Fascists
Ahhhhh finally they got 'em bang to rights! A very brave journalist went under cover for 6 months infiltrated the far right fascist party BNP and used a secret camera and mike to catch many of them, including several councillors and indeed their leader Nick Griffen espousing race hate and anti Islamic propoganda. One of them gave a speech to a group of sympathetic racists in which he referred to "coloured" asylum seekers as cockroaches. Their leader Nick Griffen claimed that Islam was taking over the world primarily by raping white women.......and then the piece de la resistance, one of them, who had been questioned regarding racial violence in the riots two years ago but gotten away because his victim wasnt sure which one of the crowd had kicked him unconcious, bragged about his role in the attack, exclaiming how he felt "fucking fantastic" as he looked down and saw his shoes were covered in blood.
Brave guy to spend 6 months being their new member. At one point a particularly vicious BNP member almost caught him in a pub toilet, changing the tape in his recorder......" what ye' doin?" he asked through the toilet door....." you CIA? eh? FBI? heheheh I'm watchin you!".........
Perhaps evenmore brave than the journalist was the guy who helped him infiltrate. A fella called Andy. He'd read all the press hype about the UK being swamped with bogus asylum seekers and in a desire to do something about it, had joined the BNP..... Whilst a member he saw how they worked. He became painfully aware of the levels of deciet and subterfuge they used. The tactics they employed. He realised he had been lied to and that the stuff he'd read in the papers was the result of lies and propoganda and was dismayed .......The BNP were not a democratic party. They do not believe in the democratic process they make that quite clear in the film. They engage in guerilla tactics during election campaigns, such as putting out leaflets full of lies but not bearing any BNP insignia which could get them prosecuted or disqualified......They engaged in violent intimidation of their opponents and those who campaigned for them. In short Andy's eyes were opened.......This is where he showed his true colours. For many such an eyeopener would lead them to leave the party and close the door on that chapter of their life.....But not this guy. Instead he kept quiet, worked at his position and progressed up the chain until he was in a position to affect the party's choices on who stood for election in the various council elections. ...All the while he was acting as a mole. He had contacted the Trade Unions Council , and passed information to them as and when he was able to.....He filtered the candidates in such a way that the one's most likely to get a seat did not get selected and those most likely to right royally fuck it up did......Eventually Searchlight put the undercover journalist in touch with Andy and he assisted him in the making of the film. Given the extreme violence these people routinely engage in I think this guy deserves a damned medal. What a risk he took in order to bring to the attention of the Brtish public the nature of the sheepskin clad wolf in their midst.
Well done guys:) Hopefully the police will be able to make this stuff stick. Three of them face a possible 7 year sentence ( including the party leader, a man who had already been prosecuted for inciting racial violence and also been engaged in violent attacks himself )and one of them, the one who admitted on camera to the savage beating of an Asian man faces a potential 15 year sentence for grievous bodily harm with intent.
Undercover
This programme was shown last week. Apparently several key members of the BNP have been questioned regarding their involvement and released on bail
I thought the one going 'but I just wanna kill some fucking pakis' was the icing on the cake. I'm glad someone did it beofre they gain even a sliver of credability. You can put the thug in in a suit but he's still a thug.
Do you think it will actually make a difference to BNP supporters though? Won't they just be even more incensed and determined? The documentary has broken down the barriers of secrecy and made people like us all the more outraged, but do you think it will actually instigate change within the party and its supporters?
There are many people who have accepted the BNP change of face over the last few years. A combination of their "respectable" face and the attitude of the press and the labour party has left a lot of people believing they can be angry about immigration without it marking them as a racist. If such a thing was not enormously beneficial to the BNP in making them electable they would not have gone to such enormous trouble in making themseles appear to be non racist. They put a lot of matderial out which claims not to be racist and claims to "tell the truth" and a lot of people swallowed this. Enough people swallowed it for them to get elected to many council seats ......But many of the people who voted for them did so because they belieevd the volte face the party had done on certain issues. Many of those same people who felt comfortable vioting Nick Griffen's little bunch in would not have been comfortable voting for a 70's style NF....How do we know this? Because if they had felt comfortable voting for outright fascism thenthe BNP would not have beenn subject to massive internal division over the issue. Nick Griffen and his cadre are the modernising force within the party, they have had to fight to get their way. The party was split almost down the middle over whether to continue the fight in their usual manner or to make themselves more electable to the public by changing their face. Nick Griffen won that battle but not without a tough fight and lot's of losses. Many of the BNP did not want to put out the line that Indians are ok......many of them dont like the line that BNP is not racist. Many of them would be quite happy( as that programme showed) to return to the old days of paki bashing and zero electoral success.
Many would be happy, but that attitude was very nearly the deathknell of their movement during the 80's and Nick Griffen knows it. As long as they can pretend they are merely one more political party who happens to be tough on immigration they will gain seats in elections. The electorate however has always proved reluctant to vote in violent anti democratic revolutionary fascists. Many people who recently voted for the BNP to protect their "britishness" were also deeply opposed to Hitler and the nazi creed. You really only have to draw that connection forcefully and many of their supporters would jump ship. Certainly the proportion of their votes which came from disollusioned tory voters would be horrified by out and out fascism.
They might see this film as Britain's Fahrenheit 9/11 and discount it as propaganda. It's all in how it's edited.
Which can only be a good thing. But how can those with an anti-asylum bias be so astoundingly stupid not to realise that this issue merely touches the surface of what the BNP stands for? I don't think people are that ignorant, and BNP's PR suggesting they are not racist simply allows the supporters to appear issue-voters and cloak their inherent racism. Polarising the BNP may help it lose 'mainstream' support, but only because the underlying fascism has been revealed, not because it exists.
The thing is Cat, the BNP put out leaflets and so forth which are out and out lies. A lot of people believe these lies. I know this because I have had some people repeat back to me as fact lies which they cold only have gotten from BNP propoganda or the right wing press. Lies such as "Asylum seekers get everything. They get a house, they get a free mobile phone, more money than a native brit and a 4 grand car!"
Many of the people who are so afraid and angry about the asylum issues are afraid and agry because theyve been lied to. Those people would not necessarily feel moved to support a fascist party if they had not been fed that crock first. Andy , the fellow who acted as a mole for 2 years discovered the extent of their deception and also their violence. He wasmoved to do something about it. This was a man who was so angered and fearful over asylum issues that he joined the party. If he can have his eyes opened and withdraw support for theiur views why not others? Others less involved, people who felt that the BNP were merely a very right wing party who werent afraid to tell the truth......Many people who voted BNP only did so because of their new respectabole, electable face. We know this because we know how unsuccessful the old outright fascist party did in the past. You can measure the success of the BNP alongside the reforms Griffen instituted.
Yes. I have heard many such things repeated back to me. Think we all need to be educated about asylum seekers. It is ignorance that breeds fear, and it is this fear the BNP plays on. A brave and vital job by the journalists.
And in the same week, we see footage of asylum seekers rioting in a - UK-taxpayer-funded - facility in England, while awaiting the processing of their application. They attack UK police, and destroy UK property (property which I, as a taxpayer, have helped purchase) on UK soil. And still we'll process their applications and accept some of them.
I can't help but feel that half the anti-asylum sentiment in the UK would evaporate if a little more visible justice was done. In the case of people like this, why do we not simply send them back to whatever oppressive state they came from and let them take their chances. Clearly they're not interested in living by the laws of this country, and they're not interested in being "good citizens" - so why do we seemingly turn a blind eye to the fact that we've got more than enough undesirable criminal elements already, and send them packing?
If we made the process more transparent, perhaps people wouldn't feel so badly done by and the BNP's support would be significantly less strong.
But British tourists do just that on holiday in every country in the world! Should you be refused an Australian visa because your mates got a bit drunk and rowdy one night in Sydney? UK citizens do more damage to their own country than any battered asylum seeker.
I agree that any action needs to be transparent - people are so ill-informed. Of course they could make the effort to find out for themselves. but there is no engagement with any political aspect in this country, so it's no surprise political opinion is constructed by soundbite threats and images.
Should you be refused an Australian visa because your mates got a bit drunk and rowdy one night in Sydney?
No, but equally after that incident should my mates be entitled to the protection of the Australian government if they think the UK govt is persecuting them?
Depends on the severity. If they were at risk of torture in this country for expressing anti-government sentiment and their destructive behaviour abroad was merely a reaction to their frustration, then of course they should be offered protection. It is only the 'bogus' seekers that should be sent back, but I think the actual quantity of such refugees is largely overplayed. Britain can (contrary to popular opinion) and should sustain the reintroduction of persecuted individuals into civilised society. And yes we can afford them. Britain is the highest paid country in the world.
