The Great Debate on Immigration

When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • The TV media's position is in full flow as bleeding heart liberals, oozing empathy for desperate illegal immigrants fleeing from a hell on earth or annihilation.

    A load of people have died, so some empathy is warranted. They are human beings who suffered a horrific death.

    The hell-on-earth madbuggerdom which characterises the Middle East is not of our making. The ME inhabitants will blame it on Western oil-influenced geo-politics - as if without that they would be the ultimate advanced civilisation!

    No, that region isn't all our fault, but we bare a enormous amount of responsibility. When Saddam was kicking about, where was ISIS? Nowehere is the reply until our "meddling." And as our Iranian member has posted, Persian culture is thousands of years old and while many in the region were building cities, we were still in caves. However, the extreme militant form of Islam is all their doing.

    We can't bring ourselves to slaughter the whole lot of them

    I may well have aired such an extreme point of view myself at some point. It does make you wonder how the rest of the world would be if the region was simply nuked, but could we really justify murdering millions of innocent people just to make our lives a little bit easier?

    The more we try to help them with refugee camps, food, medicine and shelter, the longer it will take them to kill one another, prolonging indefinitely that critical point of being on the edge of death where they just might possibly be compelled to find a self-survive-and-live plan.

    You paint everyone with the same brush.

    Lets take out the Saudi royal family and their Wahhabi supporters. Lets take out Assad. Lets start with that. Kill those at the top of this evil chain and it may, may help the innocents at least until more evil creatures fill the void.

    All that's left is not to let them in to Europe. Charity is one thing. Accommodating those who are shitting on their own doorstep is quite another thing. Accommodating those who resent us for them being in that desperate position, giving them all the excuse needed to be current or latent terrorists, is just plain nuts.

    The solution is simple. Keep them out of our world. Those that sneak in will be put into a refugee prison (not a help centre) and will remain there on survival rations for the rest of their lives or, if they prefer, taken by a cargo ship to within dingy reach of the country from which they originally fled or decided to go in search of greener pastures (a very fine distinction, neither of which is acceptable or gives them any "rights"). As for social benefit for health, housing, employment, child welfare, family allowance, etc, the answer is zilch. Occasionally, some refugees will be invited into Britain if they have the characteristics of becoming valued and trusted citizens but this will be a tiny single figure percentage.

    Bottom line, these wretched people can either (a) die in captivity in Britain or (b) find stupid country that will take them in or (c) die in their country of origin or (d) find a find a way to live and let live in their country of origin. There is no other choice. Trump understands that. So do many other people but they daren't say so. And because they daren't say so, they daren't do so. That's why Douglas Murray wrote "The Strange Death of Europe".

    Ok... hope you got that off your chest. This is what I would do:

    If we had a real United Nations, we could set up safe zones in war torn countries or in counties close to war zones and provide safety, shelter and food there. Although it would have to be something a lot better than what was attempted in Bosnia by the Dutch peacekeepers during the wars in the 90s. As we don't have a proper UN, this responsibility should fall on the wealthy democratic nations like ourselves. These commitments should be for as long ass it takes, probably many decades worth. And to be clear, it just to protect innocents, not nation building or meddling in internal ethic/religious rivalries.

    As for economic migrants, I've no idea how to resolve that one. We need to invest in Africa, Asia, South America, especially help with getting as many women educated as possible. In time, that these places will improve by themselves hopefully, but we need to be cautious about meddling in their internal affairs too much though, otherwise it will only come back onto us in a bad way.

    But as this latest story is about Chinese migrants which were found dead in the lorry, I don't know how to handle that one. China isn't war torn and many parts of it are rich, but nor is it a free country. If we lay down the welcome mat for all such migrants, we would get overwhelmed by them.

  • I see the statistics say you are heading for a population of 70 million =O

    Yes.X/

    Down my road, English is gradually become the second language. The amount of locals who are moving out of my area and going to places like Dorset and Devon has risen exponentially in the last five years or so. Within ten years, all of London including the suburbs where I live, will all be foreign.

    And to be clear, the real amount of migration into the UK is far higher than official statistics. I believe the UK is at or very near that 70 million now

  • The bleeding hearts somehow believe that that this invasion of the UK by people from all over the world will be limited by some unknown means ... or .... we can somehow accommodate everyone who wants to come here (how many billions?)

