Poll: 2nd Leaders debate - Live tonight at 8pm on BBC news and SKY news

Who will you vote for?

  • Labour

    Votes: 50 9.0%

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 245 43.9%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 227 40.7%

  • Other

    Votes: 36 6.5%
  • Total voters
    558
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
clv101 said:
...and I better idea is to ignore it? Hardly.
Click to expand...

Not ignore it, but also not accept it and make them all legal. Better policing and border controls. Counting in and out, for example.

When an illegal is found, they should be removed back to their point of origin, no appeal or recompense. Higher penalties for harbouring and employing illegal workers should be instituted.

Accepting an amnesty will encourage immigration illegally in the hope of another amnesty on the future, beside the huge increase in benefit and other social costs when the estimated 900,000 illegals suddenly become elligible for help.

The Amnesty policy is ill-concieved and foolish.
 
clv101 said:
...and I better idea is to ignore it? Hardly.
Click to expand...

No the better idea is to properly enforce it. Rather than the poor method we have at the moment. Have you ever had the misfortune to watch "Border Force"? Pretty much at the end of every single episode 95% of the people that they do arrest they release telling them to show up to a deportation centre at a later date and suprisingly they don't show. If you are here illegally deportation should be automatic with no right of appeal. If you want to come here then either claim asylum on arrival or try to enter legally.

You also need to deal with the other side of it and increase the penalties for those that knowingly employ illegal immigrants.

The Lib Dem policy doesn't really answer all the problems it would cause, all it will do is increase the cost to the tax payer. Also in 10 years time when all their methods for dealing with illegals have failed again, do we have another amnesty?
 
RDM said:
I would also be very wary of giving up our veto on the UNSC while the UN is such a flawed organisation.
Click to expand...
And of course, so long as the we have the power of veto over the Security Council, what possible reason could there be for trying to correct the flaws - It's broken but we have some measure of control it, so why bother to fix it? :rolleyes:
 
Gaidin109 said:
Not ignore it, but also not accept it and make them all legal. Better policing and border controls. Counting in and out, for example.

When an illegal is found, they should be removed back to their point of origin, no appeal or recompense. Higher penalties for harbouring and employing illegal workers should be instituted.

Accepting an amnesty will encourage immigration illegally in the hope of another amnesty on the future, beside the huge increase in benefit and other social costs when the estimated 900,000 illegals suddenly become elligible for help.

The Amnesty policy is ill-concieved and foolish.
Click to expand...

Yeah... but! The issue is not what happens today, is not counting in and out... it's how to deal with the legacy. We're told there are a million illegals here today.

I expect we all agree that this is bad, there shouldn't be lots of illegals here living in a black economy. The question is what to do about it? Clegg's proposed amnesty is only for those here over a decade. Do you have a better answer?
 
stockhausen said:
And of course, so long as the we have the power of veto over the Security Council, what possible reason could there be for trying to correct the flaws - It's broken but we have some measure of control it, so why bother to fix it? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

There seems to be little appetite for reform in the UN so I would rather us keep the veto than lose it. :rolleyes:
 
stockhausen said:
Genuine question, what cunning proposals does Cameron have to solve this issue?
Click to expand...

No idea, why don't you check the manifesto and find out? It is probably something equally as stupid. I just don't really see immigration as a hot issue as far as I am concerned. The EU means that whatever policies we enact it will make little real difference.
 
Last edited:
clv101 said:
Yeah... but! The issue is not what happens today, is not counting in and out... it's how to deal with the legacy. We're told there are a million illegals here today.

I expect we all agree that this is bad, there shouldn't be lots of illegals here living in a black economy. The question is what to do about it? Clegg's proposed amnesty is only for those here over a decade. Do you have a better answer?
Click to expand...

Because I havent a better answer (mainly because I havent researched or really given it any real thought) doesn't mean that an Amnesty is a good idea or that it should be instituted because there is currently no alternative (there may well be, like I said I haven't really researched it).

I did mention better policing and border control, also higher penalties for employing illegal workers when found however. Add to this targeted investigation in areas likely to hold illegals, such as restaurants and construction. A dedicated immigration agency and immigration police. Instant removal of illegals to their country of origin.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/8629354.stm

Spain had six amnesties in 20 years. In that time, the number of illegal immigrants applying under the schemes rose from 44,000 to 700,000 - a 15-fold increase.
Click to expand...

on the 1986 Amnesty in the US:

A total of 2.7m qualified for the amnesty in 1986. By 2000 there were an estimated 9.3m illegal immigrants living in the United States.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Gaidin109 said:
Because I haven't a better answer (mainly because I havent researched or really given it any real thought) ...
Click to expand...
Perhaps the Lib-Dems have :confused:


Gaidin109 said:
... I did mention better policing and border control, also higher penalties for employing illegal workers when found however.
Click to expand...
As has been pointed out, better policing and border control isn't going to do anything about those people who are already here.

