'Are you thinking whilst we're being racist?'

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4428517.stm

In the battle to gain votes, Michael Howard may as well be standing behind a stand with the slogan 'How Low Can We Go?'.

It seems that the Conservatives have stopped trying to be nice in order to pick up votes, but are acting like the vicious bastards that we're all familiar with.

Completely ignoring the fact that Michael Howard's parents were illegal immigrants, and under Tory policies, would not now be allowed into this country, effectively meaning that ickle Michael wouldn't be allowed to grow up in Britain and eventually become Tory leader.

Not only are limits on immigration unfair, the polciy does have a racist, and certainly xenophobic undercurrent.

The Labour Party are not excused in my rant either, and instead of distancing themselves with Howard's far-right plans for migration in this country, they have tried to make out that they are just as racist and bigoted as the Tories.

But Labour Cabinet minister Peter Hain accused the Conservatives of "scurrilous, right-wing, ugly tactics"

Well that's quite obvious Peter, yet only yesterday it was you who were attacking the 'liberal elite'.

Michael Howard said: "Talk to people and whatever their background, religion or the colour of their skin - they ask the same thing: 'Why can't we get a grip on immigration?"

You've obviously been talking to the wrong people. Unsurprising really considering you're the leader of the biggest organisation of mass ignorance in the country. Not everyone shows such a lack of compassion and an almost inhuman approach to such a complex, sensitive issue. Some people, like me for example believe that as one of the worlds richest countries, that has done so much to damage other countries in it's colonial past, we owe the people of war-torn, impoverished countries- whether it be for a place of refuge, a sanctuary away from violence or a better quality of life, and nothing is going to shake that view.

Well done in particular to a Mr. Charles Kennedy who has been brave enough to distance himself from the sneering right-wing agenda.

EDIT- You can add something if you like. Looking at the poll so far, there's a few people who have voted against the tone of this post, yet haven't posted an argument.

[LadyDay]

You cannot have no limits on immigration, it has to be managed. This isn't a racist view, it's a practical one.  The problem I have with the Tories, and yes, also the Labour Party, much to my shame, is that their policies on immigration have been more about appeasing the right wing press rather than looking sensibly and fairly at the issues. The fact is, we need immigration. The NHS would have crumbled many years ago if it weren't for the overseas doctors, and in particular the influx of nurses from the Caribbean in the early years, who are among the hardest workers in the service (not just a personal view, it's backed up by statistics).  The same goes for many other public services. The need now is as great as ever. It's a nonsense that highly skilled individuals are denied the right to work, and cannot contribute to the UK economy because of our ridiculous immigration policies.
What is racist is the idea that it's all well and good for us to allow those from the EU, the USA or Australia to come here but woe betide anyone who is poor, black or brown if they should have the nerve to actually want a better life for themselves or their families.
On the subject of refugees, the day this country reneges on its duty towards those who are persecuted is the day I leave.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

The Tories are proposing quota limits on immigration. So for example, we set a limit to the amount of immigrants we let in, and then whatever the circumstances, anyone else is told to go home. That is an absolutely atrocious policy, as it doesn't take into account the change of world events. You wouldn't put a limit on the amount of aid you would give in monetary terms, and it doesn't work as far as people go either.

I was perfectly happy with the situation before 2000 when people could claim asylum, and the system was fair and worked well. Then under a concentrated attack from the media, after the amount of people claiming asylum went up rapidly  the government lost an approach which was sensible, and was working reasonably well. That itself was a restricted system of immigration that whilst it had it's faults, wasn't unfair, and tipped towards an uneasy base-level racism like it is now, and will be even more to the forefront of immigration policy should the Tories get in.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

EDIT- Apologies, I lost my rag there. Sorry to those offended. I just misjudged the opinions of people on here, it seems.

[Saturday Boy]

There's a difference between "immigrants" and "refugees" which you don't seem to acknowledge

Britain needs more of the former anyway, but has a moral imperative to take the latter. The former should have a theoretical cap nonetheless, and the latter shouldn't.


The confusing of the two terms isn't entirely relevant to criticisms of Howard's policy, as my understanding is that he advocates a cap on both.


But your confusing of the terms doesn't clarify either the debate or the poll you've got there.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

The confusing of the two terms isn't entirely relevant to criticisms of Howard's policy, as my understanding is that he advocates a cap on both.

Yeah, indeed.