    Inaction will mean that the only way the invasion will stop is when our country is as bad as the ones they are fleeing.

    It was once put to me, it's like trying to save someone who is drowning and panicking. You get pulled underneath with them. London in particular, is overpopulated and our services are crumbling.

  • "A load of people have died, so some empathy is warranted. They are human beings who suffered a horrific death."

    Let them all in and you finish up worse off than in your last post

    "You get pulled underneath with them. London in particular, is overpopulated and our services are crumbling"

    Sorry, overpopulation produces something akin to the Russian who experimented with rats - overcrowd them and they start killing and eating each other

    There is stacks of room in say France or Spain, countries they cross to get here but those countries do not hand out benefits and heath care willy nilly

  • We have invested billions over the years into places like Africa, all it has done has fattened the bank balances of the dictators who run these countries. Look at the Mugabes for example

  • 1 Yes, of course, lots of empathy. Especially as I've since learned that they're from China, not from Madbuggerland (which I deal with in your point 8).

    2 As you rightly say, "the extreme militant form of Islam is all their doing". Everything else emanating from the West - the interference - are subsidiary factors. But I've already said that in my posting

    3 No, of course we can't justify murdering millions of innocent people just to make our lives a little bit easier. I was just listing the possibilities. I would maintain that the only real option we can exercise is zero tolerance to illegal immigrants and not allow Britain's liberal-minded Useful Idiots to soft pedal how we deal with immigration. We must get on with our lives and the Middle East must get on with their theirs and maybe they will come to their senses .... or maybe not. Just as long as they don't try to kill us for being infidels. Otherwise we must kill them, at the very least not feed them.

    4 I don't paint everyone with the same brush. I just refer to the majority. If you can figure out a reliable way of screening out the murderous nutters let me know. Until then, I paint them all as illegal immigrants because that's what they are. I mean, the method of transport is a giveaway - even Ryanair is better than that.

    5 Yes, let's do loads of things to make the world a better place. Meanwhile, let's do something about immigration generally and illegal immigration specifically. That's what my post was about. If you want to address the bigger picture take a look through Kissinger's book called World Order.

    6 A real United Nations? That'll be the day! What the UN needs to do is obvious. What the UN fails to do is outrageous. They are as United as our United Kingdom! The concept of "peacekeepers" will always fail. It's a euphemism for standing on the sidelines as disapproving helpless spectators. As for offering safety, shelter and food, how does that turn the tide? A multi-nation auction of virtue signalling. Gimme a break!

    7 You rightly admit to not knowing how to help economic migrants. Here's an idea: don't help them. You say we need to invest in Africa, Asia and South America, in the hope that this will give them a head start to improve themselves. I don't think giving money, know how and hints of gracious living is going to change their DNA. All they have to do is stop killing one another and stop wanting to kill people in other countries who don't think much of their lifestyle or values. By all means give them a helping hand if it is evident they are trying to scale new heights rather than protests and riots. By all means set up manufacturing operations in such countries to help people put food on their table rather than live a dog-eat-dog existence. But do it with a benefactory spirit rather than plundering capitalism seeking to exploit cheap labour or steal national resources. Take a backseat and don't be a backseat driver. Don't waste time on a country of incurables. For example, we are learning that Mugabe wasn't the root of the problem. It was Zimbabwe's black citizens. It's the evil bastards who the citizens vote for. They vote for people like themselves who sneak their way into becoming a minister or leader. Just like the deadbeats who have inveigled their way into UK Parliament.

    8 Like me, you've just recently learnt that the dead in the lorry were Chinese migrants and you "don't know how to handle that one". Yet still I ask, what kind of people are these who plan to arrive in a lorry under the radar, get out of that lorry and disperse unidentified? Were they protesters from Hong Kong or the oppressed from mainland China? There are untold millions in China who are living a wretched existence under a soulless totalitarian government. They have to take a stab at escaping so as to improving their future. But what are we in Britain supposed to do? Let them in? If so, do you think it's just going to be an occasional lorry load of 30-50? Britain has 66,000,000 million population jostling for space and is hardly in a position to welcome immigrants from China which has a 1,435,000,000 population. It could become the thin end of a monstrously gigantic wedge. Compared with Middle East migrants, you ain't seen nothing yet! So when you begin by saying "you don't know how to handle that one" I'm relieved to see that by the end of the same paragraph you conclude that it might not be a happy outcome if we "lay down the welcome mat" for them.

