No limits to immigration

[DrHopper]

Sorry TTK
An immigrant is not a race.
To state that all Englishmen are bad lovers, all the French are rude surrender-monkeys, or all immigrants are criminals is not racist, no matter how false, closed-minded, ridiculous, or bigoted the statements. It's just generalizations, sweeping statements, and stupidity - at worst, xenophobia (except for the thing about France, which is true )
To state that all white people are smart, black people are lazy, and Asians are less smart than whites is racist.

A race (black, white, etc) is different from a legal status (immigrant).

Sorry to be specific and picky, but as I say, mis-use of the racist term cheapens the meaning. There is more than enough racism in the world without seeing it where it doesn't exist.

Bob and I would, I'm sure, disagree about a lot of things - and certainly his use of crime as a measure of the ills of immigration (of which there are a few, as well as a few benefits), is one of those things. However, a significant proportion of the UK agrees with what he is stating, like it or not, and I don't think calling him, and by extension, them, racist will achieve anything other than creating hostilities and guaranteeing that the subject of immigration will never be talked about in a calm and rational way.

The last situation we would want to create is that like the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, where any criticism of Israel's domestic or foreign policy, or even the mention of the word Zionism, is immediately deemed to be 'anti-semitic' and forces are mobilised to pillory, accuse and demonise those who dared question the enforced status quo. That is an abomination in a free society, especially in one where the right of freedom of speech is enshrined in the law.

[TomTomKent]

So on the one hand you claim you have no issue with those who genuinely want to work. Then. You suggest that illegal immigrants committing crimes "did just want to work".

What is that, if not the racist implication that all immigrants should be considered criminals?

[Bob Hinton]

And again...

France to deport more Romanians after discovering they are behind 80% of street crime

French Interior minister Claude Gueant says Romanian gangs are responsible for the vast majority of Parisian streetcrime
The vast majority of street robberies in Paris are now carried out by the children of Romanian immigrants, France’s Interior Minister has claimed.
Claude Gueant said the notoriously poor and corrupt eastern European state is responsible for exporting some of the most notorious sneak thieves in the world.
Many operate in gangs around the Gare du Nord Eurostar station, preying on English travellers as they arrive by high-speed train from London.
Last year France launched an onslaught against illegal Roma camps full of Romanian immigrants which had sprung up around the French capital.
In an interview with the Journal du Dimanche newspaper, Mr Gueant said: ‘Many illegal camps were evacuated.
‘However, we have to face up to another problem, that of Romanian delinquency. In Paris, 80 per cent of street robberies are committed by Romanian minors.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1PEWkwAy8

Gosh what a surprise! After all they only wanted to go to France to work – they are apparently professional criminals.

[Bob Hinton]

Quite sure.

My emphasis.

Are you sure about that?

The comment about no go areas for whites was made after seeing graffiti stating certain areas were no go for whites. I believe similar graffiti has been seen daubed in Brick Lane.

[Bob Hinton]

- if we cannot have an open and honest discussion of immigration, then the 'problem', for such it is, will never be properly addressed.

Well we can always hope that one day we can have an open discussion about it, but as you say the pattern is to label anyone who tries to do just that a racist. Luckily name calling has never particularly bothered me.

[TomTomKent]

Our parents and grandparents fought against nazism and fascism 70 years ago on the continent. Did they go through all of that for us to fight it here at home?

Well, while talking about stories from the Daily Mail archive...
"The Daily Mail's front page of 8 July 1934, featured the headline "Hurrah for the Blackshirts". The Mail also referred to Hitler's "sturdy young Nazis""

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

Sorry, just one of those historic curiosities.

[DrHopper]

The trouble with your argument is that Furher Griffin's BNP have had a very successful hate campaign in the north west culminating in Herr Griffin (hitherto former uphill gardener and National Front member) being elected to the European Parliament as member for the North West.

I would not be happy with that for one moment if I were one of his constituients.

