No limits to immigration

[Hatchett]

Hello Bob,

On what is that guess based? Nothing at all! Just a meaningless derogatory remark, like all of the arguments you have posed on this thread!

"Let us say a man breaks into your home and murders your wife. Are you saying that when the police arrive to arrest him you are quite happy to let him stay in your home while he lodges an appeal against his arrest and removal from your home? Of course not. Then why do you expect behaviour which would not be tolerated in your home be tolerated in your country?"

That is the most stupid analogy I have ever heard!

"On second thoughts I'm quite sure Tom Tom would have welcomed the Nazis with open arms so as not to deny them their human rights to invade us!"

Another gem in absurdity!

If you have seen the real world Bob I don't think you ever understood it!

Did you ever consider writing for Monty Python?

Hatchett

[TomTomKent]

How many times do I have to point this out? If you don't understand the written word get someone to explain it to you. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO APPEAL.

What you have is the right to APPLY to appeal. Do you get that now?

And that right is not removed by any other judicial procedures.
Who doesn't get what now? I'm sure it's very confusing for you.

[TomTomKent]

Wonder away, but please don't accuse me of not knowing what the real world is like, at a guess I would say I've seen more of it than you have.

And Hatchett would guess otherwise. Why exactly do you think your guess i more valid than theirs?

[TomTomKent]

What I don't understand about certain people who maintain criminals have the automatic right to enter our country illegally with the intention of committing more crimes, is why most of the civilised world don't agree with them.

Nope, what you don't seem to understand is the difference between "the right of people to enter our country illegally with the intention of committing more crimes" and "the inate rights of everybody in our country".

If you have a criminal record you cannot enter the USA, except for really exceptional circumstances. Australia, New Zealand and many more countries do not let you enter either.
Or the UK if you are entering legally.

Are they all denying people their 'human rights' or are they simply trying to protect their citizens from predators.
Nope, but again, that is a crass misrepresentation of what has been said. People with criminal records still have the right to apply for visas, to have their cases heard, but they will be denied. Being denied is not the same as having the right to apply removed is it?

If a foreign soldier tried to enter the UK with the intention of killing the inhabitants not doubt these same people would expect them to be stopped. Why then are they quite happy to admit the same person if he takes his uniform off?
Who said they were happy to admit anybody? Once again, having the right to make the request, and having the request accepted are two seperate issues. One would hope you are deliberately failing to understand this out of some political view, as the alternative is that you simply can't grasp what others have said.

On second thoughts I'm quite sure Tom Tom would have welcomed the Nazis with open arms so as not to deny them their human rights to invade us!

And which human right is that? I could as easily suggest you would welcome the Nazis with open arms for sharing so many of your views. But it would all be rather pointless to indulge in Godwins law?

[Bob Hinton]

The Positions Are Clear

After more rather silly posts from little Tom Tom and cronies I think our respective positions are clear.

I do not want immigrants with criminal records entering this country. If they enter illegally, thus committing a further criminal act, on apprehension I want them removed immediately. I am quite happy for them to lodge an appeal against deportation once they are safely ensconced back in their own country. If this procedure had been followed several people would not have been brutally attacked and eventually one murdered as a result of the actions of the illegal immigrant highlighted previously on this board.

Tom Tom and others do not want this. They want the status quo to remain, a situation that has resulted in the savagery that we have all seen outlined here.

I leave it to the readers to decide which is the better stance to take.

[Hatchett]

Very convenient Bob.

[TomTomKent]

Gosh the immigration status has resulted in "savagery". Yet there still remains no indication of a correllation between immigrants and violance. Only selected examples of no statisticalsignificance. As we have seen we can easily produce like for like examples of savagery committed by British citizens.

If Bob wants to claim any view but his own is silly, perhaps he should consider that he is theone who resorts to demeaning others in place proving his claims. At the end of the day he is still using cherry picked examples to attempt to besmearch all immigrants, then saying it is silly to use the same logic to judge ourselves.

Nothing much has changed since 1888.

[Bob Hinton]

And again...

THE FASTEST-GROWING POPULATIONS IN THE UK
COUNTRY 2004 2010 RISE
1, Slovakia 8,000 49,000 513 %
2, Latvia 7,000 39,000 457%
3, Poland 95,000 521,000 448%
4, Romania 14,000 68,000 386%
5, Bulgaria 11,000 53,000 382%

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1P6NpWIDz

[Bob Hinton]

Gosh the immigration status has resulted in "savagery". Yet there still remains no indication of a correllation between immigrants and violance. Only selected examples of no statisticalsignificance.