As to people employing illegal workers, I wouldn't be surprised if the Immigration authorities already have a pretty clear idea as to who many of those employers are - I suspect that a fair number of them are likely to be in the farming business. I don't know why they aren't being chased up, perhaps because if they were, they wouldn't be able to find anyone to replace the illegal immigrants at the same slave wage?
 
Gaidin109 said:
I did mention better policing and border control, also higher penalties for employing illegal workers when found however. Add to this targeted investigation in areas likely to hold illegals, such as restaurants and construction. A dedicated immigration agency and immigration police. Instant removal of illegals to their country of origin.
Click to expand...

Of course, all sensible points I expect pretty much everyone agrees with. The issue the legacy though!
 
clv101 said:
Of course, all sensible points I expect pretty much everyone agrees with. The issue the legacy though!
Click to expand...

I have edited since you posted, Sorry.

As for the legacy, (I assume you mean the 400,000 to 900,000 currently residing here), I repeat, targeted investigation and removal of illegals from high risk areas such as restaurants and construction industries. A dedicated immigration police force, not just responsible for borders, but also routing out current illegal residents.

You will see that all other amnesties instituted in other countries have failed to address the problem and have in fact increased illegal immigration long term.

http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/fileadmi..._Other_Publications/Regularisation Report.pdf
 
Last edited:
stockhausen said:
Perhaps the Lib-Dems have :confused:
Click to expand...

I will repost the link that suggests research into other Amnesties has increased illigal immigration in the countries like the US and Spain that have tried it.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/8629354.stm

http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/fileadmi..._Other_Publications/Regularisation Report.pdf

stockhausen said:
As has been pointed out, better policing and border control isn't going to do anything about those people who are already here.

As to people employing illegal workers, I wouldn't be surprised if the Immigration authorities already have a pretty clear idea as to who many of those employers are - I suspect that a fair number of them are likely to be in the farming business. I don't know why they aren't being chased up, perhaps because if they were, they wouldn't be able to find anyone to replace the illegal immigrants at the same slave wage?
Click to expand...

Better policing and a dedicated immigration police force would indeed do something about those already here, as it would be part of their job to rout out the illegals and enforce removal.
 
lucasade1 said:
We have responsibilyfor numerous overseas territories and the commonwealth nations depend on us.
Click to expand...

None of the commonwealth depend on us, they are all independent countries.
And we don't need a large army to defend overseas territories, we need to simply say "invade and you get nuked" ... no-one will dare invading.
 
Who watched the interviews after the debate?
I found the first one hilarious, with the presenter losing control over the argument and simply giving up after a short while, she was a rather to the point affair as well, choosing a rather Laconic method of limited vocabulary and brute bluntness when asking her questions -She did have time constraints though, and also Sky on her neck to get her to stand in front of the banners. The nature of the questions strayed a little also - I swear some of the were simply statements aimed at aggravating the interviewee rather them trying to talk about the debate!

I asked around 15 people who came in to my Café today (Am part-time barista(And make a fine latte!)) and not one of them had seen the debate. Several had not realised the importance of the upcoming election, or even knew the existence of the Liberal Democrat situation, for instance...
I despair, as it seems the proportion of the population who actually give a **** truly compared to those with enough votes to elect a party falls firmly in the Electioneer's favour - And it seems to me, at least, that the scaremongering tactics and billboard posters will be the ultimate decider - Not, as you would expect, a heated election campaign and the political issues which lay ahead!

That is at least the view I have been presented with, someone please prove me wrong!
 
simulatorman said:
They won't have to, it's almost a wasteland now. If Labour team up with the Lib Dems the IMF will be here within a year.
Click to expand...

Yeah but if the tories get in there will be mass starvation and rioting, could end up with a revolution. Certainly loads more homelessness.

At least labour spend the money on stuff for the prolls rather than giving it away to billionaire none doms or media moguls.
 
Slam62 said:
Yeah but if the tories get in there will be mass starvation and rioting, could end up with a revolution. Certainly loads more homelessness.

At least labour spend the money on stuff for the prolls rather than giving it away to billionaire none doms or media moguls.
Click to expand...

Wow just wow, nice to see your a well informed individual who seems to have it all worked out and can predict the not got a chance of happening scenarios.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom