No limits to immigration

[babybird67]

searching for some facts for you Bob

came across this one first:

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2008/02/26/immigrants_less_likely_to_commit_crime

Unfortunately it applies to California but my feeling is it will apply to most other places as well. I shall keep searching.

Don't let any facts disturb your obviously deep-seated prejudices though, will you?

Oh here we are :

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23408349-foreigners-commit-20-per-cent-of-crime-in-london-say-police.do

That means a whopping 80% is committed by our own lovely people. Don't let that affect your idea that our country would be crime free if only we sent the little blighters back to their countries of origin though would you?

[babybird67]

more 'facts' to stick in your pipe Mr Hinton

http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsg-04334.pdf

Take particular note of page 8 and 9 which deals with nationality of the prison population. You'll find that 14% is not too great a number considering the percentage of the population of immigrants in London is around 32%. Out of around 90 thousand prisoners, just over 11 thousand are foreign.

Perhaps you should consider deporting criminals born here if you're seriously concerned with reducing crime in this country?

[Bob Hinton]

http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpap...snsg-04334.pdf

Take particular note of page 8 and 9 which deals with nationality of the prison population. You'll find that 14% is not too great a number considering the percentage of the population of immigrants in London is around 32%. Out of around 90 thousand prisoners, just over 11 thousand are foreign.

Perhaps you should consider deporting criminals born here if you're seriously concerned with reducing crime in this country?

Wow so considering the immigrant population of this country is between 5% and 7% you're saying that 14% of crimes are committed by immigrants? Slightly top heavy wouldn't you say.

[Bob Hinton]

More hysteria

came across this one first:


Don't let that affect your idea that our country would be crime free if only we sent the little blighters back to their countries of origin though would you?

Would you mind showing me exactly where I have said or even suggested that?
It's quite obvious you belong to the Limehouse/Caps school of discussion. Make up things then accuse the other person of saying them.

[Bob Hinton]

Really?

Eh? How can you state that after i specifically stated I was in agreement with it? Are you blind?

Yes I am blind actually thanks for asking. I said I wanted foreign criminals who commit crimes here deported and asked if you agreed. Instead of saying yes you agreed or no you don't agree - you went into a long waffle about the courts deciding whether or not these little darlings should be deported and if they said yes then you said yes and so on.

I ask you again a very simple question. Do you agree that foreign criminals who commit crimes in this country should be deported. Yes or no. This is not a trick question.

[Bob Hinton]

Really?

I specifically said the committing of crimes by immigrants was NOT condoned. Unfortunately, as someone who obviously cannot distinguish between two separate issues, that is crime and immigration, then perhaps you ought to rethink your participation in the thread. You obviously don't comprehend what we are discussing.

If you don't think that crime is a major factor to be taken into account when discussing immigration then perhaps you can explain why in the top ten most dangerous criminal gangs in Britain seven are run by immigrants?

Of course you must consider crime when discussing immigration, just as you must consider ethnic cleansing, destruction of culture, and overloading services. If none of these things happened who would have a problem with immigration?

[Limehouse]

[QUOTE=Bob Hinton;176491]Now now Natalie. You mustn't start using facts to confuse people like Babybird and Limehouse.

Say after me "All immigrants are good people -even the ones who rob, rape, murder and steal"[/QUOTE]

This is a complete fabrication. I wrote no such thing and neither did babybird.
You might want to go back and read my post again.

[Limehouse]

Would you mind showing me exactly where I have said or even suggested that?
It's quite obvious you belong to the Limehouse/Caps school of discussion. Make up things then accuse the other person of saying them.

You are the one who is ranting hysterically and you are the one who is making it up as you go along - attributing things that people have never said or done. A rational debate with you is impossible.

[DVV]

Those who are still of opinion that immigration doesn't cause any worth-discussing problem have been fairly dubbed as "useful idiots". And indeed that's what they are.

[The Good Michael]

David,

I agree with that.

I was thinking about the Japanese tourism policy for many countries such as China and Russia and wondering how to apply it it immigration.

Japan requires a sponsor who is a long-term Japanese resident, who has X amount of income, and will be completely responsible for the tourist and has to sign umpteen documents and go to several gov't offices to get that tourist a visa.

I think it could be similar. Anyone who sponors an immigrant, can be responsible for all crimes that might be committed by the immigrant. Since there are virtually no criminals that emigrate, according to some, this would be a non-issue for them.

Mike

[DVV]

Mike,

see what you mean but for the sake of discussion let me shortly comment over immigration and tourism.

1 : immigration and tourism are two different issues, although they can cause similar problems (similar to some extent)

2: I believe every man has the right to "tour" the world, but I don't believe he has the right to settle anywhere. This must be a matter of privilege, guts, personal charm and reciproqual acceptance.

[The Good Michael]

David,

I agree about touring. What I may have been unclear about is that I would like immigration policies to be at least as strict as Japanese tourist policies for many countries. I would like them to make it easier to tour Japan, however.

In fact, I don't even want to go to Russia thought it's nearby, because I don't want to deal with the difficulties a tourist has regarding registrationb everywhere. In Kazakhstan, even though I work here, I have to re-register every 3 months. Last year it was every month, though I have a residence.

By all means touring should be easy and immigration tough as nails.

Mike

[babybird67]

Would you mind showing me exactly where I have said or even suggested that?
It's quite obvious you belong to the Limehouse/Caps school of discussion. Make up things then accuse the other person of saying them.

Certainly Bob, right after you've quoted the posts myself and Limehouse made which permitted you to attribute such appalling comments to us, and the apology following it of course. Shouldn't be difficult for a gentleman of honour, allegedly.

[Hatchett]

Hi Everyone,

I think this thread is getting disturbing. Babybird had the voice of sanity here, and fair play. Some of the points that are being made I would suggest are nearing the point of racism.

None of these of objections, rejections, and ponts of eligability were ever made in relation to emmigration.

Maybe that is because we were an empire.

To bond immigration with criminolgy is a very dangerous and illogical step to make. The same as it is to put those sort of qualifiers on immigration that are not made on emmigration.

Let's face it, as a Nation we believe that every Bristish subject can emmigrate to anywhere in the world, and have a good life, because of tax, cheap beer, cheaper housing, cheaper ways of living. What some people seem to object to is immigration from poorer countries who are looking for the same.

That surely must be hypocrasy. If not racial discrimination.

Best wishes.

[Bob Hinton]

Oh!

Certainly Bob, right after you've quoted the posts myself and Limehouse made which permitted you to attribute such appalling comments to us, and the apology following it of course. Shouldn't be difficult for a gentleman of honour, allegedly.

So you can't do it then.