It is only the 'bogus' seekers that should be sent back
And the ones who demonstrate a strong probability of spending the next 15 years of their life in and out of jail at the UK taxpayer's expense.
These guys are waiting for their asylum applications to be approved. They ought to be on their very best behaviour, EVER. If rioting is that, then I don't see why we want them... why not spend the time and resources we'd invest in them into people who behave appropriately instead?
From today's Independent:
(quoting Nick Griffin) "The programme has given us a terrific boost. We've had thousands of calls from people and we've had loads of new members as a result."
I would just point out that the treatment of Asylum Seekers who have reached the end of their appeal process and are due to be repatriated is appalling. The security personnel are unsympathetic bordering on abusive. The conditions within the ariport based centres are shabby, there is no natural sunlight, no windows, people are oftne inthere for many months, those that have been there a shorter span are often shunted from centre to centre across the country and contacting them ( a necezssity for their legal representatives etc) is made deliberately difficult. On top of that the vast majority of the people held in those centres are not in fact bogus asylum seekers who are beiung sent back but other people who should be helped and welcmoed who are instead just dragged off into custody.
My mother works with refugees and asylum seekers. Due to an administration cockup involving a case of mistaken identity one of her colleagues , who happens to be an asylum seeker himself and who was awaiting the results of his appeal having done everything that was asked of him, along with his sister who had just been given permission to seek employment ( asylum seekers have no right to work for a long time) were both arrested. Five in n nthe morning the police arrived at their house and arrested them both, slapped em in cuffs and then held them for several days in a police cell. Having tried to explain that he has every right to be in the country and having provided paper work and testimonial evidence to back him up they then proceeded to shunt him around to 6 different centres. They held him for 21 days and his sister for 15. Despite the fact that there were people in touch with the Home Office from week one it still took three weeks to get him out....Now that he is out he has to report to a police station 20 miles away twice weekly with a sign on time of 9 am, which for someone relying on public transport takes hours.
In the three weeks they held him he was subjected to humiliating medical procedures and checks, was cuffed evey time he was moved, and lost about 2 stone in weight. He had stopped shaving and showering because the showers were so filthy and only had cold water, and besides he had sunk into a deep depression. This was a lad who had been srupulously clean prior to this.
This is the story of a lad and a girl who both have excellent English, friends amongst various useful organisations and the money to hire a half decent solicitors firm to act on his behalf. What chance the majority of the inmates many of whom speak no english and have no idea how to access legal aid. The people in those centres are usually the most tragic and bedraggled of the lot. The people most in need of our help and they are instead treated like criminals and thrown into a prisonlike environment with no windows and helicopters overhead 24 hours a day. Given the oppression some of them have fled this cannot be a kind thing to do.
Whilst in custody Imran sank into a depression and the advice he was given by those in whose care he languished was "if you have a problem, talk to the walls, they might listen"
So.....a desperate group of people get thrown togeter iinto a desperate situation, having escaped God knows what they are treated like the scum of the earth , persona non grata.....Poor bastards I dont blame em one bit. Maybe if the people taking care of them had thought to treat them as people instead of a contagion to be cured we wouldnt have such a response.
When he tried to complain about the cuffs he was told, "what do you expect? you're illegal"
He was freed a few days ago very quietly. Just one day someone came in and said "right you can go". Thats it.No redress. No apology for having made such a mess of things and holding for no good reason someone who had every right to be where he was.
It's interesting to see your equivalent of our illegal alien discussions ... funny, though, that in Britain (and other parts of europe) you give these lawbreakers (semantically, anyway) automatic justification because they are seeking asylum from some (presumably) oppressive system or somethingoranother.
i live in arizona so i get to deal with the ramifications of the illegal alien debate all day long. i'm not sure if the UK's asylum seeker is the same thing as an illegal alien, but if it is, damn... maybe we should ship our illegals over to the UK if you welcome them. because we sure as hell don't want them here. (that is not a racial statement. i don't want the illegal canadians, etc here anymore than i want the illegal mexicans.)
I think you should be allowed to set up at the border and pick 'em off as they try to cross. And yes, the brits are welcome to ours ... problem is that if they got our kinds of numbers of illegals (from all over the world, incidentally) the British Isles would become the new Atlantis from the weight of the population suddenly added (please note, previous statment is hyperbole. I know that GB would not sink into the sea under these circumstances, much as she may want to).
you know, some ranchers did post "no trespassing" signs and said they were going to pick them off, but i haven't heard too much since then. i know some activist group is attempting to sue because they were banned from placing water aid stations in the desert for the border crossers.
and in further news another group representing the families of 14 aliens who died in the desert from heat exhaustion a few years ago is suing the state for $47million because we didn't have water aid stations in place, our border agents made crossing difficult so the dead folks were "forced" to cross in a very dangerous area. if that isn't a load of shit i don't know what is.
on top of that - mexico's new border control guy, supports eliminating the border.
I think you should be allowed to set up at the border and pick 'em off as they try to cross
I think maybe you'd get along with the BNP , they want to shoot pakis you want to take potshots at the poorest most hopeless people who straggle across your borders in the hope of a better life. What a grotesque parody of humanity.
no i don't want to shoot poor hopeless people. i want to stay in their own country and work from within to reform it. if they are unwilling or unable to do so, i want them to stand in line and try to gain entrance legally. what i do not want is for them to cross the border, have children who are instant citizens, have access to my tax dollars in the form of foodstamps, medical care, etc... then because they are illegal they take jobs at a lower rate of pay than required by law, driving down everyone's wages, not to mention that they send, on average 40% of that money south of the border, which doesn't help our economy. then lets remember the cost of dealing with the drug trade running back and forth, along with the coyotes who scam their money, then dump them in my community...
so dana - until you see the actual consequences of large scale illegal immigration - take your judegment and bugger off.
You think the UK hasn't seen the impact of large scale immigration?
Get a clue.
Census 2000 results indicate that there between 8 and 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States in 2000. The Center for Immigration Studies has reported that Census Bureau stats show that 700,000 to 800,000 new illegal aliens were settling in the U.S. during the late 1990s and that around 1 million settled in the most recent year of record. Far more than that enter illegally each year, but there is a lot of back and forth.
Some 200,000 children are born in the United States each year to illegal-alien mothers, according to U.S. Census data.
The children born in the United States to illegal-alien mothers are often referred to as "anchor babies." Under current practice, these children are U.S. citizens at birth, simply because they were born on U.S. soil. They are called anchor babies because, as U.S. citizens, they become eligible to sponsor for legal immigration most of their relatives, including their illegal-alien mothers, when they turn 21 years of age, thus becoming the U.S. "anchor" for an extended immigrant family.
Each year the Border Patrol is making more than a million apprehensions of people who flagrantly violate our nation's laws by unlawfully crossing U.S. borders to work and to receive publicly-funded services, often with the aid of fraudulent documents. Such entry is a misdemeanor and, if repeated, becomes punishable as a felony.
NumbersUSA
"A recent study by the National Research Council found the average immigrant lacking a high school education imposes a net ficsal burden of $89,000 on U.S. taxpayers. Coupled with an estimated $9 BILLION spent yearly on health care for illegals, the tab is substantial."
Investors Business Daily, Feb 4th, 2004
and really, the numbers don't matter. they are
Illegal aliens. they entered illegally, they broke the law so pardon me if i don't endorse the behavior
I'm really amazed at the number of apparent native americans, and native British people posting here.
Because obviously you all didn't immigrate into the countries you currently live in...right?
Right?
I'm really amazed at the number of apparent native americans, and native British people posting here.
Because obviously you all didn't immigrate into the countries you currently live in...right?
Right?
i've heard the argument before.
we're not talking about closing borders so no one else can get in. most of our ancestors did come here under whatever legal system was in place at the time. the US that existed 2,3 or more generations ago could sustain larger numbers of immigrants with the type of work that was available. farming was still an extremely labor intensive endeavor, factories were abundant, land was plentiful and cheap.
What are you saying, labourers per unit area is greater with farming than it is with, say, the IT industry?
Or did I miss your point?
Because somehow I think that working 12 people on 200 acres of land is a little less efficient than, say, a modern internet firm with 100 employees and almost no overhead.
I love your argument, that the USA was more "ripe for immigration" than it is now.