  • It is reported that these Vietnamese/China pay $30,000 to $40.000

    How can these poverty stricken people afford this?

  • Their families use all their money to try and send their children to better lives, only to meet this end.

    Aren't we lucky that we don't have to make such decisions like these people and despite the current climate over Brexit, our country is safe, democratic and doing pretty good?

  • 3 No, of course we can't justify murdering millions of innocent people just to make our lives a little bit easier. I was just listing the possibilities. I would maintain that the only real option we can exercise is zero tolerance to illegal immigrants and not allow Britain's liberal-minded Useful Idiots to soft pedal how we deal with immigration. We must get on with our lives and the Middle East must get on with their theirs and maybe they will come to their senses .... or maybe not. Just as long as they don't try to kill us for being infidels. Otherwise we must kill them, at the very least not feed them.

    On the first point about illegal immigration, I agree. We must have a zero tolerance policy. I noted on the news channels yesterday that some of the "experts" they got in to talk about the deaths of the migrants were themselves illegals into this country, who have been accepted.... If you break the law once (entering the country illegally) you get no second chance.

    On your second point, it would be nice to think we can ignore this region, but this region won't ignore us. The House of Saud did the deal with the devil a hundred or so years ago with the wahhabis to spread their form of Islam around the world. It's now causing enormous problems in places like Bosnia, sowing the seeds for the next conflict there. And then there are others like the Iranian regime who are hell bent on getting a nuclear bomb. So, no. We can't ignore them.

    If you want to address the bigger picture take a look through Kissinger's book called World Order.

    Noted, thanks.

    6 A real United Nations? That'll be the day! What the UN needs to do is obvious. What the UN fails to do is outrageous. They are as United as our United Kingdom! The concept of "peacekeepers" will always fail. It's a euphemism for standing on the sidelines as disapproving helpless spectators. As for offering safety, shelter and food, how does that turn the tide? A multi-nation auction of virtue signalling. Gimme a break!

    It doesn't turn the tide. It's not to interfere in whatever internal conflict is going on, but just trying to protect innocent lives and give a future generation a chance.

    7 You rightly admit to not knowing how to help economic migrants. Here's an idea: don't help them. You say we need to invest in Africa, Asia and South America, in the hope that this will give them a head start to improve themselves. I don't think giving money, know how and hints of gracious living is going to change their DNA. All they have to do is stop killing one another and stop wanting to kill people in other countries who don't think much of their lifestyle or values. By all means give them a helping hand if it is evident they are trying to scale new heights rather than protests and riots. By all means set up manufacturing operations in such countries to help people put food on their table rather than live a dog-eat-dog existence. But do it with a benefactory spirit rather than plundering capitalism seeking to exploit cheap labour or steal national resources. Take a backseat and don't be a backseat driver. Don't waste time on a country of incurables. For example, we are learning that Mugabe wasn't the root of the problem. It was Zimbabwe's black citizens. It's the evil bastards who the citizens vote for. They vote for people like themselves who sneak their way into becoming a minister or leader. Just like the deadbeats who have inveigled their way into UK Parliament.

    Good post.

    I agree that if we do help other countries it shouldn't be to exploit them through either cheap labour or plundering their resources and set up manufacturing operations so that they can turn their natural resources into sellable goods, sounds like a great idea.

  • "It doesn't turn the tide. It's not to interfere in whatever internal conflict is going on, but just trying to protect innocent lives and give a future generation a chance."

    But it does nothing.

    So called peace keepers don their blue berets and pretend to keep the peace but when something kicks off, usually one side killing the other, they stand on the excuse "not allowed to interfere"

  • I have held back on this long enough. The people who died, died attempting to commit an illegal act, and that is to say they were attempting to enter a country illegally. I am not in favour of allowing any asylum seekers in, but these people are arguably worse. They obviously had the money to pay people traffickers, but instead of investing it into their country's economy they decided to come and live in the land of milk and honey. I do not wish any harm on anyone, but if any person decides to commit a crime and suffers as a result, then perhaps a lesson has been learned.

