Caporegime
Is that what it said?
the UK now for not listening to....
- Thread starter NiccoLau
- Start date
Is that what it said?
Caporegime
I'm pretty certain it's more complicated than that, but I doubt you'd understand it if any of us tried to explain it, even if we did use words of one syllable.
OH NOES AD HOMINEM.
Caporegime
I'm going to preface my response by mentioning that one of my personal friends is an illegal immigrant from Iran.
He fled his home 15 years ago after converting to Christianity, for which he received death threats from his friendly neighbours. After 10 years of dodging the police in various European states, he was eventually smuggled into the UK via a lorry which came across the Chunnel and dropped him in Wolverhampton (as if he hadn't suffered enough!)
His asylum request is currently under review by the Home Office. He has married a local girl, and is also applying for permanent residence on that basis.
I mention this because I want you to understand that I appreciate the pain and suffering of people who try to enter this country illegally. However, my sympathy extends only to genuine asylum seekers; I have no time for illegal economic migrants.
It's a point which reminds you that people are responsible for the consequences of their own actions. You can't blame a government for the deaths of people who tried to enter the country by sneaking across the desert. Responsibility begins with the individual.
So what? It's their choice; they know the risks.
You don't have to. Illegal immigrants don't usually arrive in the UK via boat; they arrive via the Chunnel. Fortunately, this means that their numbers are far lower than they would be if they arrived via boat. It also means that they are more easily discovered and apprehended.
OK, so let's assume that we introduce your system. Within months, several million East Europeans have entered the UK. Some of them have just enough money to support themselves for a month or two. Most of them do not have enough money to support themselves for more than a few days. A smaller proportion have no money at all. They all want work, they all want somewhere to live, and they all want access to healthcare. 5% are criminals whose personal data was (a) never passed on by their home country, or (b) passed on but subsequently misplaced or overlooked by the Home Office.
Success story, or potential disaster? You tell me.
You might be someone previously rejected on the grounds of "bad character" or criminal record.
I didn't say that you had; I was simply making a comment.
Surprisingly, yes. They're the ones trying to sneak booze across the Channel to avoid paying tax. Did you know that the UK lost £1.2bn worth of tax revenue on smuggled alcohol and cigarettes in 2000 alone?
If there are no limits on immigration, the work is going to run out pretty soon. So will the accommodation. And let's not even think about the social services.
You seriously believe it is impossible to clamp down on illegal immigration by tightening the controls? You should visit my country some time (Australia). We've done exactly that.
The illegal drugs parallel is not legitimate; the two issues cannot be compared because immigration is legal (albeit controlled) while illicit drugs are not legal on any level. But if you think we should legalise all drugs currently deemed illicit, feel free to make a case for it.
OK. So under your hypothetical, we let all the immigrants in. No limits on numbers; no skills requirement; no fixed duration for their stay. What about government services? Do they get access to those too?
When I came to this country on a 4-year ancestry visa, I had to prove that I had arrived with the intention of working. I also had to prove that I had sufficient funds to support myself ($5,000 Australian). I also had to accept that I was prohibited from the receipt of public funds; I had no access to social services of any kind except the NHS (with which Australia has a reciprocal agreement). I didn't come here because I needed to come, or because I was asked to come, or because I was forced to come; I simply came because I wanted to come. And as a result, I had to accept certain restrictions. To me, that's a fair arrangement.
Would you at least accept that immigrants should be required to state the purpose of their visit, prove their bona fides and agree to a limited term of residence?
There would still be illegal immigrants under your hypothetical, because immigration would still be controlled (albeit to a far lesser extent).
Yes, in the real world people do what they like. But the bottom line is that they don't have to. And in any case, "people will do what they like" is not a legitimate basis for government legislation.
Economic migrants do not possess an inherent right to enter any nation they choose. The world does not owe them a living. The UK didn't owe me anything when I came here, and it didn't give me anything either. I had to work for my keep.
He fled his home 15 years ago after converting to Christianity, for which he received death threats from his friendly neighbours. After 10 years of dodging the police in various European states, he was eventually smuggled into the UK via a lorry which came across the Chunnel and dropped him in Wolverhampton (as if he hadn't suffered enough!)
His asylum request is currently under review by the Home Office. He has married a local girl, and is also applying for permanent residence on that basis.
I mention this because I want you to understand that I appreciate the pain and suffering of people who try to enter this country illegally. However, my sympathy extends only to genuine asylum seekers; I have no time for illegal economic migrants.