Shows me the type of fact-checking I can expect from you.
no, but thanks for ignoring the biggest fact. we are not talking about stopping immigration. we are talking about ILLEGAL immigration.
but just to answer quickly - how many illegal aliens show up and are prepared to go to work in an IT dept.? or anywhere in the business world for that matter? no - even proponents of throwing open the borders state that the vast majority of illegals will work in low income, labor intensive positions. of course, i can check those facts by taking a brief stroll through the area here.
I did see a fairly well respected study that pointed out that immigrant workers, legal and illegal were responsable for an average 2.5% wage retardation in the US over the last 20 years.
How many are allowed to work those jobs?
Didn't Dana just state a few posts ago that it takes forever before they're ALLOWED to seek work?
And you wonder why they take low income jobs at less than minimum wage. It's the only way they can eat, man.
And for a country that can produce edible panties, The Simple Life, a microwave with the Internet, an SUV culture, and Wal-Mart, I think it's our duty to take on a few of the "illegal aliens" from countries we've been fucking over with dirt cheap labour and such for the past bunch of decades.
Americans are a culture that loves to bitch when their precious way of life is tampered with.
Explain to me exactly how illegal aliens have made your life hell, moron. Explain why you are suffering as a human being, due to them.
edit: that was pretty harsh. I'll be more rational now, but I stand by my opinions, i'm just having a shitty day.
Found the source for that:
Here
I've read a few by this guy, seems to produce some of the better recent work on the labour market.
Didn't Dana just state a few posts ago that it takes forever before they're ALLOWED to seek work?
Dana lives in England. Totally different situation over there.
And you wonder why they take low income jobs at less than minimum wage. It's the only way they can eat, man.
Here's the problem--they don't pay any taxes on that low-income job. So their "take home" pay is comparable to a citizen making higher wages. There are plenty of LEGAL immigrants who pay taxes and work to become US citizens and don't attempt to get free healthcare, foodstamps, and welfare. The ones who are a drain are the ones who willfully avoid detection, can make $8 an hour (the going rate at the day laborer site here in my city)--UNTAXED, which comes out to more like the take-home of a $10/hour job--then take their wife to the hospital to have their baby for free, who then attends public school for free.
jag - i haven't seen any specific number that i'm willing to place much credibility into just because of the difficulty in figuring something like that out. i think it is fairly obvious that if you have large numbers of people working for $3-5/hour cash under the table that would have a negative impact on wages as you move up the scale.
more important that the wage degradation though is the amount of money spent on illegals once they are here. if they are caught there are legal costs. if they are ill they are treated with tax payer money, if they have a child, the child is a citizen and can qualify for food stamps, etc...
don't misunderstand, i don't think these are bad people who are worthy of death. but if they can't get here legally, then they shouldn't be here.
It is difficult to work out, there is full methadology and all the gory details in the PDF.
Beyond that i'm staying out of this one.
The one internet company I saw firsthand was about 50% illegal aliens being paid in consumer electronics and housing.
Probably not a representative sample, though.
Explain to me exactly how illegal aliens have made your life hell, moron.
well, right until then, this was just a discussion. so fuck you, bitch.
how does it affect my life? well as i said, i live in a state that sees a large volume of alien trafficking. we've had shootouts on our roads in rush hour. an average of one "safe house" busted/ week containing from 50-254 illegals in bad health from living in unsanitary conditions - who then need medical treatment, LE screening to check for records, a place to stay, then eventually they are released back at the border not to be seen until the next time they cross. then you look at the fact that they can go to the hospital get treatment, and who pays for it? taxpayers, that is who. they get welfare benefits for their kids, etc. and they send a large amount (some studies say 40%) of their income south of the border. our government offices are required to have spanish speaking employees. it is not uncommon to see in the news that an illegal was involved in a traffic accident and then they just run, because they have no auto insurance... those are a few ways that illegals impact my life.
ps. if you will lay off the name calling, so will i.
So what you are saying is that they have affected your life by being so poor and unhappy as to require your society's help. What villains. I think you should just sit on the borders and take em out one by one.
......Or you could make it easier for them to find legal channels into the country, allow them the rights which come with that (including the right to a driving licence and the insurance which that opens up) and see how many of them add to your economy in a positive way. I am willing to wager the vast majority , if given a leg up would enrich your country not impoverish it. They come oftne from the poorest regions of their own country, seeking to improve their lives and their childrens'......I cannot see that as a crime. The fact that it is criminal, to me points to an overly restrictive immigration policy. The law should be altered to make it easier for people who are in that situation to enter legally. These are precisely the people a society should want. These are people who truly understand the poverty trap and who would likely work their fingers to the knucklebones to build a better life......In reality many of them are already working hard and long to scrape by in squalor with no tax paid......If they were able to gain legal status they'd be less vulnerable to abuse at the hands of unscrupulous employers and would be contributors to the economy through their paid tax and consumer spending.
dana - i don't feel the need to take care of everyone in the world. my family is my responsibility and i will try to help the person to the right and left of me as much as i can.
if they would quit abandoning their own country and work to reform from within they could go far, instead they choose to take the easy way out and go someplace where generations have worked hard to achieve the standard of living that we have. we have our own problems, we don't need to import more.
Not everyone is resourced or able to work for a country's reform. How much affect do you think you could have on the White house? on local government even? What if the region you lived in was so dirt poor that there was no local economy to engage in? How do you ever get past the daily struggle of subsistence living and find time to engage in the powerplays needed to make significant changes in a country?
How far to the left or right do you look before you say these people are nothing to me, I will not give them succour?
"instead they choose to take the easy way out"
oh man. entering the USA as an illegal alien and trying to survive is the easy way out.
Dude, tell me you don't actually believe that.
where do you live CB? is it in a border state? how much interaction do you have with illegals? how much time have you spent in mexico?
i'm in arizona, it is a border state, i have a lot of interaction with illegals, and i have spent a lot of time in mexico...
just curious if you want to keep pulling your ideas out of books and hearsay or do you actually have first hand experience in the area?
because, yes, coming to the states is the easy way out. it is pathetically easy to get over here, get a fake id, get a job, and even living on minimum wage, live a better life than they left. if they stayed it wouldn't be nearly so easy - they would have to fight the forces that be to create a better country to pass onto their kids.
*Sighs*
It never ceases to amaze me. People who can walk in with little difficulty are welcomed with open arms, but the ones who have risked all that they are and all that they have and fought tooth and nail to get into a country often with the sole intention of being successful are treated like pondlife. How many stories are there in the American psyche of immigrants arriving in the States with a dollar in their pocket and then turning that dollar into a business empire across 30 years?....These are the ones who have fought to get there, who will be most loyal and most grateful and will contribute more thna they ever take if only they are given a welcome instead of being blocked from legal channels and then driven out when they still fought to get in
Maybe you find it easier to see these people as some sort of infestation because you have reduced them to mere "illegals"
And y'know, people say they dont want illegal immigrants coming from Canad either, but then.......a canadian citizen aiming to gain access to teh states and a work permit is way less likely to be refused than is a mexican
Nor I think would an illegal immigrant from Canada ( as long as he wasnt dark skinned in any way) be treated with the same disdain by the authorities whne they are caught.
It's racism. You just feel safe with it because it's seemingly based purely on legality of status but in reality is based on a gut instinct response to people you see as alien to yourself.
and again - i hope you get to stay in your fairy tale world. it just isn't that way. i hold no malice to the people. if they can get here legally, then they are welcomed with open arms.
here is one that i bet you won't understand. the mexican immigrants who did get here legally hate the illegals more than i can describe. the ones with the greatest loyalty to the country are the ones who followed the laws and gained there place here lawfully. the others have jumped the system and are breaking the law. end of story. they are breaking the law.
Maybe you find it easier to see these people as some sort of infestation because you have reduced them to mere "illegals"
And y'know, people say they dont want illegal immigrants coming from Canad either, but then.......a canadian citizen aiming to gain access to teh states and a work permit is way less likely to be refused than is a mexican
Nor I think would an illegal immigrant from Canada ( as long as he wasnt dark skinned in any way) be treated with the same disdain by the authorities whne they are caught.
It's racism. You just feel safe with it because it's seemingly based purely on legality of status but in reality is based on a gut instinct response to people you see as alien to yourself.
have you ever met me? don't even begin to tread on this ground without knowing me or my family, there may be a few surprises for you, honey.
how much experience do you have here? as far as i can tell all of your info is based on heresay or out of a book. this is life here. i don't know what the situation is with your asylum seekers, so i don't pretend to pass some sort of judgement. i know this situation here intimately and i will stand on what i have said. so take your race card and shove it, you have no right to play it here.
No you're right, I know nothing about you and i know little about your country other than the little i have gleaned from living in an American led world and all that that implies.
Your words however bear an enormous resemblance to the words of my own anti immigrant countrymen. Scratch the surface of what seems like anti illegality and I usually find a great ugly blob of racism. If I had changed a few locations in your post and changed 2illegals" to "bogus asylum seekers" it could have come form the mouth of a British racist , so do excuse my error. Maybe if I re read your words with an American accent it will sound less bigotted
Maybe if I re read your words with an American accent it will sound less bigotted
or if you stepped outside of yourself to view your own arrogant attitude. either one, maybe.
hell of a way to answer when i asked what your experience with the situation was though...
normally it should go something like 1) Q: 2) A: , your method of 1) Q: 2) Insult:
works pretty well too i suppose.
*nods* ok...maybe I overreacted. I have a lot of contact with asylum seekers in the UK, most of whom are categorised unfairly as bogus ....and many of whom who are genuine yet are still returned home often to deadly situations despite that supposedly being illegal.....There are also a lot of people who use the asylum system because it is sooooo hard to get a work permit for britain unless you happen to come from a desirable country ( like America, or Australia) ....Mostly they wold come in legally if they had been able to. Thats my experience of people who are attempting to emigrate to a better life. To seetheir struggles and to know how hard their lives often are and then see them abused and shunned is something which makes me very very angry and upset.
I understand you would have nothing against them if they found a legal channel in. Perhaps then you arent racist . But the system which makes it so difficult for Mexicans to get in legaly and yet so easy for say....me.....has a racist agenda imo. The trouble is by closing all the legal doors in their faces the system has not stifled their need or desire to escape their grinding poverty trap which allows them no rookm for manouvre in anything let alone changing their country.....These are desperate people usually and so having been denied legal access they still try their chances....If the door had not been slammed in their face you would not be disdainful of them.
Man, that was a tough read, Jag. :eek: I'm more concerned with the impact on social services and crime, than the labor market. Especially youth (gang) crime. :yelsick:
here is the thing Dana. it isn't easy for you to get here on a permanent basis either. i've got 2 canadian friends that ahve been trying to get green cards for 4 years. they would be just as wrong to illegally enter and stay as a mexican would.
But the system which makes it so difficult for Mexicans to get in legaly and yet so easy for say....me.....has a racist agenda imo.
it is not racist to say that someone who has a needed work skill gains access before someone with skills that are in less demand. those are the facts of life. the US is not just a big charity, if a person is not adding something substantive to the society, why should we import them. we have enough unemployed and even more underemployed americans.
but this discussion was not about legal imm. it is about those that choose to break the law and cross the border with no right to do so. Bruce said he isn't as concerned about the labor market as he is the social services and criminal aspects. they are all one in the same. they are here illegally so they don't have the ability to demand higher wages or benefits. when push comes to shove, they break other laws (theft, drugs, etc...) or they tap into the welfare system.
"it is not racist to say that someone who has a needed work skill gains access before someone with skills that are in less demand. those are the facts of life"
It may not seem racist, it may indeed not be racist ....However it is very much slewed in favour of economies which are able to provide enough opportunities for their citizens as to make them easily employable.....Since the countries which are most likely to provide immigrants with suitable working skills are generally the affluent nations, most of which are predominatly white .....Consequently there is a racist effect if not a racist intent to that system.
Dana. as of midnight tonight you are the sole ruler of Danatown, Inc. it is your town to do with as you wish, but there will be no outside source of support. you start with 50 people in your town and you can let 5 new people in every month. on the first month as the applicants for entry show up you review their resume (you don't meet them face to face, because race should play no part of your decision.)
on your list you see:
11 computer programmers
2 architects
3 lawyers
2 doctors
1 banker
7 teachers
3 athletes
14 landscapers
3 roadworkers
16 construction workers
1 interior designer
4 farmers
6 auto mechanics
3 scientists
1 lumberjim
x
x
x
x
x
you are allowed to pick 5 for the month. next month you will be handed another list. who will you choose to enter this month?
An interesting proposition however, America is not operating at her limits on immigration. America could if it chose to support all it's citizens with social security safety nets and free medical treatment and still afford to do the same for the number of immigrants which pass across it's borders, illegally or legally.
Having said that ....Looking at that list? I would choose 3 or 4 who were well skilled becuse they'll be able to slot right in and be useful from the start and then 1 or 2 who werent, because if they are trained and supported by Danaland whilst they are getting on their feet there's a strong possibility that they will be dedicated citizens whose children will do me proud :P
An interesting proposition however, America is not operating at her limits on immigration. America could if it chose to support all it's citizens with social security safety nets and free medical treatment and still afford to do the same for the number of immigrants which pass across it's borders, illegally or legally
i said nothing of being at your limits. i am talking about responsible growth. or if you prefer a quota system.
please just answer the question.
and by the way - no we can't support everyone with ss nets and free med treatment. do you have any idea what the average person pays in taxes already???
I suspect that the poor pay too much and the wealthy too little. You could increase your country's revenues and resources by taxing the wealthy to the same proportion of their incomes that the workingclass pay. As it stands the wealthy I suspect pay a much smaller per centage of their overal income in tax.
Having said that ....Looking at that list? I would choose 3 or 4 who were well skilled becuse they'll be able to slot right in and be useful from the start and then 1 or 2 who werent, because if they are trained and supported by Danaland whilst they are getting on their feet there's a strong possibility that they will be dedicated citizens whose children will do me proud :P
exactly, and that is what america does right now. not everyone who is granted access through legal channels is highly skilled. it's nice to see that you acknowledge that you must be choosy and welcome in more individuals who have something to offer immediately.
America could if it chose to support all it's citizens with social security safety nets and free medical treatment and still afford to do the same for the number of immigrants which pass across it's borders, illegally or legally
Sounds like you've got a budget all worked out. How, pray tell, could America do that? Oh right, you're a socialist. You work in theory, not in practice.
I dont agree that being choosy is a necessity . It is a necessity in the setup you just gave me.....But that isnt how it is in reality. The idea that America cannot afford or sustain that level of immigration is I think disengenuous. It's a huge country and the wealthiest on planet earth
"Sounds like you've got a budget all worked out. How, pray tell, could America do that? Oh right, you're a socialist. You work in theory, not in practice."
It's easy , you justhave to make the leap and decide that you will tailor your tax policy to suit your country's needs and not the pockets of your elite
I suspect that the poor pay too much and the wealthy too little. You could increase your country's revenues and resources by taxing the wealthy to the same proportion of their incomes that the workingclass pay. As it stands the wealthy I suspect pay a much smaller per centage of their overal income in tax.
You're wrong. The lowest income brackets pay zero taxes. As you move up the ladder, you start to pay a higher percentage of your income. The standard argument goes that the actual DOLLAR AMOUNTS are more important to the lower-income people--because the percentages are staggered. At least you admit you only suspect how it works over here before you start telling us how to fix it.
What is your highest tax bracket? That is to say, what percentage of their income do they pay in tax?
As an aside, the tax burden on the poor is not just the income tax. In most countries ( including Britain) the poor get hit by flat taxes to a greater extent than the wealthy, that is it represents a greater proportion of their income than it does for the wealthy
Also.....if a country makes proper provsion for it's unemployed or disadvantaged ( paid for by a small raise in the top levels of tax ) it usually pays dividends later. If people are afforded a small income to assist them they spend that income in shops rather than them surviving on a combination of food stamps and crime and disappearing off into the grey economy which is beyond the taxation system and therefore leads to a net loss for the economy. If people are given adequate assistance they are less likely to drift into debilitating depressions and/or dig themselves a hole they cant get out of and are therefore more likely to become fully contributing members of society at a later stage, thereby more than covering the costs incurred in assiting them. They are less likely to fail and therefore more likely to be able to raise their children in such a way that their children may take full advantage of the many opportunities their country can offer them, thereby contributing to their society to such a level as to offset the costs of their earlier care.
I do think it makes very little economic sense to allow large numbers of the populace drift into extreme poverty and crime and then spend a small fortune housing them in prisons and further alienating them from the society to which they could have been contributing, had they been given enough support during the lean times to allow them to get on their feet rather than falling into criminality out of poverty and a lack of hope or inclusion
I dont agree that being choosy is a necessity . It is a necessity in the setup you just gave me.....But that isnt how it is in reality. The idea that America cannot afford or sustain that level of immigration is I think disengenuous. It's a huge country and the wealthiest on planet earth
one of (not the only) the reasons that we are the wealthiest is that is capitalism vs. socialism. penalizing those who make "too much" money is a negative on the economy.