Was his election due to a low turnout coupled with mass hysteria whipped up by Bob's favourite comic The Daily Mail? You may add that to that the inability of the Conservative/Liberal/Labour failure to address the real problems that affect everyone that live there.

Our parents and grandparents fought against nazism and fascism 70 years ago on the continent. Did they go through all of that for us to fight it here at home?

Derrick

Hateful loathsome little turd of a man (Herr Griffin, not you!).
His election was a combination of many things, but particularly of the failure of the mainstream parties to address what is a very real issue in parts of the North West - mass immigration has created problems (immigration = no bad thing, mass concentrated immigration into small areas = bad thing). The other thing about these areas of the NW is that they are poor/deprived areas, and the population in areas such as these tends to be more racist and conservative (with a small 'c') than elsewhere, despite what the Left says about the 'working man'.

Wasn't just our grandparents and parents - I too had pitched battles with members of the BNP in my fiery youth, and the only bar brawl I have ever been involved with was started by me punching a skinhead for calling my black friends '******s'.
But think about this; yes fascism was fought and defeated by them, thankfully, but what would your grandparents say about mass immigration and the issues we are debating here. And look at the world in 1939-45... not exactly a shining example of multi-culturalism is it. My own G-Grandfather was a founding member of the Communist Part of GB, fought police at suffragette meeting in Boggart Hole Clough, north Manchester, and was persecuted for his beliefs, yet happily marched behind Oswald Mosely in the streets of Manchester in 1935 on the issue of immigration. Things are not clear cut.

[TomTomKent]

True, you have a valid point there. But then again, at the risk of being labelled an apologist for Bob, the issue that Bob has, at least as I see it, is that some immigrants who commit crimes are allowed to stay in the UK, and that also includes illegal immigrants who are here illegally, but can appeal constantly against deportation on the most spurious ground, even after committing crimes. On that subject I too have an issue, and I think that most people also.

And as I have asked before (many, many times), why would the appeals in the immigration cases be changed based on criminal convictions? We don't expect anybody else to lose their right to the full judicial system, regardless of any other court process: If you are bankrupt when you are arrested you can still expect a trial. If you are convicted and you meet the criteria, you expect an appeal, regardless of your divorce status or your TV License.

Having the right to appeal is an entirely different issue from if that appeal should be upheld, and the cost of protecting the rights of the many innocents is the system being abused by the few. TThe forgotten alternative is, of course, that if the full process is not followed they may well find a loophole with which to renter the country legally, starting the whole cycle again.

Better to spend more time covering all arguments sooner, to expedite the process later should they try again.

[Derrick]

that must be a first

Jen

Blimey

Who did you think I was?

I think and feel and sometimes, when it is right, say what I think and feel.

Regards
Derrick

[TomTomKent]

I disagree. This thread is about immigration. Bob is fixated on crime and its relation to immigration and is using anecdotal evidence to try to portray it as a widespread problem which the statistics do not support. To my knowledge he has not acknowledged the many benefits of immigration to our country. He is also using a lot of examples pertaining to illegal immigrants, which actually aren't relevant to a discussion of legal immigration.

And more importantly has continued to do so long after the implications of his posts were pointed out, not just by myself but others. He could have acknowledged this at any point, instead of simply denying the implications of his posts and making statements that were at odds to them.

If he has no issue with those coming to country to work, or believe them all to be criminals, what exactly are the "case studies" he posts meant to represent? It was pointed out many times that illegal immigrants committing crimes are not the same as legal immigrants working, and that the news articles had nothing to do with the topic at hand. If he truly had no wish to appear to be tarring all immigrants with the same brush, why continue when it had been pointed out this is exactly what he appeared to be doing?

Why not say "Sorry, that post obviously had implications I did not intend, and perhaps we should return to the topic at hand?" Instead of calling "Nazi" and making ellaborat and inncaurate assumptions about what others may or may not expect, think, or endorse in straw man attacks?