It's a point which reminds you that people are responsible for the consequences of their own actions. You can't blame a government for the deaths of people who tried to enter the country by sneaking across the desert. Responsibility begins with the individual.
So what? It's their choice; they know the risks.
You don't have to. Illegal immigrants don't usually arrive in the UK via boat; they arrive via the Chunnel. Fortunately, this means that their numbers are far lower than they would be if they arrived via boat. It also means that they are more easily discovered and apprehended.
OK, so let's assume that we introduce your system. Within months, several million East Europeans have entered the UK. Some of them have just enough money to support themselves for a month or two. Most of them do not have enough money to support themselves for more than a few days. A smaller proportion have no money at all. They all want work, they all want somewhere to live, and they all want access to healthcare. 5% are criminals whose personal data was (a) never passed on by their home country, or (b) passed on but subsequently misplaced or overlooked by the Home Office.
Success story, or potential disaster? You tell me.
You might be someone previously rejected on the grounds of "bad character" or criminal record.
I didn't say that you had; I was simply making a comment.
Surprisingly, yes. They're the ones trying to sneak booze across the Channel to avoid paying tax. Did you know that the UK lost £1.2bn worth of tax revenue on smuggled alcohol and cigarettes in 2000 alone?
If there are no limits on immigration, the work is going to run out pretty soon. So will the accommodation. And let's not even think about the social services.
You seriously believe it is impossible to clamp down on illegal immigration by tightening the controls? You should visit my country some time (Australia). We've done exactly that.
The illegal drugs parallel is not legitimate; the two issues cannot be compared because immigration is legal (albeit controlled) while illicit drugs are not legal on any level. But if you think we should legalise all drugs currently deemed illicit, feel free to make a case for it.
OK. So under your hypothetical, we let all the immigrants in. No limits on numbers; no skills requirement; no fixed duration for their stay. What about government services? Do they get access to those too?
When I came to this country on a 4-year ancestry visa, I had to prove that I had arrived with the intention of working. I also had to prove that I had sufficient funds to support myself ($5,000 Australian). I also had to accept that I was prohibited from the receipt of public funds; I had no access to social services of any kind except the NHS (with which Australia has a reciprocal agreement). I didn't come here because I needed to come, or because I was asked to come, or because I was forced to come; I simply came because I wanted to come. And as a result, I had to accept certain restrictions. To me, that's a fair arrangement.
Would you at least accept that immigrants should be required to state the purpose of their visit, prove their bona fides and agree to a limited term of residence?
There would still be illegal immigrants under your hypothetical, because immigration would still be controlled (albeit to a far lesser extent).
Yes, in the real world people do what they like. But the bottom line is that they don't have to. And in any case, "people will do what they like" is not a legitimate basis for government legislation.
Economic migrants do not possess an inherent right to enter any nation they choose. The world does not owe them a living. The UK didn't owe me anything when I came here, and it didn't give me anything either. I had to work for my keep.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,498
..
Last edited:
I'm not blaming the Government as such; I'm showing that as a direct result of their actions people are dying. And for what? To accept this point you (or the Government) would have to prove that these deaths were a necessary evil and I haven't been convinced of this. In fact I'm strongly aligned towards the exact opposite.
Death penalty if you drop litter. You know the risk. Death penalty if you insult Islam in some foreign country. You know the risk. Not a good argument imo.
Your policy is to crack down on illegal immigration which presumably means preventing anyone getting through the tunnel. And what happens when you achieve this (at enormous cost). They won't give up, they'll find a new way to enter, meaning the coastline. Not that this is in anyway the main point against harshly controlled immigration.
You mean like Poland? The same Poles that helped Britain's recent economic boom? The same Poles that many said would bring the UK to it's knees as the whole country flocked across Europe to invade the UK? Huge numbers are now leaving to go home, the new figures show.
With controlled immigration that is a lot more difficult. Say you managed to get into the UK from Africa. You get through legally (or maybe illegally) and now you want to go home. With controlled immigration you can't for fear that you'll never get back in. You're here for life as a possible burden.
Surely the evidence of the Polish is enough? Thousands came, didn't bring the country to it's knees (did the exact opposite in fact) and now it turns out that most are simply temporary workers. Coming here to earn money, pay taxes then go back home. Saving the burden of paying when they're elderly.
Except with my policy we can devote the entire budget of keeping law abiding, good people out to focus entirely on criminals. And how is that a point against me? The criminals get in now easily because the system is terrible and because it's stretched.