In most countries ( including Britain) the poor get hit by flat taxes to a greater extent than the wealthy, that is it represents a greater proportion of their income than it does for the wealthy
so what? if everyone pays the same % of their income (i.e. everyone pays 7%) the wealthy pay more dollars.
"Sounds like you've got a budget all worked out. How, pray tell, could America do that? Oh right, you're a socialist. You work in theory, not in practice."
It's easy , you justhave to make the leap and decide that you will tailor your tax policy to suit your country's needs and not the pockets of your elite
it would be so awesome to live in a fairy tale where it is so easy to say "It's their fault!!! them over there!!! the ones that make more money than i do!!!"
we could call it Danaland, Inc.
What is your highest tax bracket? That is to say, what percentage of their income do they pay in tax?
to the best of my knowledge - 40%. again, if you want to raise that so you can give it to the people on the bottom, what is the incentive for anyone to earn more?
The incentive is that 40 per cent of 10 million dollars is still a lot of money. Do you really think the rich will cease striving for more wealth if you take an extra 10 %off them? You think they'll just stop trying to make money because they dont feel it's worth it?
"we could call it Danaland, Inc."
Or you could call it Germany....or France...at a bit of a push you could call it Britain, though we dont proviede for our people as well as our continental brothers.
Or you could call it Germany....or France...
how the hell is
that a good thing??? it is inherently unfair to charge me (or anyone else) a higher percentage of my income, just because i make more.
we actually had this discussion the other day. flat tax on every dollar over $25000 in a single year. most fair system in the world.
though we dont proviede for our people as well as our continental brothers.
there is something to strive for kamerad.
10 % of $10 000 dollars may be a smaller amount to pay than 10% of $100 000 dollars but to the person who is on 10 000 it is a harder burden
"there is something to strive for kamerad."
*chuckles* oh many of us are trying. Personally i would take our tax system back to the old supertax days. Those earning over a certain amount would be taxed at a very high rate for anything they earn above that limit. I believe it used to be 90%...I wouldnt go that far. I wold put it at 70%
"if you want to raise that so you can give it to the people on the bottom, what is the incentive for anyone to earn more?"
I really dont think the rich need to be incentivised to make themselves richer. You could tax them at horrible levels and they would still want to make more money.
You're wrong. The lowest income brackets pay zero taxes.
You're only factoring in income taxes. Payroll taxes are regressive. Sales taxes are flat. Tax dodges are primarily for the wealthy.
You're only factoring in income taxes. Payroll taxes are regressive. Sales taxes are flat. Tax dodges are primarily for the wealthy.
sales taxes are flat
dollar . that is harder on the poor. a flat % income tax on anything over $25,000 (and adjustable for inflation) is extremely fair.
and dana - do you not understand that communism doesn't work once people are involved? that is why america is the richest country - because people trying to get ahead are rewarded for their efforts.
no where does it say "life, liberty, and happiness" it says "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" translation - life and freedom are yours. you also have the right to step to the edge and try to fly. you may crash and burn, but you have the right to try. if you penalize those who succeed, you hamper the desire for the next guy to take the leap.
I think the difference between America and Europe is that in America you have the concept of a classless society in which anyone can make it to the top. The fact that most people actually arent able to take advantage of that doesnt seem to make a difference. In Europe we are under no illusions of a level playing field. We know that those who are on low incomes will likely stay on low incomes and the ones who are wealthy are the ones who will remain wealthy. ....The elite do a fairly bangup job of protecting their interests without me doing it for them. I hear many Americans defending their right to low taxes at the higher levels possibly because they believe that one day they may be the one who is being taxed for their high income. They are protecting a dream they will never be able to participate in. They are defending their elite's right to stay elite. In doing so they are defending people who are the least in need of defense and whose interests are at odds with their own ( imo)
"and dana - do you not understand that communism doesn't work once people are involved? "
I am not an advocate of communism. What I am talking about is not communism, it isnt even socialism. I advocate capitalism with a social conscience.
I think the difference between America and Europe is that in America you have the concept of a classless society in which anyone can make it to the top. The fact that most people actually arent able to take advantage of that doesnt seem to make a difference. In Europe we are under no illusions of a level playing field.
a level playing field means that everyone has a chance to succeed. we do have that. it doesn't mean that everyone starts from the same point or even that everyone who gives it their all will succeed. success will be harder for some than others - but a large variable is the question of what you consider to be success. for me, it is putting my kid through school, and semi-retirement at 45 without a change in my lifestyle. some people want more, some people want less.
the point is that we have the ability to pick a goal and work toward it. we may not reach it, but that is just the way life goes sometimes.
I am not an advocate of communism. What I am talking about is not communism, it isnt even socialism. I advocate capitalism with a social conscience.
sounds more like a fan of robin hood than anything. but really, taking from the wealthy to give to the poor
is socialism. we do it in small ways here in america. the welfare system that everyone gripes about, either that it is too much or it is too little, is socialist in nature.
A fair point Lookout. In that case all we are actually arguing about is percentages rather than principal.
As to the level playing field .....I meant that interms of access to the higher echelons of society. Success may mean any number of things to the individual, but to gain access to the upper earning levels and the power that brings is reserved primarily to the ones born into it. A few make it....they give credence to the "American dream"...My point is that a tiny fraction of your society has a stake in the highest levels of society but the majority of the population will defend to the hilt the rights of the extremely wealthy to not have their wealth making impeded in any way despite the fact that those defending them will likely never be able to take advantage of that dream and indeed would be able to lead happier lives ( imo) if the wealthy were forced to put more back into the society which provided them with the markets and workforce which allowed them such success. The elite didnt make their money in a vacuum. They did so through the labours of themselves and others. They are not just people who do society the kindness of creating jobs, they are also people who have been served by a workforce which is all too often percieved by them as an inconvenient way to spend money.....Employers by their very nature will try to get the workers they need for the minimum the market will allow them to pay without losing their workforce.
the fact that relatively few people actually achieve great wealth is the whole motivating factor.if everyone who worked hard walked away with a $200K salary then there would be no motivation for anyone to go through the requirements for higher skill level training. there have to be winners and losers in a capitalist society.
and the simple fact is that whether you like him or not John Edwards father was a steel worker and now he is a candidate for VP. he made millions by raising our insurance costs, but he is a son of a steel worker. bill clinton was the son of a drunken womanizer and he became a drunken... oh wait (I"M JUST BEING SMART ASS) he became president. Reagan was an actor. my cousin grew up lower middle class and is worth untold millions now, because he wrote some bizarre software that apparently revolutionized bank and government security systems... it can happen to everyone, but it shouldn't happen to everyone.
*nods* True it happens to a few and you wouldnt want it to happen for everyone. I am not suggesting that the playing field be made truly level *smiles* I think that really would mark me a fabulist....What I am suggesting is that America could raise those at the very bottom of the heap up to a more comfortable position without it actually costing so mvery much in real terms. What would be spent on inmproving the social conditions of the poorest in society would be recouped by lower prison populations and fewer families falling into generational poverty and alienation from the world of work thereby reducing the overall burden on welfare in the long term...
The thing is, it wouldnt really require that much extra tax. I do think the absolute top earners should pay a small per centage extra, perhaps even an extra 2 or 3 per cent would make a startling difference. But what would make more of a difference is if the money was spent where it was truly needed and not where it felt most at home :P I struggle to understand the willingness of the American taxpayer to fund Corporate welfare schemes for the likes of McDonalds in order for them to "open up new markets overseas" yet begrudge a small income and assistance with their rent to a family living below the poverty line (To me that seems somewhat perverse)
Other things would ease the burden on the tax payer too.....For instance a combination of incentives for eploying in America and penalties for corporations who close profitable factories in America in order to move their operations to a low wage economy.....If companies like Ford could be persuaded to maintain a profitable factory with it's staff of loyal and often 2nd generation workers then maybe there wouldnt be a large population of unemployed workers living in a devastated town with little or no economic landscape to take advantage of .....I am sure they'd rather have their jobs back than live on the charity of a society who begrudges them the very small help they seek.
Then there are the many loopholes and dodges which large companies and wealthy corporations are able to exploit .....It would likely make a difference if those who were being taxed at 40% actually were paying tax on the whole oftheir earnings.