I'm not in any doubt over the difference between the terms 'refugee', and 'immigrant'. My topic is about Howard's comments regarding 'illegal immigrants', who as I'm sure you aware will contain plenty of refugees.

Plus, I've been extremely clear over my opinion regarding the right of foreigners to make this country their home:

as one of the worlds richest countries, that has done so much to damage other countries in it's colonial past, we owe the people of war-torn, impoverished countries- whether it be for a place of refuge, a sanctuary away from violence or a better quality of life, and nothing is going to shake that view.

Howard is proposing quota limits of immigration in general, which I believe is impractical, inhumane, and has a more sinister undercurrent of racism and xenophobia that he is drumming into the populace and playing on his fears.

If you want to endorse that, them by all means vote 'Yes' to that poll. I'll just be here shaking my head in disbelief.

[Purple Tentacle]

It's not really on to create a poll, then shout abuse at people who disagree with you.

[Canny]

Where do I begin? We do NOT need more immigrants to staff the NHS. The countries that supply us with doctors and nurses need them more than we do. We DO need to get the lumpen proletariat off its arse and earn its own living.

90% of the people who say they are being persecuted turn out to be liars, unlike my grandad who was Jewish and was hunted by Cossacks because he stopped one of them raping a (non-Jewish) woman in his village in Estonia 100 years ago. Both my parents volunteered to join tha army to fight Hitler who was a REAL racist and fascist. I get seriously annoyed with being labelled a racist just because I want the government to govern properly. Immigration should be by invitation only instead of by lies and rule bending.

This country is one of the most overcrowded places in the world. Have you tried buying a house lately?

As for giving aid to other countries all it does it keep incompetent and/or criminal governements in power and encourage them to steal from their own impoverished people even more.

We do not owe a debt to our former colonies. We gave more than we took. The British did not invent slavery (which had been around since the dawn of human history) we DID ENFORCE ITS ABOLITION!

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Why can't I do a poll to see what people on here think about the issue and still disagree with them?

I can't really see how voting 'Yes' doesn't make you selfish, racist or both.

EDIT- As the above proves.

[Saturday Boy]

You still haven't clarified what the poll is asking.

[gazzyk1ns]

I don't think immigration limitations are racist, they don't discriminate depending on race.

I agree that simply applying a set quota is madness, all immigrants should be "vetted" to see if they have valid reasons for coming here. People seeking asylum because they would die if they stayed where they were have a valid reason if this was the quickest and/or easiest country to escape to, although if they've gone out of their way to come here then surely that's not right. As you can see from my location there< I'm from the East, and it was only a few years ago that some asylum seekers deliberately burned down their accommodation. A (former, obviously) inhabitant was interviewed on Look East and when asked what had happened, instead of claiming it was an accident, or the actions of a madman not representing them all, or whatever; he simply started ranting about how their flat was too small and that they could see a manacing wire fence from their window, which made them feel like prisoners. The man was supposedly fleeing from tyranny! Also, I think they literally were prisoners - they'd been caught illegally entering the country and their subsequent applications for asylum were being processed. That might be my memory playing tricks, though. The place was called "Harles Wood" I think? Someone else is bound to remember it.

[Purple Tentacle]

Ha, did you just start this thread to start a fight then?

By the way, I voted "yes" because I think you should stop Ukranian pimps and fat Egyptian embezzlers from becoming citizens, and also would favour rebuilding other people's countries rather than offering one's own country up out of guilt.

Insert pithy phrase about teaching people to fish to feed their families etc.

[Mr Custard]

It seems, judging by the poll, there are some unsavoury opinions on here too. I'm quite surprised as usually sensible people constitute the majority of people on this board, rather than selfish racists.

Maybe if you spent less time making moronic accusations of racism and more time putting together a vaguly coherent argument then you would teach them the error of their ways. As it is all you've pursaded me to believe is that you steal your ideas from the diaries of 14 year old girls who the world just doesn't understand.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

90% of the people who say they are being persecuted turn out to be liars

Where on earth did you conjure up that figure?

Immigration should be by invitation only instead of by lies and rule bending.

That's just completely ridiculous, and ignores the fact that as one of the most prosperous countries, we should have a duty to ensure that the most vulnerable are looked after. What's more, with our low unemployment, there's thousands of jobs, and a shortage of skills. If people seek economic migration they should be made more than welcome. If you look at our current position, our public services would not exist if such rules you propose were in force.