[Derrick]

His comment was, in fairness, about areas of predominantly Asian immigrants, naturally of a darker skin colour, creating problems for non-Asian people judged to be so based on the colour of their skin i.e non-whites discriminating against whites. This is based on several reports by both HM Government and various police forces in places like Burnley, Oldham and Halifax. There is no racism on Bob's part, he is reporting the facts as they are presented to him. Also, to be fair, this is a single example within a whole raft of examples that Bob keeps posting.

The issue of immigration needs to be kept separate from the issue of racism, except where it is deliberate and overt (i.e. BNP, NF, etc) and then it needs to be pointed out, rooted out, and ideally shown to be the fallacy it is.

You are correct in your comment about the conflation of immigration and crime. Bob is wrong to do this, as you and TTK have pointed out, although I would have to state that he is doing so to a lesser degree than you are both accusing him.

The trouble with your argument is that Furher Griffin's BNP have had a very successful hate campaign in the north west culminating in Herr Griffin (hitherto former uphill gardener and National Front member) being elected to the European Parliament as member for the North West.

I would not be happy with that for one moment if I were one of his constituients.

Was his election due to a low turnout coupled with mass hysteria whipped up by Bob's favourite comic The Daily Mail? You may add that to that the inability of the Conservative/Liberal/Labour failure to address the real problems that affect everyone that live there.

Our parents and grandparents fought against nazism and fascism 70 years ago on the continent. Did they go through all of that for us to fight it here at home?

Derrick

[DrHopper]

I disagree. This thread is about immigration. Bob is fixated on crime and its relation to immigration and is using anecdotal evidence to try to portray it as a widespread problem which the statistics do not support. To my knowledge he has not acknowledged the many benefits of immigration to our country. He is also using a lot of examples pertaining to illegal immigrants, which actually aren't relevant to a discussion of legal immigration.

True, you have a valid point there. But then again, at the risk of being labelled an apologist for Bob, the issue that Bob has, at least as I see it, is that some immigrants who commit crimes are allowed to stay in the UK, and that also includes illegal immigrants who are here illegally, but can appeal constantly against deportation on the most spurious ground, even after committing crimes. On that subject I too have an issue, and I think that most people also.

The connection between immigration and crime is a bit of a myth, although, that stated, we cannot deny that some immigrants commit crime (yes, I know, just as some UK citizens do).

[babybird67]

wow

Hi Babybird

I totally agree

regards
Derrick

that must be a first

Jen

[babybird67]

You are correct in your comment about the conflation of immigration and crime. Bob is wrong to do this, as you and TTK have pointed out, although I would have to state that he is doing so to a lesser degree than you are both accusing him.

I disagree. This thread is about immigration. Bob is fixated on crime and its relation to immigration and is using anecdotal evidence to try to portray it as a widespread problem which the statistics do not support. To my knowledge he has not acknowledged the many benefits of immigration to our country. He is also using a lot of examples pertaining to illegal immigrants, which actually aren't relevant to a discussion of legal immigration.

[DrHopper]

My emphasis.

Are you sure about that?

His comment was, in fairness, about areas of predominantly Asian immigrants, naturally of a darker skin colour, creating problems for non-Asian people judged to be so based on the colour of their skin i.e non-whites discriminating against whites. This is based on several reports by both HM Government and various police forces in places like Burnley, Oldham and Halifax. There is no racism on Bob's part, he is reporting the facts as they are presented to him. Also, to be fair, this is a single example within a whole raft of examples that Bob keeps posting.

The issue of immigration needs to be kept separate from the issue of racism, except where it is deliberate and overt (i.e. BNP, NF, etc) and then it needs to be pointed out, rooted out, and ideally shown to be the fallacy it is.

You are correct in your comment about the conflation of immigration and crime. Bob is wrong to do this, as you and TTK have pointed out, although I would have to state that he is doing so to a lesser degree than you are both accusing him.