    The intelligent are being oppressed so the stupid don't get offended

  • I have held back on this long enough. The people who died, died attempting to commit an illegal act, and that is to say they were attempting to enter a country illegally. I am not in favour of allowing any asylum seekers in, but these people are arguably worse. They obviously had the money to pay people traffickers, but instead of investing it into their country's economy they decided to come and live in the land of milk and honey. I do not wish any harm on anyone, but if any person decides to commit a crime and suffers as a result, then perhaps a lesson has been learned.

    I agree, in part. While I wouldn't wish death upon them, at best they would be living in the black economy and at worst become modern slaves where they are forced to live like dogs so that they can send their meagre earnings home. They were criminals, not immigrants, who put their own lives in the hands of other criminals.

    I fail to see how other countries can blame the UK for the horrendous result, but it appears China is blaming the UK for the deaths. Maybe China should ask itself why their people are so desperate to leave that they will risk their lives to do so!

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

  • On your second point, it would be nice to think we can ignore this region, but this region won't ignore us. The House of Saud did the deal with the devil a hundred or so years ago with the wahhabis to spread their form of Islam around the world. It's now causing enormous problems in places like Bosnia, sowing the seeds for the next conflict there. And then there are others like the Iranian regime who are hell bent on getting a nuclear bomb. So, no. We can't ignore them.

    I think we're on the same page on all the points I made and you commented upon, including the one I've selected above. You're right, we can't just ignore the ME and wait for them to decide on co-existence or annihilating one another. The third possibility, of seeking to kill or rule over the West has to be addressed. We can at least target those states whose remarks and behaviour reveal their intent in no uncertain terms. For those targeted rogue states we must use an accurate rifle rather than a blunderbuss so as to concentrate on the destroying the military and their weapons, with care and effort to minimise harm to civilians (even though many of those civilians will be supporters of their country's fanatical dangerous ambitions). Assuming these mad buggers are incurable, this will end up being like mosquito control or Japanese Bind Weed, where once every 5-10 years they will need to be stamped out. After the first major onslaught, 5-10 yearly control maintenance should be quick and easy.

    Sadly, we're a long way from all that if Britain and America are willing to sell weapons to Saudi or even have an embassy there. Likewise Iran. For the time being at least, these are countries that merit look-out alert monitoring, where any future negotiations and joint cooperation will be clearly dependent on demonstrable improvements in behaviour and stated attitudes. With Saudi Arabia I reckon that the West's refusal to deal with them at all will be a powerful enough incentive for them to clean up their act and stop dreaming of ruling the West. Or if the West gets impatient at least it knows where to drop its bombs to reduce their palaces and occupants to rubble. Because in Saudi Arabia that's where the real potent weapons are, viz despots & dosh. For Iran, the West will have a war on its hands and it shouldn't wait for for Iran's nuclear development to develop too far. It will be made clear to the world (= China and Russia) that this is purely self-defense against a real threat that has gone beyond sabre-rattling. From America's standpoint, it would be nice if Europe could get on side but I doubt America will be holding its breath waiting for an answer from Europe once Iran has nuclear warheads than can reach America's East coast. And even if America 4000 miles away is holding its breath (satellite guns cocked) and Europe is gibbering its usual platitudes, Israel just up the road will have a very itchy trigger finger.

  • I have held back on this long enough. The people who died, died attempting to commit an illegal act, and that is to say they were attempting to enter a country illegally. I am not in favour of allowing any asylum seekers in, but these people are arguably worse. They obviously had the money to pay people traffickers, but instead of investing it into their country's economy they decided to come and live in the land of milk and honey. I do not wish any harm on anyone, but if any person decides to commit a crime and suffers as a result, then perhaps a lesson has been learned.

    I don't necessarily disagree with that, but the lesson never is learned really. They still come.

    But it does nothing.

    So called peace keepers don their blue berets and pretend to keep the peace but when something kicks off, usually one side killing the other, they stand on the excuse "not allowed to interfere"

    That was why I mentioned the Dutch peacekeepers in Bosnia, as they stood aside and allowed genocide to occur right in front of them. Any peacekeeper mission, must be allowed to use force and given the resources to enforce safe zones.

    I agree, in part. While I wouldn't wish death upon them, at best they would be living in the black economy and at worst become modern slaves where they are forced to live like dogs so that they can send their meagre earnings home. They were criminals, not immigrants, who put their own lives in the hands of other criminals.

