Originally Posted by a swansong 4 europe:
I quote this in the context that a people have the absolute right to decide on who shall settle and thus, inherit and pass on, the right to determine the future direction of a national homeland

The people of the UK voted in a government based upon a manifesto one would presume. If the government breaks the promises in the manifesto it was elected on, then you would have a point. Has Labour broken a manifesto pledge made about immigration?

Originally Posted by a swansong 4 europe:
And there was me thinking that same old tired argument that immigrants were allowed in to "do the jobs the rest of us wouldn't do".

The Lords' report on immigration does support this to some extent:

Originally Posted by :
The Government, business community and other groups argue that migrants are needed to fill labour and skills shortages in the UK, and that British people often cannot or do not want to fill vacancies. The speech of the previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to the CBI just before EU enlargement on 27 April 2004 expressed this view clearly:
“There are half a million vacancies in our job market and our strong and
growing economy needs migration to fill these vacancies ... some [of
which] are for unskilled jobs which people living here are not prepared
to do ... [moreover] a quarter of all health professionals are overseas
born ... 23% of staff in our higher education institutions are non-UK
nationals ... our public services would be close to collapse without their
contribution”.
100. Most employers giving evidence to us echoed this view, citing a better “work ethic” and “attitude” as one of the main reasons why they employed
immigrants rather than British workers. Sainsbury’s said: “We have found
migrant workers to have a very satisfactory work ethic, in many cases
superior to domestic workers” (p 492). The National Farmers Union (NFU)
told us that migrants “are an attractive source of labour to UK employers
because of their work ethos, efficiency and dependency” and that they do
jobs “the domestic workforce is unwilling to do” (p 100). Tom Hadley of the
Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC) suggested that
“sometimes in the UK you almost feel that there is an attitude gap rather
than a skills gap” (Q 147). The British Hospitality Association suggested that
“in many cases, they [migrants] are seen as having more to offer than the
domestic workforce” (p 406).
101. A recent study of employers’ use of migrant labour49, commissioned by the
Home Office and cited in their evidence to us (p 198), suggests that
employers’ preference for immigrants because of their “general attitude and
work ethic” is not exceptional but fairly prevalent across various sectors,
especially in low-skilled occupations. Susan Anderson of the CBI explained
that employers are simply making a rational business choice:
“If you have the choice between two individuals, one of whom seems
really enthusiastic about work, who wants to get on ... who wants to
learn and wants to move on and wants to perform well, then you are
going to choose that individual with that positive attitude. If those
positive attitudes are coming more from the migrant worker than the
UK-born, then I am afraid you are going to go for the migrant workers.
We know what the solution to that disadvantage would be: a bit more
enthusiasm from the indigenous worker” (Q 103).
102. Although clearly benefiting employers, immigration that is in the best
interest of individual employers is not always in the best interest of
the economy as a whole. If, as Liam Byrne MP says, the Government is
“not actually running British immigration policy in the exclusive interests of
the British business community” (Q 534), it is important to examine the
economic basis of the arguments that immigrants are needed to fill and
reduce vacancies, and that immigrants have a superior work ethic, and thus
are needed to do the jobs that British workers cannot or will not do.

Now. Admittedly, the report goes on to say that businesses comparing British workers with non-British workers are "not comparing like with like". Many immigrants being quite well qualified but simply seeking a better (relative) wage by working in Britain.

Originally Posted by :
In practice, “work ethic” often refers to a range of attributes and qualities including, for example: willingness to accept low wages and poor working conditions; effort and reliability; flexibility; willingness to train and acquire new skills; and ease of retention.

So British born workers want better pay and better conditions than immigrants. But business doesn't want to offer more pay, and consumers don't want to spend more. Simple economics I would have thought.

There are jobs to be had. Fair enough some of them might be low paid, but beggars can't be choosers.

Originally Posted by a swansong 4 europe:
How did I forget that these said same migrants' children would end up throwing petrol bombs, knifing, robbing, looting and helping enshrine the principle in law that having a dark skin means you have won the lottery of life in the politically correct world of legalised state discrimination against the native European population.

All of the children of migrants do this? Please show statistics supporting your assertions. Also, please show your statistics showing that having a "dark skin means you have won the lottery of life".

How is the state discriminating against the "native European population", exactly?

Originally Posted by a swansong 4 europe:
I repeat, when the computer becomes corrupted to a a malicious virus, you do not negotiate with it or attempt to accommodate it, you either turn the computer off, re boot, 'disinfect' or simply smash the computer and replace with a new one.

How simplistic. Immigrants are a virus? All of them?

Originally Posted by a swansong 4 europe:
I am increasingly favouring the latter, as debate appears to throw the assumption of 'rights' in favour of invading communities. I'll debate the 'right' to settle AFTER they have first been removed THEN hold final say so on any future settlement.

But how does that fit with the fact that:

Originally Posted by :
a quarter of all health professionals are overseas
born ... 23% of staff in our higher education institutions are non-UK
nationals ... our public services would be close to collapse without their
contribution

You would destroy the economy of Britain, it just doesn't add up!

Originally Posted by a swansong 4 europe:
Racism and bigotry are absolutely necessary to protect any community, and failure to adopt them results in the consequence of history as experienced by native populations the world over, condemned forever to "reservations" and other such 'rewards' for being accommodating with colonials.

Somebody is channeling Enoch Powell it seems.

To compare economic migrants and political refugees from other countries to the forced submission of a sovereign country to occupation by a foreign government is not comparing like with like. And well you know it.

Immigrants are coming to the UK for the betterment of themselves and their families. I'm all in favour of limiting migrants to only those people who offer certain skills which are lacking in the UK, or who can demonstrate that they will have an immediate positive impact upon the economy of the UK. But that is not the same as being racist or bigoted against them because they happen to be a different colour or religion from myself.

A quick search of Wikipedia tells me this:-

A racist discriminates "based on the racial groups to which people belong"

A bigot is "... a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding state of mind."

By these definitions, I fail to see any circumstances in which racism and bigotry is a positive thing.

Do you agree with these definitions (it seems you do because you think all children of immigrants are fire-bombing hoodies who would stab you just as soon as look at you)? If not. Please supply your definitions.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Hartlepool:
Oh,a little late with your welcome but I expect its appreciated though.

You must be a really nice person to enter a persons thread at post 44 and welcome them.

I reckon we need more on here like you TD.

Yes..Yes, I am an extremly nice person, I spend my days helping old people, petting and feeding cute bunnies/baby deers and singing happy songs for everyone around me.:-)

Image
[Rep]

Thats nice,a human being on here amongst all of the venom.

Admirable TannyD.
[Rep]

It's the bunny that's a little psycho.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by SilverFalcon:
It's the bunny that's a little psycho.

Oh, of course, you are sooo right.

It's all the bunny's fault...:-):-):-)

I am a good little girl!!!:-)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by TannyD:
Oh, of course, you are sooo right.

It's all the bunny's fault...:-):-):-)

I am a good little girl!!!:-)

Naughty Bunny.....beware the pot :-)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by TannyD:
Yes..Yes, I am an extremly nice person, I spend my days helping old people, petting and feeding cute bunnies/baby deers and singing happy songs for everyone around me.:-)

Image

:-):-):-):-)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by whypatcondellisntfun:
:-):-):-):-)

You're only laughing because you're jealous.

*sticks out tongue*

:-)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Mikeuk:
Don't they have Nationalists in Pakistan?

They do Mike but the Pakistani government likes to jail them especially the Baluchistani Nationalists who's only crime is to want their UN right to self determination
[Rep]