.....But thats just the top earners. As for the rest of the tax paying public I dont think you should be paying more. Your tax burden is plenty high enough. The trouble is you dont seem to get a lot for your taxes .....that is to say, if I had to pay tax at the level I do now but after i had paid that tax I still had to pay for medical insurance, the education of any future children all the while knowing that if for some reason my life did hit the rails the help I would be able to access would be minimal and short lived....If that were the case I would probably seriously resent my tax burden. As it is I dont really see it as a burden...I get value for money *smiles* I pay reasonably high taxes and for those taxes I can feel confident that my needs will be met ( just) should I fall ill, or out of work and that any children I have will have access not only to primary and secondary education but also college and university ( although university is no longer free it is heavily subsidised and the basic cost of tuition fees along with maintenance is met by the state and repaid at a later date when the student is earning above a certain level)
If I didnt have that value for money perhaps I would be more hostile to taxation generally. Given how little you seem to get in return for your taxes I can understand your resentment when your money is taken off you to provide for others. If your taxes were also paying for your children's education and your Grandmothers heart bypass they may seem less odorous. As it is given how much you then have to pay for health insurance and education and the myriad other things the tax buden on the middle classes in particular seems overly heavy
......What I am suggesting is that America could raise those at the very bottom of the heap up to a more comfortable position without it actually costing so mvery much in real terms.
I haven't replied to much that you have posted but I have noticed that you have some quality contnent and spend the time to explain your ideas, much as I disagree with most of them. You also leave out any personal attacks and outright cutting commentary, which I appreciate.
Your entire post here goes into detail about the socialist ideas that drive me crazy. Many people here in the US would be quite happy with UK style philosophy. I am not one of them.
Let's look at your quote from above. What level would you have people raised up to? Who would determine the amount of the raise?
How do you explain to those that didn't require the "help" and that worked through sweat and wit that the rules have changed?
What is the next increment to be "fixed" after those that are less fortunate have been raised? Do you think this policy will encourage people to do for themselves or just wait around until the gov't helps them out? What about the threefold increase in people that meet the criteria after they realize that they don't have to apply themselves.
To be fair, I do know more than a few liberals that have, at some time in their life taken advantage of some gov't money to get through college or start a bussiness. The few that come to mind really wouldn't care if the tax rate was 80% and that totally confuses me.
The American system works if you work it.Yes, I know you have all sorts of cases where it doesnt but I dont buy that the whole system is broken.
The more these socialistic policies are implemented, the less this country becomes what it was originally intended. A country where anyone can make it but not much, if anything is handed out.
Having spent the better part of 15 years working in a wide variety of eastern cities, I see the trend downward and the good intentions of people creating weaker and weaker people with more and more division.
Commence firing.
*Sighs*
It never ceases to amaze me. People who can walk in with little difficulty are welcomed with open arms, but the ones who have risked all that they are and all that they have and fought tooth and nail to get into a country often with the sole intention of being successful are treated like pondlife.
You really don't have a fucking clue, do you? What they risked was getting caught and a ticket back to where they came from in an air conditioned bus. How the hell do you know what their intentions are? You wax poetic about the downtrodden people of Latin America like some Elizabethan school girl tucked away in an English Abby.
It so happens we have a shitload of them just west of here in Chester and Lancaster counties. Some of them a hardworking people that send most of their money back to Latin America to support their extended families. BUT, way too many of them are causing crime wave unpresedented the the history of those areas. They've overwhelmed the small town police departments. And whether good ones or bad ones, in total, put a tremendous strain on the social services of the area. You can guess who's paying for that.
How many stories are there in the American psyche of immigrants arriving in the States with a dollar in their pocket and then turning that dollar into a business empire across 30 years?
Hundreds, no thousands, many of whom I've known personally. They all had one thing in common, they came from varied backgrounds, sometimes fleeing something, sometimes chasing something, but all came legally or at least quasi-legally (misrepresented themselves or past) through the immigration system.
....These are the ones who have fought to get there, who will be most loyal and most grateful and will contribute more thna they ever take if only they are given a welcome instead of being blocked from legal channels and then driven out when they still fought to get in
Bullshit, they come like thieves in the night, to take what the can get away with. I suggest you visit South Central Los Angeles, they'd be glad to do a bowl with you........your bowl. :rolleyes:
[FONT=Georgia][SIZE=4]Yah, what Bruce said!!! [/SIZE] [/FONT] :smashfrea
wow - i was starting to feel a little lonely out here. thanks for the support guys.
I've been at work, otherwise I would have been chiming in.
I have an idea.
I'll spring for the concrete. Anyone want to help me patch over the bits on the Statue's base that talk about the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free"? We can cover that over pretty quickly, I'd think.
There are also a lot of people who use the asylum system because it is sooooo hard to get a work permit for britain unless you happen to come from a desirable country ( like America, or Australia) ....
It's really not that hard to get a work permit for the UK if you have transferrable skills. By that, I mean you can get a job and pay taxes to support the country, just like all the people who are already here and paying taxes to support the country.
If, on the other hand, you don't have transferrable skills which will benefit the country, why
should you be allowed in? If you're in immediate danger? Sure. If your native country will persecute you on the basis of your beliefs? Maybe - it kinda depends on the level of persecution. If you just don't like the country you're from, and think you could have a better life (and your kids could have a better life) here in the UK than you can in <insert name of country of origin here>? No. Sorry. You're simply not welcome, if you can't contribute at least as much to the country as you will eventually withdraw from it - there are more than enough people here who are already struggling.
My dad, who's lived in the UK all his life, served in the forces and defended his country against terrorists, and seen friends and colleagues killed in the name of that fight (largely funded by America, incidentally - please don't make the mistake of thinking I believe that the good ol' USofA is saintly and pure), is currently trying to find a job. He's got a proven track record in the telecommunications industry, and has held several jobs in the field. He's been a successful technical director of large companies, turned around departments from losing money to making profit, and generally is good at what he does. And he's struggling to find work, and my parents may ultimately have to sell their house and move out if he can't find a job. He can't get any benefits, because he left his last job voluntarily - the stress was beginning to make him depressed (clinically so) and making his life a living hell, so he left.
So, tell me again how we've got all these jobs we need people to come and fill?
In the financial year April '99 to April 2000, I paid in excess of £40,000 in income tax. The following year, I moved to NYC. More on that later. I spent two years working (as a UK employee of a UK company, paying UK tax) based in NYC. I spent 18 months out there, and then had to come back. I couldn't get a job for several months, because I was "too expensive" - the fact that I was willing to work for a small salary didn't matter; the employers were worried that I'd take their job, find something better, and leave. I couldn't get any benefits either, because I hadn't been made redundant (I was ultimately fired for visa reasons; more on that later too). So I wound up pulling pints behind a bar for well below the minimum wage, just to get enough income to eat. Just to recap, I'd paid well over £40,000 in tax only a year and a half ago, and had been earning a UK salary and paying UK tax and NI on it for the last 18 months.
So, tell me again how we've got all this "spare money" we need to give away to people who aren't:
a) legitimate asylum seekers
or
b) skilled immigrants
I understand you would have nothing against them if they found a legal channel in.
Please note, at no point have I suggested that any of my job-hunting woes, or my father's, are the result of any kind of immigration policy. I'm just attempting to set the stage to support this contention:
We have more than enough people in this country already, who need help. You talk of a duty to help people less fortunate than us, and of society's obligation to give something back; why start with people from another country? Why not give something back to those people living below the poverty line, or who've worked their entire life and may now have to sell their house because they can't find a job, despite their very best efforts?
the system which makes it so difficult for Mexicans to get in legaly and yet so easy for say....me.....
No such system exists. It's REALLY hard to get into the US and work legally, for me. I don't have a degree (never really saw the point in the UK, so left after 6 months and got a job instead) but I do have 8 years of experience in the high-tech industry. If I do say so myself, I'm damned good at my job, and every single one of my employers will back me up on that.
Yet I couldn't get a visa to get into the US. We spent a great deal of time and money on immigration lawyers, we petitioned senior members of the INS (friends of my boss), and all to no avail. I wound up moving to the US on the UK payroll, and spending my time flitting about between countries. We got a lawyer to draft - at considerable expense - an opinion on what I could and couldn't do on a B1 "business visitor" visa, and stuck to that. I'd go see a client in the US, but I couldn't actually bill for my time. I'd agree to do some work for them, and I'd fly back to the UK, do the work in our UK office, and then fly back out and deliver it. I'd be paid in UK pounds, into a UK bank account, by the UK office. I paid $5 or so every time I used an ATM, because my account was in the UK. I had to rent an apartment from one of the guys at work because without a social security number no landlords would let anything to me. Quite the pain in the ass. In the end, I wound up getting fired because the costs of travelling back and forth, and the associated inconvenience, made it impossible for me to stay.