My point is comparing it to the situation where alcohol would be illegal. It would be a lot worse.
If you think there are a fixed number of jobs, houses they will. But there aren't. Did we have millions of empty houses and unfilled jobs before the Polish came? No they came, created new jobs and new houses were built. Secondly, immigrants aren't entitled to almost all benefits offered to natives yet pay all the taxes they do. The majority don't stay till their death either so we don't have to pay when they're elderly.
Source? Does Australia not have any illegal immigrants? How would you know? Do they announce themselves when they get there? Australia's policy is also brutally inhumane, and the points system will hurt the economy in the future.
Immigration is absolutely linked to the illegal drugs trade since immigration is illegal if you don't meet the requirements of the state. It's irrelevant that some immigration is legal. And what do you mean by illicit drugs are not legal. That makes no sense. Illegal drugs are illegal? That's obvious. They are illicit/illegal because we deem them to be, not because of any inherent reason. And yes i think all drugs should be legal and controlled for much the same reasons as why I support open borders. Many people on this forum support legalised drugs, there are plenty of books on the subject and threads on this forum too.
No limits on numbers. That presumes that everyone and their dog would come. We we opened our borders to the EU the entire population of Poland didn't come here and now it's proven that it was never permanent and thousands upon thousands are going back home.
No skills requirement. Absolutely. We don't need skilled workers; we have them. We need unskilled workers which we don't have. I always find this a strange one. Why would you want a skilled immigrant to come to the country when he will compete with you for a job? We have a shortage in unskilled areas like carers, cleaners, bus drivers, etc.
No fixed duration. With the Poles it's shown that most leave anyway. And controlled immigration exacerbates this problem. If it's so hard to get in why would you leave knowing that you may never get back in?
No they won't get access to most services since they won't have contributed to them. But that's the system we have now and I'm largely ok with it. Immigrants from outside the EU aren't entitled to benefits but pay every tax.
What's the point in asking their purpose? They would lie anyway. Same with the residence requirement. They would just stay and go underground causing the problems we have now. I would expect that every person entering would have their identity verified so that we knew who they were, where they're from, etc. People with certain convictions would be rejected and deported immediately and then blacklisted.
Ok agreed. But the only illegal immigrants would be criminals. We could devote the billions to their capture and deportation without wasting resources keeping out the law abiding.
In an ideal world your policy might work but we don't live in an ideal world so we have to develop legislation with give and take. I think people should be allowed to do what they like unless it negatively impacts on others. That's when legislation should intervene. I personally think the positives of immigration negate the disadvantages so I disagree with any legislation that restricts that. I'm happy to turn a blind eye to some things if it results in a greater net benefit.
And I think people should have right to go where they want (within reason). Unfortunately it seems that rich people can mostly go where they want but the poor can't. I don't think that's fair.
Man, these posts are getting long
If you, or anyone, is at least appreciating my arguments I recommend Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them by Phillipe Legrain or read his website. He has a lot to say about Australia
I might agree if uncontrolled immigration was an absolute disadvantage which hasn't been proven. In fact, since the start of time, until very recently, we had uncontrolled immigration. Which has probably got us where we are now.
Caporegime
I don't believe they're a necessary evil. I don't believe they're necessary at all.
People aren't dying specifically as a result of government policy; they're dying because they've tried to walk across a desert. If they remained at home, they would be alive. The government policy is not responsible for their deaths. Can't you understand that people are personally responsible for their own actions?
Why isn't it a good argument? Seems pretty ironclad to me.
Yep, tighten up the controls at both ends of the Chunnel; tighten up the controls at Calais and Dover. Enormous cost? Not at all. Procedural changes could get the job done. Restrict access to loading areas, for a start. My Iranian friend was able to get inside the back of a lorry simply because the area wasn't patrolled.
They were allowed in under a controlled immigration policy. They were not allowed in under an open door policy. So you see, the controlled immigration policy works very well.
??? But the Poles entered under a controlled immigration policy! (Albeit ia fairly lax one). They had to apply, register, and be recorded. They weren't simply allowed to waltz through the door.
No, the criminals don't get in easily now. That's why illegal entry costs so much.
Firstly, you're conflating the hypothetical with the reality. I was responding to your hypothetical situation in which immigration is uncontrolled. You have responded by describing the current, real life situation. The two are not equivalent.
