What to do with undesirables

h4rm0ny said:
California (the only state that has state wide sanctuary) has the highest wealth inequality by state of the entire USA. It also has the highest number of welfare recipients (proportionally) of any state, a colossal housing price crisis and sky high homelessness in the big cities.
Click to expand...

Most states in america give homeless people a free 'one way' bus ticket, and homeless tend to flock to California due to the year round warm weather.
 
I have a friend who doen't like me shooting foxes in the fox trap and once insisted he took one home to save it. After being bitten and his car left stinking he decided to release it from his garage (yes, really, he tried to domesticate an adult vixen), miles from his home, on another fox friendly person's land. Maybe President Trump and my friend are related? ;)
 
Doogles said:
At 15 years old you know what is right and what is wrong .
Click to expand...

Even grown adults can suddenly believe in magic men in the sky with no proof at all..

Right and wrong from who's point of view?

It's sad grown adults told a kid there is a magic man in the sky that wrote a book.. And some times that book says bad things are ok..

It's mostly the people round her that will be to blame.

Id hate to have to decide what to do with her, people made her think the way she did (so it's not all her fault) .. But she is potentially a danger to others and will possibly try and indoctrinate others..

It's only your upbringing / luck you are Not in the same position as her..
 
Jean-F said:
As has been suggested, how about going back to agonising about “let the bint back in, keep the bint out?”
You THINK that you made a joke, it didn’t make me smile, you want to call me a weirdo? knock yourself out.
With apologies to Catherine Tate, “look at my face Raymond, am I bovvered?”
Click to expand...

Unless it hasn't clicked on your end, I am done with this.

I was done with this when I made the original post back on 17th February.
 
VincentHanna said:
Most states in america give homeless people a free 'one way' bus ticket, and homeless tend to flock to California due to the year round warm weather.
Click to expand...

Lots of states have warm weather, yet don't have homeless people and illegal immigrants en masse saying they'll move there if you pay their bus ticket. California has explicit state-wide refusal to co-operate with immigration officials and the most generous welfare system in the USA but you deliberately ignore all that because "weather" is your preferred narrative.

StriderX said:
He’s the one that wishes to release the illegal immigrants. Regardless, if you don’t want immigration (legal),
Click to expand...

You've jumped tracks there. Trump wants to build a wall and increase border controls to reduce illegal immigration. You then jump to arguing about legal immigration. Two different positions.
 
h4rm0ny said:
Lots of states have warm weather, yet don't have homeless people and illegal immigrants en masse saying they'll move there if you pay their bus ticket. California has explicit state-wide refusal to co-operate with immigration officials and the most generous welfare system in the USA but you deliberately ignore all that because "weather" is your preferred narrative.



You've jumped tracks there. Trump wants to build a wall and increase border controls to reduce illegal immigration. You then jump to arguing about legal immigration. Two different positions.
Click to expand...

He’s literally said he wants flood Democrat states with detained immigrants, last week (completely illegal btw, no one on his team is telling him no, ergo they must support him). And is why he ‘retired’ his home defence lady.

I’ve jumped tracks because if it’s alright for mr trump, it’s alright for everyone.

So it’s not about economics now is it?
 
StriderX said:
He’s literally said he wants flood Democrat states with detained immigrants, last week (completely illegal btw, no one on his team is telling him no, ergo they must support him). And is why he ‘retired’ his home defence lady.

I’ve jumped tracks because if it’s alright for mr trump, it’s alright for everyone.

So it’s not about economics now is it?
Click to expand...

Specifically, I believe, his attitude is that if Democrat-dominated Sanctuary Cities are so determined to allow illegal immigrants, it's only fair that those places be the ones to get them as they're so keen on the idea. That's not the same as being in favour of illegal immigration which is what you pretend.
 
h4rm0ny said:
Lots of states have warm weather, yet don't have homeless people and illegal immigrants en masse saying they'll move there if you pay their bus ticket. California has explicit state-wide refusal to co-operate with immigration officials and the most generous welfare system in the USA but you deliberately ignore all that because "weather" is your preferred narrative.
Click to expand...

Half of all people experiencing homelessness are in one of five states - California (129,972 people), New York (91,897), Florida (31,030), Texas (25,310) and Washington (22,304).