Bringing up Hitler to claim that you are not racist is a fairly odd thing to do, but even odder if you consider that the immigration system you are lambasting was put in force after World War II, to make a point that Britain welcomed those in need, and even those seeking a better way of life. Ironically your over-the-top  example of fascism helps prove my point even more.

This country is one of the most overcrowded places in the world. Have you tried buying a house lately?

I notice that you are from London. The majority of successful applicants of the asylum system are located in the North, where far from being a housing crisis, there are plenty of unused residences, and plenty of places to house migrants. Due to a chronic case of Not-In-My-Back-Yard syndrome, parts of the south are helping to create the problems we have now. The south can't build enough houses, wheras the north of the country can't house enough people. Considering most investment is poured into the south and Lonodon, and most jobs are in the south, isn't it obvious how racial tensions come about and asylum seekers are blamed for taking up jobs in the north?

We do not owe a debt to our former colonies. We gave more than we took. The British did not invent slavery (which had been around since the dawn of human history) we DID ENFORCE ITS ABOLITION!

Although we have done much to help our former colonies, massacring them, and then using slavery surely means that we owe them a permanent promise to aid them, and their people.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

It seems, judging by the poll, there are some unsavoury opinions on here too. I'm quite surprised as usually sensible people constitute the majority of people on this board, rather than selfish racists.

Maybe if you spent less time making moronic accusations of racism and more time putting together a vaguly coherent argument then you would teach them the error of their ways. As it is all you've pursaded me to believe is that you steal your ideas from the diaries of 14 year old girls who the world just doesn't understand.

I'm perfectly prepared to argue  (see above!), and would rather do that than trade insults with a noxious tosser like you. Haven't you read this thread at all? I advise you do, because it looks like you've skim-read it and then decided to take offense at a tiny portion of it. There's plenty of well-reasoned, coherent arguments- you just haven't chosen to read them yet, and seem more concerned with trying to stir up trouble. Say something useful or clear off.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I don't think immigration limitations are racist, they don't discriminate depending on race

I've never said that outright, gazzykins, but I do think that you have to wonder about the motivations of such a policy. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the policy Howard is proposing is part-product of an insidious racist undercurrent that is present in the Conservative party, and has been fuelled by the likes of the Express/Mail, etc.

[Timmay]

a noxious tosser like you

Aww. Talking to the mirror again?

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Thanks for that 'intelligent' comment, Timmay. Maybe you'd like to put forward a well-reasoned argument about the topic in hand?

[chand]

People seeking asylum because they would die if they stayed where they were have a valid reason if this was the quickest and/or easiest country to escape to, although if they've gone out of their way to come here then surely that's not right.

That's not fair though, it would basically mean Britain gets no refugees because the countries around us aren't politically instable, while much poorer countries would end up taking all the refugees (of course, they do anyway, places like Pakistan, many African states and even places like Iran take huge numbers of refugees, which is why it's good of us if we help by taking some)

It's also well-documented that many refugees don't know where they're going to end up, many are refused by several countries before they get here, many are brought here by people traffickers. Of those who do specifically choose Britain, it's often because English is their second language, the same reason that those fleeing French-speaking African nations go to France.

[Canny]

The figure is slightly more than 90% actually, according to the government not me.

The government has no right to assume that everyone has a duty to ensure that others are looked after. That is a matter for individual charity not national policy.

There are one million people unemployed here, that is not a low figure, it is huge and again it is the governments' figure not mine, what's more it does not include those who are "on the sick".

Economic migrants deplete their own country's resources more than they benefit ours.

You clearly have no idea what racism is. My dad saw the wretched state of the victims of racism in Belsen first hand.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Do you have any official figures to back that up? Any sources? It's all very well claiming it's 'from the government', but I'm as likely to believe that as I am about Mr. Hussain being able to fire weapons on our country in 45 minutes.

I have to admit I'm slightly concerned that you've followed up none of my points whatsoever! Is your policy of discussions to look in the other direction when people make valid points, or do you just ignore them and hope others will?

My dad saw the wretched state of the victims of racism in Belsen first hand

I'm sure your dad would be delighted that you're using him as some cheap-shot argument. If you want to put forward a good argument, I am convinced by reliable sources and reasoned opinions rather than base-level naivety and some rather tasteless anecdotes. Again, care to reply to any points made?

