opposite in fact,. given what I think is realistic.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
IMHO there is a dishonest tendancy to lump together asylum and immigration and they are not the same.

My first post of the thread mentions this:

*Asylum is to seek short to medium term refuge from oppression which could include war, famine, natural disaster etc...
*Immigration is to seek permanent settlement in country, to live and work and too add to the long term population
These two are often confused and mixed up, leading to racial and population problems.

But basically I want an open world. I want to go where I like pretty much when I like and I think that should apply to everyone as much as possible.

Maybe in the future, but in my opinion the world is not ready yet for complete free movement.

The biggest wanderers the modern world has ever seen have been Europeans so I think we should calm down and get a lot more rational about this when worrying about what others are up to.

Europe (especially Britain) is a paranoid race, we are always wondering what the other countries are up to
In the 'current' modern world I wouldn't say Europeans travel around the most. Maybe those in eastern Europe.

I certainly do not believe we are ever likely to suffer this imagined fate odf being so 'swamped' with immigrants that it will depress our living standards, quite the opposite in fact,. given what I think is realistic.

Maybe not in one go, but over a series of years immigration can build up especially if the number of people leaving the country is low.

Originally posted by UK Wizard
My first post of the thread mentions this:

*Asylum is to seek short to medium term refuge from oppression which could include war, famine, natural disaster etc...
*Immigration is to seek permanent settlement in country, to live and work and too add to the long term population
These two are often confused and mixed up, leading to racial and population problems.

- Yes, that's fair enough. But you have to admit that in the general discussion (certainly in terms of our mainstream media) the 2 are often confused or simply not made distinct in any way?

Maybe in the future, but in my opinion the world is not ready yet for complete free movement.

- Well I know that is the fear or impression some have but I really just don't believe there is much to be so concerned about.
I just don't see people up-rooting and going off in numbers anyone needs to worry about.

Most people love their home, it's where everything and everyone they know is.

(Obviously a hell-hole war-zone is a different matter....but then like Kosovo or Bosnia many people who legitimately fled that have now gone home)

Europe (especially Britain) is a paranoid race, we are always wondering what the other countries are up to

- That may be true but we shouldn't foster and nurture the paranoia.

In the 'current' modern world I wouldn't say Europeans travel around the most. Maybe those in eastern Europe.

- As far as us westerners are concerned now that's true I suppose, but not very long ago it wasn't.
I don't really know much about migration in eastern Europe - but I do knowthe headline 100 000 arriving here in the first week! after the eastern European countries joined the EU turned out to be idiotic rubbish (as anyone with even half a brain could have told anyone......but it all adds to stirring the pot and feeding the fears, right?).

Maybe not in one go, but over a series of years immigration can build up especially if the number of people leaving the country is low.

- True but that is how our country came to be now. We are a nation of immigrants and have regularly had waves of immigration since year dot.

Humanity didn't spring up in the UK.

[edit on 24-12-2004 by sminkeypinkey]