I really enjoyed my time in the US, but it's really
not easy to immigrate there, for anyone. The system is not inherently racist, it's inherently exclusive. And that's just fine, when you think about it; those with the skills, determination and qualifications to immigrate are allowed to do so, but those who already work in the country aren't unfairly disadvantaged by an influx of cheap labour. And yes, it's cheap labour; I took £20 - £30k less than I'd have wanted for the same job in the UK simply because I'd get to live in New York for a while.
So I've been on both sides of the table. I'm all for immigration when it adds something to the country, and I don't give a damn where someone comes from. I'm all for asylum when it's genuinely necessary to protect someone, and I don't give a damn where they're running from.
It is worth noting the best thing that could be done for most of the world's impoverished would be to lift all the fucking tariffs and trade bans so they could make some money at home. Governments wouldn't waste money propping up inefficient industries and 3rd world nations could compete and trade with the rest of the world on an even platform. Godo cheaper, poor people richer, world a better place.
Bullshit, they come like thieves in the night, to take what the can get away with. I suggest you visit South Central Los Angeles, they'd be glad to do a bowl with you........your bowl. :rolleyes:
The ones that I like are the ones that cross the border so they can have their kid naturalized by birth (for free) and then they get naturalized by extension.
Well said Jag. Inject some actual capitalism into the picture.
Let's also remember that as a % of total population immigration is nowhere near a historic high.
Americas nativists have always felt threatened by immigrants, because they see the character of the country changing. People fear that we'll turn into a third world country but they miss the point that most immigrants come here to pursue the American dream, not to soak up welfare (of course we can address those who want to play the system). If we want a vibrant economy we need the influx of motivated people. That tendency to close borders and exclude people comes from the same kind of statist thinking afflicting other western economies. Too much state control in the name of conserving or liberalizing a country crushes individual initiative.
Somebody brought up the we're all immigrants thing, which reminded me of the beginning of the thread. I'd like to see the family tree of the BNP nutter, Griffin is a pretty common last name throughout Europe but especially in Ireland... If he's a British Nationalist of Irish descent there are some real strange social dynamics at work here.
griff - i don't think anyone here is arguing against immigration. we are talking about illegal immigration. big difference. it isn't racist,statist,nationalist, or any other ist to say that it is foolish to support the influx of illegal aliens we see on a daily basis.
Griff, 20 years ago he would have been kicking in Irish heads, today it's south asian ones, logic doesn't matter to these people as long as they've got someone's head to kick in. That said, it would be pretty funny.
The real problem with illegal or legal immigration is where it is poorly handled in terms of location and integration, illegal immigration makes it harder to manage it properly exacerbating the problem.
That said, I don't see thousands of 'bona fide' Americans lining up to pick oranges. Dumping a pile of people at the bottom end of the wage scale can help push some people up.
actually there are legal migrant workers who do that work jag. and just to throw another little curve in here...
if there are low end jobs that sit empty, rather than importing labor from another country - wouldn't it make more sense to take the folks that have been on long-term unemployment and say "see here is a job" now they are earning their money.
There are a lot of people that consider a lot of work 'below' them and would rather sit unemployed than clean toilets and pick oranges in the midday sun.
that is what i am saying though. instead of importing more workers and paying unemployment, make it mandatory for long-term (TBD) unemployment recipients work in these positions in order to keep receiving their checks. i used to be a hiring manager and i had guys turning down $10-15/hour jobs because it was beneath them and it was hardly worth giving the unemployment checks.
seems to me it would be a pretty easy way to get the long-term unemployment abusers off their butts.
I thought the US unemployment was really, really tight? Like you get cheques for a month or so then it was just food stamps and the like. Yes, I am entirely ignorant on this stuff.
Australia has work for the doll schemes that keep most people doing something, you also have to apply for a certain amount of jobs and the employer reports to the unemployment guys if you're not really trying.
if there are low end jobs that sit empty, rather than importing labor from another country - wouldn't it make more sense to take the folks that have been on long-term unemployment and say "see here is a job" now they are earning their money.
This is a good idea. Right around where I am, I see plenty of Help Wanted signs in businesses that offer $6-8/hr jobs. There are 'support' jobs out there. However, there is an American mentality that those kinds of jobs are there for certain kinds of people, primarily non-white and/or poor and/or unskilled people. Around here, there's the "They'll do it and be thrilled about it because it's a job!" attitude. And there are plenty of migrants, legal or not, plenty of inner city/poor folk who're glad to get at least a little income and all this regardless of race. I know a couple of long-term unemployment folks from the temp agency and that's the attitude they have. To quote one of them: "Why should I stoop to fast food or janitorial when I don't have to? There are plenty of mexicans who need that job more than I do. And they'll be glad for it."
Australia has work for the doll schemes that keep most people doing something, you also have to apply for a certain amount of jobs and the employer reports to the unemployment guys if you're not really trying.
It's kind of like that in Virginia. If you go on unemployment, you can collect as long as you prove to the agency you're actively looking for a job. You have to show proof of three job inquiries/applications/contacts weekly...just something that shows you tried. Also, the amount of unemployment you get is determined by how much you made before becoming unemployed, how long you were employed there and by the circumstances of your unemployment. Example, if you were making $50,000/yr at a job you had for 4 years and you were laid off due to downsizing, you'll receive more than if you made $50,000/yr at a job you held for 6 months and laid off due to kicking your boss in the yarbles. And I think how long you were employed and your circumstances also determine how long you can collect for..like 6 months, a year, 2 years..., but I'm not as sure about that.
I couldn't tell you about the other states, though.
[SIZE=1]edit: spelling[/SIZE]
unemployment is different state to state. i know that it is possible to stay on unemployment for at least a year if you work the system. all you have to do is get people to sign the paper saying you are interviewing for work. i used to get at least one person a week that would walk in all scruffy for an interview, go out of their way to point out their flaws and then ask me to sign the form - i always refused. anyone who came in and made an attempt to get the job i would bend over backwards to help though.
i seriously had a guy that was losing his home and one of his three cars but turned down a $12/hour office job because it was beneath him. he only made a little of $40k/year in his old position before he was fired. screw him, he shouldn't be getting tax money to support his arrogance or his laziness, whichever it is. i support sending him to pick oranges.
In Texas, I'm pretty sure if you're fired then they consider it your own fault and you get zero unemployment. And laws are also such that they can pretty much fire you for no reason at all, unless it's obviously race, gender, or sexuality-based. So you can only hope the company that's laying you off actually designates it as a downsizing and not just a plain ol' firing.
Mmm....I just reread this thread *chuckles* I see I was in sabre rattling mood yesterday. I do apologise for any offence to various people.
Today however I am in a blindin' mood. Several really positive things have happened this week which have all lifted my humour somewhat :P The first was Imran being released from custody on Monday. We were all very pleased to see him back amongst his friends and family. He's lost shedloads of weight his hands shake continuously and he has trouble sleeping but that's to be expected and I am sure his confidence will return soon. ....The other positive thing to happen this week is that Saaid (sp?) a colleague and friend of my mum has been granted permanent residency in the UK and can now begin the process which will lead eventually to his earning Citizenship. I am so pleased about this. I have heard of his troubles and how much he suffered at the hands of the Taliban, this gentle old professor whose crime was to be an intellectual in Afghanistan.
On a slightly darker note, the Refugee Council has begun to learn about the existence of several ( possibly many) detention facilities which are not publicised or listed or made available to them for contact and which have been purposebuilt underground for the detention of "illegal" asylum seekers ...Underground detention centres.....Underground underneath ordinary civic buildings, the city's population in total ignorance of it's presence ....I find that deeply worrying. I wonder why it is that the Home Office and NASS will work with the Refugee Council in many centres...yet not the purposebuilt subterranean detention centres.....No information has beenpassed to the Council regarding these facilities they have learned of their existence first via rumour then from people who have spent time incarcerated underground.
Purposebuilt or converted space in existing buildings? Maybe they were created out of sight/out of mind, to keep the neighbors from undue fear. :confused:
"Purposebuilt or converted space in existing buildings? Maybe they were created out of sight/out of mind, to keep the neighbors from undue fear."