I'm not sure whether you are aware, but economic migrants are worth a billion pounds to the economy. It's not something to be proud of either considering a large amount are the victims of exploitation at their place of work, such as not being payed minimum wages, and being made to work over the ours allowed, breaking not only E.U legislation on hours of work but basic human rights too.

Of those who do specifically choose Britain, it's often because English is their second language, the same reason that those fleeing French-speaking African nations go to France.

That's completely correct chand, and a point often ignored by people that complain that 'if asylum seekers were really in danger they would go wherever's near and safe'.

[Purple Tentacle]

Hang on there Shoulders.... if you're going to start a debate about a contentious subject, you can't go calling people "noxious tossers" because they disagree with you!  That's the actions of a pub drunk spoiling for a fight.

[Timmay]

Thanks for that 'intelligent' comment, Timmay. Maybe you'd like to put forward a well-reasoned argument about the topic in hand?

Not really. I just take enjoyment in watching you make a tit of yourself and get shouted down. Again. In fact, I'm amazed you keep coming back for more.

We should not have an open-door policy.
We should grant working visas or citizenship to people who bring proven skills that we are in need of. Whether there are set caps on how many can come per year, I don't know. The fact is, if they bring something positive to the country, there probably shouldn't be a set limit. It would be self-regulated.
We should grant asylum to any people that have a proven case for it. However, I do feel that many people probably come to the UK specifically, as it's seen as being a "soft touch", or at least generous. Here is a case for harmonising asylum rules across Europe, to spread the burden.

<VM>That's my view, and anyone who doesn't agree it is a cunt. </VM>

[gazzyk1ns]

[his post up there]

Yes, fair enough, and if someone came here with those reasons then I think they should be welcomed. At least, that's the best way of applying limitations at the moment. I agree with PT when he said that he'd rather we go and help people in their own countries than say "Yeah OK, you can come here and live out your life in a scummy little flat in a scummy little area, with no friends and being alienated from the vast majority of what is supposed to be your local community."

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Hang on there Shoulders.... if you're going to start a debate about a contentious subject, you can't go calling people "noxious tossers" because they disagree with you!  That's the actions of a pub drunk spoiling for a fight.

Hang on there PT- Custard did nothing but throw abuse, and I have a perfect right to say what I think about him after the comment he made.

As I've already proven on here, I can argue with people I disagree with on here and be completely 'on message'. I'm sure I'm not unlike many people that I get slightly more antagonised by people who blatently have no idea what they are talking about, or people who just want to stir things around and make petty remarks (a la Timmy and Custard).

[Purple Tentacle]

Well, y'know... the title of the thread is very editorial, and using emotive words like "racist" is a tricky business that you WILL attract flak for.  And I'd really really like to know what you mean by "limits"... do you mean the ridiculous set quota system of having a "maximum" amount of immigrants per year, or the quite sensible system of monitoring and processing immigrant applications?


One question though.... would a Conservative governement increase the immigration quota according to how many people emmigrated?

[Saturday Boy]

people who just want to stir things around and make petty remarks (a la Timmy and Custard).

It seems, judging by the poll, there are some unsavoury opinions on here too. I'm quite surprised as usually sensible people constitute the majority of people on this board, rather than selfish racists.

It seems you started it, sir.

Also, the "No, of course not", in the Poll is terribly mendacious and leading. I've not voted but that almost tempted me to vote against that option.

[Borboski]

As for giving aid to other countries all it does it keep incompetent and/or criminal governements in power and encourage them to steal from their own impoverished people even more.

This is a piss-take im guessing?  If not, then you are a silly twat.

[Canny]

I'm slightly concerned that you've followed up none of my points whatsoever! Is your policy of discussions to look in the other direction when people make valid points, or do you just ignore them and hope others will?

What valid point?

I'm not sure whether you are aware, but economic migrants are worth a billion pounds to the economy.

Where did you get that figure from? The government?

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Let me just be clear on this:

I have at no point in this topic accused people of being racist for wanting limits on immigration, and it shouldn't be taken as an offence if I suggest that racism plays   some part in some peoples opinions.

The remark I made about the poll results were of surprise, and considering that racism clearly plays a part in the policies of the Conservative party, and the motives of the right-wing press, it's not hard to see where the link was made.

I apologise to anyone who was offended and I regret saying what I did, and will edit the comment to avoid further offence.