Secondly, we didn't take in millions of Poles. We took in 430,395 between 2004-2007. Thirdly, new houses were not built to accommodate the Poles (unless you seriously believe that several hundred thousand houses magically appeared to meet the needs of the Polish immigrants).
Fourthly, the UK is paying £21 million a year in child benefits to Polish workers who left their children at home (thanks to an EU loophole) so they are costing quite a bit at the moment. Fifthly, I realise that most Polish workers are only here for the short term; that's not my point. I was referring specifically to your "open door" hypothetical, which is an entirely different scenario.
Between 2004-2007, 656,395 new European workers came to the UK. They all entered under the terms of the Worker Registration Scheme. That's controlled immigration, my friend. If the UK had no restrictions on immigration, I think you would find that there would be a lot more permanent immigrants than we currently have. And under that scenario, those permanent immigrants would get access to healthcare at some stage; indeed, they would be entitled to it.
Just How many people do you think this little island is capable of supporting?
Yes Australia does have illegal immigrants; I didn't claim that we don't. My claim was that we'd clamped down on illegal immigration, which is true. And as a result, the numbers of illegal immigrants arriving on our shores has dropped dramatically.
I can assure you that I am well versed in both sides of the Australian immigration debate, so feel free to thrash it out with me at some stage.
How much do you know about the Australian system? Please describe those aspects which are "brutally inhumane."
No, the points system will not hurt the economy in the future; on the contrary, it has been tremendously beneficial, since it allows us to specify our actual requirements instead of taking in any Tom, Dick or Harry. Quotas are raised or lowered on the basis of need; the points system simply allows us to select the most suitable workers for the relevant industries.
Australia favours a relatively high level of immigration (proportionate to our population, which is about 1/3 of the UK's) and our demographics reflect this; 25% of Australians are former immigrants! That's a lot more than the UK. Yes, Australia has benefited greatly from our immigration policy - our controlled immigration policy. Wholesale unrestricted immigration does not benefit anyone.
No, it is not irrelevant that some immigration is legal. And remind me to ask you for a detailed description of the social benefits offered by drugs such as heroin, crack cocaine, ice and amphetamines. I would be fascinated to know why these should be legalised.
You didn't simply open your doors to the EU; you restricted immigration from some countries (such as Bulgaria and Romania) and you required workers to enter under the terms of the Worker Registration Scheme. That's controlled immigration.
The current situation does not match your hypothetical, in which there are no restrictions on immigration. So you have no real life example to prove the benefits of your proposal.
No skills requirement? May I remind you that the UK has been poaching doctors from Africa (among other places) precisely because we need skilled workers? I think you need to take a closer look at the facts which underpin this debate. They are many and complex. And yes, the UK does need skilled workers.
No fixed duration = madness. You would get a lot more people here if they knew that they could stay permanently. You can't base an entire argument on the behaviour of the Poles; they're just one group amongst many. Nor can you continue to argue the merits of your hypothetical case, from the results of the current real life system. The two are not equivalent.
Wrong. People who meet the requirements of a country with a strict immigration policy actually have a better chance to get back in again.
But under the terms of your proposal, they could stay here permanently and receive benefits after obtaining citizenship.
Um, it may surprise you to learn that all immigrants are already required to state their purpose. I had to state my purpose when entering the UK, and my wife had to do the same thing when I took her for a holiday in Australia during 2006.
If only it was that simple! The current government has admitted that it has no idea how many immigrants have arrived in the UK since the doors were opened to new EU members. That's only going to be worse under an open door policy. The current government has also admitted that it accidentally let in a heap of immigrants with criminal records. That's only going to get worse under an open door policy.
Please take some time to read MigrationWatch UK. It's worth a look.
In an ideal world your policy might work but we don't live in an ideal world so we have to develop legislation with give and take. I think people should be allowed to do what they like unless it negatively impacts on others. That's when legislation should intervene. I personally think the positives of immigration negate the disadvantages so I disagree with any legislation that restricts that. I'm happy to turn a blind eye to some things if it results in a greater net benefit.
And I think people should have right to go where they want (within reason). Unfortunately it seems that rich people can mostly go where they want but the poor can't. I don't think that's fair.
Man, these posts are getting long
I come from a country with a long and proud history of high immigration. I am a great supporter of immigration, but only if it is sensibly controlled. Wholescale "free for all" scenarios look good on paper, but ultimately cause more problems than they solve. I offer Australia as an example of a country with high immigration, managed via tight controls (the two are not mutually exclusive!)
If you, or anyone, is at least appreciating my arguments I recommend Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them by Phillipe Legrain or read his website. He has a lot to say about Australia
I'll see if I can get it from Amazon. Thanks for the recommendation. But please don't assume that it's necessary to convince me that immigration is beneficial, because I already know this!
Hope I haven't missed anything. These posts are ridiculously long now, and I am bloody tired.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,498
..
Last edited:
If people are dying it's a necessary evil, whether you think it's necessary or not. You will never stop people travelling to other countries to better their lives much as you wish they won't. Therefore, any policy has to be carefully thought out to take this into account.
That's like saying that it's not necessary for the citizens of a corrupt dictatorship to die trying to better their lives by starting a civil war. In your view they should choose not to fight, but live in extreme poverty, and stay alive. Humans are more proud than that.
Why don't we introduce a police state with the death penalty for all crimes. Therefore if anyone is killed for dropping litter we can explain that they knew the risk and it's their fault, not the dreadful law, that they're dying. Ridiculous.
So you support the punishments given out in Saudi Arabia that have caused a furore on the forum recently? I know I don't whether it's their law or not.
Simple as that eh. Makes you wonder why they haven't done it already. And after those points are closed the problem will go away? As it has with guns, drugs, counterfeits, illegal money, etc, etc. It's unworkable, impossible and most people would agree. You could build a wall along the entire coastline and people would still get in. Officials bribed, documents forged, etc. And then we'd almost be living in a police state of course.
That isn't a controlled immigration policy like you stand behind. If your Polish you are automatically entitled to enter and work in the UK. There is nothing the UK Government can do to stop you. All you have to do is register and your in. And that's exactly what my policy is!! Except for the whole world. You seem to think uncontrolled immigration is letting everyone in with no checks at all and it isn't. Controlled immigration seeks to control the numbers of the immigrants not simply a registration system.
That is not controlled immigration!! Filling in a form and flashing your passport is not controlled immigration.
MigrationWatch support controlled immigration. Does that mean they support letting the whole world enter as long as they show a passport and register? Of course they don't.
I support the EU system (broadly) but for the whole world. You don't!! Although I'm not sure now. That is not what critics of immigration want. And that is not controlled immigration in terms of these debates.
If they don't get in easily (which I don't agree with anyway) then they definitely won't under my system either where all the focus is on them.
Yes they are since the Polish entered under an uncontrolled policy. We could not control which were allowed in as long as they registered. And you simply have to accept this. We could not stop the Poles from entering the UK even if we wanted to, that is not controlled immigration in this sense.
Figures are irrelevant for this argument really. If anything, you've shown that an open border doesn't result in millions migrating. The Polish have an open border with the UK, if they want in to work they have a right in law to come here. Yet only 500,000 came? Of course new houses weren't built for the Polish, the point is that more houses are built when the population increases because of simple supply and demand. There is not a fixed number of houses to go around.
First, in my system there would be no loophole. That has nothing to do with my policy. And open door is a simple way of saying that we won't restrict anyone entering the country beside people that are criminals. It's not literally an open door for international terrorists to walk through. Nor does anyone using the term mean that.
That is not controlled immigration for our purposes. It's a form of control but not to the extent that deserves the title controlled immigration. Again, as I've said MigrationWatch support controlled immigration. If we introduced a Worker Registration Scheme for the whole world you think they would support it? No they wouldn't. They seek to control the numbers.
Every Pole capable of work and their family are allowed into the UK if they register. Which of the Polish would be rejected in your view?
No idea how much the island is capable of supporting. In the past the Daily Mail complained that we were at the limit. We've added 15 million since then. We've built on a mere 10% of the country. Japan, on an island smaller than the UK, has a population of 120 million (not that I'd like that). Besides, a static population would be absolutely devastating for the economy.
How do you know the number of illegal immigrants have dropped? Most critics of the UK government argue that they have no idea how many illegal are here. I'd love to know how Australia have managed to do it.
Well according to you it wouldn't be inhumane because those dying on route thanks to the immigration policy had the chance to stay at home and live. John Howard's policy was to swap immigrants landing on Australian shores with detainees in Guantanamo Bay. Maybe if he had more time he'd have implemented it.
And you think the Government can adequately decide exactly what skills are necessary in the whole of Australia at any one time? Fine if you trust Australia's Gov't but I would trust the UK Gov't to do it properly. Industry and business in the UK is so complex and diverse it's the market and the market alone that can dictate need for skills imo. Plus, with a points system how will unskilled immigrants get in? Something rich western countries are in short supply of.