Not hundred percent sure yet but hoping to find out more ....from what the fella at the Council was saying it sounded awfully like they were purpose built
I have considered that maybe they are placed underground for "their own protection" so to speak, that is keeping then out of sight so as not to spark an anti asylum backlash at the people inside.....That explains wh they would keep it out of the press certainly but that doesnt explain why they would keep this away from the council. The Refugee Council has worked with the Home Office and NASS in the past to smooth over potentially incendiary situations. A recent example was when a group of refugees were due to come over from Sierra Leone and somewhere else ( escapes now where it was) on a special fast track system. In order to ensure the information could be out out in a positive way and in order to prevent any far right groups or the media jumping all over it and causing a lot of ill feeling the impending arrival of said refugees was kept a strict secret until they were in the country and then when the story was broken it was broken with a "feelgood" factor, pictures of smiling children with clean clothes telling the camera how thankful they are to the people of Britain for welcoming them contrasted with pitcures of the refugee camp they'd come from and in which many of the adults had spent a decade and children been born and raised....But it wasnt kept from the refugee council, instead the council and the home office worked together but maintained a silence on the issue outside of that.
It's generally the nature of the Home Office and NASS that they are obstructionist in most cases, helpful in some and incompetant in others.....This particular brand of secrecy seems a new thing. I dont believe they are being set apart to prevent upsetting the populace at large I thin they are being set aside so that they do not exist in people's minds and if they dont exist in people's minds then nobody will feel a need to protect them from the state
An unmitigated influx of unskilled, criminal and fundamentally 'un-useful' refugees who - regardless of their political or humanitarian plight at home - are resolutely barging through our borders - without asking?
It's downright rude. It's not because their skin colour doesn't fit, or even because they're not directly contributing. It's because their very presence means WE get less. Less money, less healthcare, more tax. We are working in our piss boring 9 to 5 head fucking jobs so that THEY can enjoy a stable reintroduction to society with a press pack and meal ticket to boot. I want MY tax to pay for MY benefits.
And before you liberals jump in with the predictable 'self-serving tax is an oxymoron'... oh. Actually, this is where my argument comes unstuck.
You see, that is the purpose of tax. The proportion of one's income is irrelevant. Tax was introduced because a society (esp. meritocratic) is inherently unequal. Tax exists to moderate that inequality and ensure people don't die because they can't eat.
High earners (and that includes anyone earning over £12,000/$19,000 - congratulations you are in the top 2% of the world's population) detest the fact that their hard-earned money should go some way to helping those who do not work for themselves.
But that underpins the very foundations of our Western, capitalist, apparently civilised society. So don't go complaining about symptoms of a society you outwardly condone. Find the root premise of your argument first and contest that.
$19,000 is poverty level in the US. :p
1) That's not really why tax was introduced, nor does it really do that much to change the situations of either the rich or the poor.
2) In the US, there are sectors of the country who desperately want as much immigration as possible so they can afford to run their farms and businesses. We have always more than absorbed our immigrant population - they have in fact built the country and often have become quite rich in the process, and at the very least they have pursued the life they choose.
If they are richer than me, that's not my money they have earned - that's their money, and it improves me as the work and energy and ideas they have brought has improved the entire country.
Actually, it's
$9,310.
Lucky you. Zambia's is
$322.89.
:p
Actually, it's $9,310.
Lucky you. Zambia's is $322.89.
:p
Ok, I was using a family, which is what the media usually uses here.
So Zambia's income per cap(not poverty level) is $323, and Monaco's is $27,000. What does that have to do with me or you? Your comparing apples and oranges or kumquats.
If they are richer than me, that's not my money they have earned - that's their money, and it improves me as the work and energy and ideas they have brought has improved the entire country.
It does affect you, however, if they increase your taxes by increased pressure on social services and law enforcement. :eyebrow:
Ok, I was using a family, which is what the media usually uses here.
So Zambia's income per cap(not poverty level) is $323, and Monaco's is $27,000. What does that have to do with me or you? Your comparing apples and oranges or kumquats.
You brought the poverty line issue up, which incidentally has nothing to do with my argument (see above). I was just correcting you, and putting it in perspective. :p
You called $19,000 high earners. It is not in the US, it is poverty level for a family. :p
*Sigh*
High earners (and that includes anyone earning over £12,000/$19,000 - congratulations you are in the top 2% of the world's population)
High earners in comparison to the rest of the world. What do I mean the rest of the world? Oh sorry, that was like telling a child about Santa Claus. :p
[SIZE=1]sorry left off tongue :)[/SIZE]
This is another way that illegal immigration costs me and every other taxpaying american money. how long do you think this BS will be tied up in court?
Mexican: My Unborn Child Is U.S. Citizen
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
LOS ANGELES — Lawyers for a deported Mexican woman who is eight months pregnant are seeking her return to the United States to protect the unborn baby's health. They also say under federal law the fetus is a viable human being and thus may be eligible for citizenship rights.
That argument sounds like a longshot to some on both sides of the immigration debate. But in May, a U.S. District Court judge in Kansas City, Mo., approved a stay of deportation for a pregnant Mexican woman after raising, among other concerns, the question of whether her fetus could be considered a U.S. citizen. The judge is reviewing the issue.
That Missouri decision cannot set legal precedent, but immigration attorneys say it may offer them a new angle in deportation cases.
Last week immigration officials in Los Angeles denied a request to grant 30-year-old Maria Christina Rubio (search), mother of two young U.S.-born daughters, a temporary humanitarian visa to return to the United States because of complications in her pregnancy.
The request was filed by her husband's attorney, Luis Carrillo. Carrillo said he is considering whether to file a lawsuit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement for unlawful deportation.
Rubio's attorney Alexander Lopez said he had filed a separate visa request to immigration officials in Washington but had not yet received a response.
Carrillo said Rubio, who was hospitalized with complications in her fifth month and has suffered severe stomach pains throughout her pregnancy, needs to be back in the United States because the baby's health is at risk.
He also cited the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (search) of 2004, in which unborn children are granted equal protection under criminal law. Carrillo said that since the fetus is 8 months and would be viable outside the womb, it should be treated as a child born in the United States.
"The child was conceived in the United States and would have been born in the United States except that the mother was deported. Through no part of his own, the unborn baby is in Mexico," Carrillo said.
Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (search), said the U.S. Constitution's definition of citizen is very clear.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States" are considered citizens under the 14th Amendment.
"It doesn't say all persons who were conceived in the United States," Kice said.
In the Missouri case, the court questioned whether the unborn child would be a U.S. citizen because its father was.
Lawyers for the U.S. Attorney's office in Missouri argued that while fetuses are protected under criminal law, the law does not restrict the government's immigration powers. Known as "Laci and Conner's Law," the legislation was enacted after the bodies of Laci Peterson and her unborn son washed up along the San Francisco Bay in 2003. Peterson's husband, Scott, is charged with their murder.
Rubio was deported July 16 after she went to what her husband says was to be a status conference on her residency request. Immigration officials say the pregnant Rubio was immediately deported after it was discovered her residency request had been denied two years before and that she had previously entered the country illegally.
Lopez, who did not attend that hearing, said he never received notice of the denial and that Rubio had continued to receive work permits.
Kice said Lopez was reached by telephone at the time and did not raise any concerns about Rubio's health. She also said Rubio received an exam from public health services to ensure she was fit to travel.
Alan Diamante, an advising attorney in the case, said he believes it is important to bring the fetus citizenship argument to court, although he acknowledged it may be difficult argument to win.
"You can say this argument is a stretch, but these are the types of arguments that attorneys have to make to get into court," he said. "Laws are always changing and becoming harsher, and immigrant lawyers have to be creative to be heard."
I think the idea is to get her back into the country for "health reasons" so that the child is born here and the whole thing becomes moot.
Funny. Pit life-begins-at-conception vs anti-immigration.
Millions of dollars in money and man-hours down the toilet because Mexico is a shit-hole.
Again...
Funny. Pit life-begins-at-conception vs anti-immigration.
Damn, that would be a good one.
I'm picturing a Celebrity Deathmatch sort of thing.
*temporary thread hijacking in process*
i always thought the pro-life activists should wait until the next mother is arrested for dumping her just born baby in the trash. the argument could be that it could have been legally aborted 10 minutes prior, so what is the big deal...
I am thinking the old abortion debate is one I should leave well alone :P
We're not discussing abortion, just the chaos that would ensue from the two sides trying to use this situation as a wedge.
i think UT might shut down our favorite hangout if we went down that road.
afraid of melting to many computers in the midst of a nice flame fest.
Which kind of naturally leads into the debate itself....unless one is careful *is being careful*