    I fail to see how other countries can blame the UK for the horrendous result, but it appears China is blaming the UK for the deaths. Maybe China should ask itself why their people are so desperate to leave that they will risk their lives to do so!

    I agree. I've not seen the news yet today, but if China is blaming us, that's a bloody cheek considering what the Chinese regime may be planning for Hong Kong.

  • Sadly, we're a long way from all that if Britain and America are willing to sell weapons to Saudi or even have an embassy there. Likewise Iran. For the time being at least, these are countries that merit look-out alert monitoring, where any future negotiations and joint cooperation will be clearly dependent on demonstrable improvements in behaviour and stated attitudes. With Saudi Arabia I reckon that the West's refusal to deal with them at all will be a powerful enough incentive for them to clean up their act and stop dreaming of ruling the West. Or if the West gets impatient at least it knows where to drop its bombs to reduce their palaces and occupants to rubble. Because in Saudi Arabia that's where the real potent weapons are, viz despots & dosh. For Iran, the West will have a war on its hands and it shouldn't wait for for Iran's nuclear development to develop too far. It will be made clear to the world (= China and Russia) that this is purely self-defense against a real threat that has gone beyond sabre-rattling. From America's standpoint, it would be nice if Europe could get on side but I doubt America will be holding its breath waiting for an answer from Europe once Iran has nuclear warheads than can reach America's East coast. And even if America 4000 miles away is holding its breath (satellite guns cocked) and Europe is gibbering its usual platitudes, Israel just up the road will have a very itchy trigger finger

    The problem with Saudi Arabia is they know that the West is still dependent on their oil and that will remain for a generation until electric cars/battery tech matures. So, they sell us oil on one hand, while funding extremist mosques on the other. Playing both sides as they've always done.

    With Iran, we could turn that country around with a little effort and perhaps a revolution or two. I agree Israel would deal with Iran long before we ever got around to it, but if we used our intelligence agencies and worked on the young, which make up a bulk of that population, there is a chance the mullahs might lose their grip on power.

    I think we're on the same page on all the points I made and you commented upon, including the one I've selected above. You're right, we can't just ignore the ME and wait for them to decide on co-existence or annihilating one another. The third possibility, of seeking to kill or rule over the West has to be addressed. We can at least target those states whose remarks and behaviour reveal their intent in no uncertain terms. For those targeted rogue states we must use an accurate rifle rather than a blunderbuss so as to concentrate on the destroying the military and their weapons, with care and effort to minimise harm to civilians (even though many of those civilians will be supporters of their country's fanatical dangerous ambitions). Assuming these mad buggers are incurable, this will end up being like mosquito control or Japanese Bind Weed, where once every 5-10 years they will need to be stamped out. After the first major onslaught, 5-10 yearly control maintenance should be quick and easy.

    I think with people like Assad and whoever comes after him, that might be the way to go. A bit like a larger version of Rentokill except that the rats are nastier.

  • "That was why I mentioned the Dutch peacekeepers in Bosnia, as they stood aside and allowed genocide to occur right in front of them. Any peacekeeper mission, must be allowed to use force and given the resources to enforce safe zones."

    And in Rwanda

    Excellent film shows just how bad the UN were, Hotel Rwanda staring Don Cheadle

  • 1 The problem with Saudi Arabia is they know that the West is still dependent on their oil and that will remain for a generation until electric cars/battery tech matures. So, they sell us oil on one hand, while funding extremist mosques on the other. Playing both sides as they've always done.

    2 With Iran, we could turn that country around with a little effort and perhaps a revolution or two. Ii we used our intelligence agencies and worked on the young, which make up a bulk of that population, there is a chance the mullahs might lose their grip on power.

    1 As the West's demand for oil reduces, secondary sources can plug the gap. The supply-demand equation will soon cease to so heavily in Saudi Arabia's favour and unless they're totally without vision they must know their sway is waning.

    2 I fear you're romanticizing Iran's Persian past. I'm not sure how we in the West can "work on the young". If Darioush is an example of the Iranian young you have in mind to work on, it will need to be the development of total head transplants. Remember Hitler youth in the thirties singing "tomorrow belongs to me"? You think Europe or the US could have worked on them?

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!