If it was so successful why introduce a points system that has the stated aim of reducing the numbers? Why mess with a working system?
Of course it's irrelevant. Some drugs are legal. What impact does that have on the illegal drugs trade? Nothing. There are no social benefits to hard drugs like those but that doesn't matter.
http://www.legalisedrugs.co.uk/
If you want to know more, but that's a different argument. Although the principles broadly apply to immigration as well.
The restriction can only last until 2011 iirc and there was no restriction for the Polish. Do you know what the terms of the WRS are? And once you've been here for 12 months you don't need to register and you can stay in the UK for life. Almost the entire population of Poland could enter the UK through that scheme and there would be no legal way of stopping it. That is not controlled immigration in the controlled v open border debate.
We have enough doctors:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ain.html?in_article_id=482992&in_page_id=1774
That said, since I'm for open borders I support skilled and unskilled immigration. It's just that people have a vendetta against the unskilled when they are most useful in a rich country and won't threaten their jobs.
Why can't we base it on that? The polish are an entire nation. How much bigger can we get the control group? We have evidence that when an entire nation is allowed access to the UK most choose not to come and those that do come choose not to live here permanently.
And the evidence that you have to suggest that if we opened our borders to other countries they would flock here and stay for life is?
I have some evidence, you have none. Unless you can provide some that isn't anecdotal.
A country with strict immigration controls would limit the number of immigrants entering. Just like every country in the world right now. There is always a chance you won't get back in. And that completely ignores the illegal immigrants which you think you can abolish (but can't). So once illegal immigrants get in, which they will, they can never leave. Under my system they can.
What's wrong with that? Although they would have to survive with no benefits for up to 6 years. How do propose they will manage do that? They would have to work and I have no problem with workers getting citizenship. And once you've been working for 6 years why would you quit and live a life on benefits?
Who cares. What's to stop people lying? You could say you're here on holiday and then never leave. It's worthless asking your purpose, whether you got asked or not.
Again, in case you aren't aware of the position I've previously stated clearly. I support open door through the front door where everyone must prove their identity. Anyone who goes through the back door would be deported instantly and I fail to see why anyone other than criminals would use the back door.
I thought you said the UK's position with EU migrants was controlled? If it's controlled how do we not know how many from the EU are here? It would be infinitely better under my system since you would have no reason not to register and enter through the front door and counted out the front door when you left.
I've spent hours reading it and haven't been convinced by their arguments. And you either don't support them or don't know what they stand for because their definition of controlled immigration is not asking the entrants to register. It's actively preventing law abiding people from entering.
Yet the points system is the most restrictive policy ever enacted in Australia. Why do it? What's gone wrong to prompt the policy?
Since the 1920's for the US at least beyond obvious restrictions like the diseased.
Permabanned
If someone is fleeing there country for there own safety and have no choice in the matter, it is called asylum seeking, this is very different to trying to illegally enter a country. Asylum seekers have no choice, people who choose to act illegally do so at there own risk.
If I were to burgle homes but as a result of this got beaten to within an inch of my life by the home owners, would it be sensible to legalize burglary so I don't get hurt next time as I will be acting legally when I commit such an offense?
If I were to burgle homes but as a result of this got beaten to within an inch of my life by the home owners, would it be sensible to legalize burglary so I don't get hurt next time as I will be acting legally when I commit such an offense?
And when an immigrant travels to the UK to find work and send money back to his family the victim is who exactly? And the Uni kid smoking dope, who is the victim?
When did we reach a situation where laws are obeyed no matter what. I suppose Rosa Parks should have been punished for breaking the law?
No victim, no crime. That holds true in most cases.
Last edited:
Permabanned
When they don't pay tax's and use the NHS and other public services?
If they are willing to break the law to enter a country, what else are they willing to do and to what end?
When they bring in diseases long gone to the country they illegally enter?
When they bring a culture that clashes with the country they illegally enter?
With no records or documentation that could help to prevent such crimes (honour killings etc)?
Rosa parks stood against injustice, there is not injustice in illegal immigration with it being exactly that, illegal, against the laws of the country they illegally enter.
Caporegime
Man of Honour
Or you could take the more charitable view that it is easy enough to do at 4:30 in the morning, particularly if you meant to click on edit.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,498
..
Last edited:
Please don't tell me that that was a serious response to his question?
Man of Honour