.

There is between immigrants with convictions for violence which is what I am talking about.

It's nice of you to dismiss people like the WPC who was murdered and the other victims who have been murdered as being of "no statisticalsignificance." (sic). I'm sure their families will be comforted by that remark.

You see that is the difference between people like me and the LWL -we don't dismiss victims of crime as being of no significance.

[TomTomKent]

More lies. Saying something has not statistical significance, does not mean it is without any other kind of significance. It simply means that there are far more immigrants who do not murder people. And a lot of violence and savagery that we achieve on our own.

Why should we stop honest workers coming to this country because you insist on talking about only the smallest minority? By the same skewed logic no Englishman should be allowed to holliday abroad because of the number of arrests for assualt, theft, murder and drunk and dissorderly conduct my fellow countrymen clock up. Also by the same skewed logic no englishman should be able to work in the UK because of the sheer weight of violent crimes other Englishmen clock up.

Bob, do you not think it is a little pathetic that you keep having attack people for what they have not said?

[TomTomKent]

THE FASTEST-GROWING POPULATIONS IN THE UK
COUNTRY 2004 2010 RISE
1, Slovakia 8,000 49,000 513 %
2, Latvia 7,000 39,000 457%
3, Poland 95,000 521,000 448%
4, Romania 14,000 68,000 386%
5, Bulgaria 11,000 53,000 382%

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1P6NpWIDz

Sum total; 662000
Around 1% of the total population. Note the figures are not of permanent residents, and does not take into account seasonal workersor short term residencies going home, it only counts in one direction.

[Bob Hinton]

Now who said............

One death is a tragedy - a million is a statistic!

Looks like Tom Tom (desperately back peddling now) is in bad company!

Mind you he loves statistics, look at the way he dismisses the rise in immigration. What he fails to mention is if it continues at this rate in about forty years there will be no indigenous population left - just immigrants.

I love the way he keeps deliberately trying to skew what I have written. He keeps on about me wanting to stop all immigration when I have quite clearly stated, time after time, the only immigrants I want to stop are those with criminal records. Still adherence to the facts is not his strong suit.

[TomTomKent]

But the law already prevents those with criminal records recieving a visa. Which makes your statements pointless. And also makes your obsession with daily mail stories all the more confusing. Why word your posts. deliberately to imply one thing then claim another? Tsk tsk.

And as for "if it continues at this rate", that argument was made decades ago.as was predicted then, immigration does not continue at a constant exponential rate.

Lastly, pointing out what I have not commented on is not backpeddaling. If you aretoo silly to realise whenyou havemade flawed assumptions to drag the convsersation into the personal, that is your own problem, not mine. Pretend I don't care about this, or wouldsaythat to Hitler, who cares? I didn't say it and don't need to retract a single word.justpoint out when you resort to a straw man argument.

[babybird67]

sigh....

they'll be claims about rivers of blood soon....

[babybird67]

Bob

there are already rules in place which mean those with criminal convictions can be refused entry to the UK.

https://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04971.pdf

1.1
Mandatory refusal
Under the UK’s Immigration Rules, a visa or leave to enter the UK “is to be refused” if, inter alia:
•
the Secretary of State has personally directed that a person’s exclusion from the UK is conducive to the public good;3 or
•
material facts in relation to the application have not been disclosed.4

1.2
Discretionary refusal
A visa or leave to enter the UK “should normally be refused” if, inter alia:
•
the person has been convicted in any country including the United Kingdom of an offence which, if committed in the United Kingdom, is punishable with imprisonment for a term of 12 months or any greater punishment or, if committed outside the United Kingdom, would be so punishable if the conduct constituting the offence had occurred in the United Kingdom (save where the Immigration Officer is satisfied that admission would be justified for strong compassionate reasons);5 or
•
where, from information available to the Immigration Officer, it seems right to refuse leave to enter on the ground that exclusion from the United Kingdom is conducive to the public good; if, for example, in the light of the character, conduct or associations of the person seeking leave to enter it is undesirable to give him leave to enter.6

So where do you get this idea that we welcome foreign criminals with open arms?