In fact, nearly a quarter of all people sleeping rough did so in either New York or Los Angeles. The Big Apple has one of the lowest levels of unsheltered homeless at 5% while in Los Angeles, 75% of people were found in unsheltered locations.
Click to expand...

So in fact, they do flock to warn climates for unsheltered homelessness, or in New York where they have a legal right to shelter, so the weather isn't as much of a problem.

New York City spends approximately $17,000 per homeless person per year on homeless services.
Los Angeles spends approximately $5,000.

If I found myself homeless in America, i'd go to the sunny state with all those wealthy people.
 
robfosters said:
So Begum has got legal aid. Shame we aren’t so willing to help these people.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...used-legal-aid-at-fiveyear-high-a4047196.html
Click to expand...

What StriderX said:

In the aftermath of the banking crisis, the coalition government initiated a cost-saving review that led to the 2012 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (Laspo). It was intended to reduce legal aid spending by £350m. The annual legal aid budget, however, is £1.6bn a year – £950m lower, in real terms, than it was in 2010.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22936684

Significant changes to civil legal aid in England and Wales came into effect on 1 April 2013, as part of a plan to reform the system and save £350m a year.

The changes meant some types of case were no longer eligible for public funds - including divorce, child contact, welfare benefits, employment, clinical negligence, and housing law except in very limited circumstances.

Critics warned that the changes would be damaging. So, a few months after the changes have been introduced, what has actually happened?

BBC Radio 4's Law in Action asked lawyers in England and Wales to send the programme specific examples of what the changes have meant to them, and their clients.

Since April nearly all family law advice has been removed from the legal aid scheme. This means people can no longer get funding for divorce or child contact or residence disputes.
Click to expand...
 
StriderX said:
Then why is trump constantly trying to break the law? Do you support his efforts?

He’s the one that wishes to release the illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...

I do not support this action, no.

Regardless, if you don’t want immigration (legal), then you must have inflation, productivity increases or increasing taxes to continue growth and prosperity.
Click to expand...

Increased productivity and inflation is exactly what we in the UK need. The US has slightly different circumstances, but the idea that immigration is the solution to either of our economic challenges is simply untrue. At best it kicks the can down the road for future generations to deal with along with all the social issues brought about by mass immigration.

You can’t have what you want and not expect disaster if you won’t compromise elsewhere, it’s basic algebra. It stops being about the economic argument and we’re left with the stereotypes and xenophobic undertones, that people wilfully choose to ignore it is farcical, and seemingly by design.
Click to expand...

The solution to your "basic algebra" is better social and economic policy, not mass immigration. The immigration approach just leads to social decay as we're seeing across much of the western world: people alienated from their own nation, the white working class getting left behind in favour of immigrants. Apparently we cannot train nurses and plumbers now, we need to get them from Somalia? No, we need to support people getting into those careers.

And if you say "people don't want to work long hours doing thankless tasks" or similar, my answer to you is that we need to fix that problem, not import more third world populace.

So while you focus your ire on undeserving people probably poorer than you are, your wealth is being sequestered by the elite, which includes the orange ****, the Russian billionaires, the pretty sitters in Silicon Valley.
Click to expand...

I don't focus my ire on the third world immigrants as such. I don't blame them for wanting to live in a rich economy, that's an entirely reasonable desire, I blame the political establishment which has allowed it to happen with total disregard to the native population. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't want to turf the immigrants out. Just because our politicians made mistakes doesn't mean we have to live with the consequences; we can change policy.
 
robfosters said:
The reforms were a catastrophe. My mums a legal secretary. The reforms nearly sent her firm under.
Click to expand...

Coming from a family of legal professionals I have to say that in my opinion the reforms were long overdue as, like many things that are free, it was abused by those bringing specious and vexatious cases that most would never bother with should they have to pay from their own pocket. Whole firms of solicitors got fat acting on their behalf and at the tax payers expense, defending people who had no realistic hope of winning, or were undeserving of the court's time. The abused human rights acts gave the companies a free rein to run amok and line their accounts with huge fees generated on the back of hard pressed tax payers, most of whom are horrified by many of the more absurd cases fought on legal aid. Allowing solicitors to advertise within the media in 1986 was a bad idea also. It has been totally abused.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom