Tilbury - 35 found in container
Discussion
AstonZagato said:
Mr_B said:
pcvdriver said:
Russ T Bolt said:
pcvdriver said:
but we need a level of immigration in excess of the 50's and 60's to actually pay the taxes that support our elderly. I for one don't want to have to work into my 80's
Do illegal immigrants pay taxes ?In fact it tickles me to think how annoyed some are going to get when they realise - we need immigrants more than they'd like to admit!!!
I can just see some vein-popping types, spluttering into their cornflakes of a morning, incandescent with rage..... These effing (insert favoured racist derogatory remark) coming over here and working to pay taxes - so I can have a pension paid to me every fortnight...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25880373
The radical action is to design a system that is self supporting. The original idea of a state pension kicked in at far beyond the normal life expectancy. Very few people were expected to get it.
I don't think we should go back to that but politicians are buying votes with our grandchildrens' taxes.
Those who are taking "time out" before going onto uni or post uni careers, who tend to do their bit of worldwide travel - then get on with their careers.
Then we have economic migrants, leaving their homeland to look for a better life abroad. If both groups came here to stay permanently, then I'd concede you had a point.
However, most immigrants as they get older, prefer to go back to their homelands to enjoy their retirements. So while this is the case, we should make full use of their wish to live here. We have a ticking time-bomb in the form of a much lower birthrate than 50 years ago, which is now starting to have a serious knock on effect.
We also need a wide range of socio-economic employment skills bases too. We need everyone from toilet cleaners to bankers and everything in between. Natural levels have a way of finding well, er.....natural levels, so if people come and find their skills aren't in the demand they had hoped - they retrain or move where their skills are needed.
That's why I'm glad I live in Scotland, as at least we aren't just sticking our heads in the sand and hoping the problem will just go away.....Westminster has shied away from any meaningful discussion on immigration since old uncle Enoch's Rivers of blood speeches - which have so far pretty much failed to materialise, save for a handful of disgusting racist murders over the years.
pcvdriver said:
AstonZagato said:
Mr_B said:
pcvdriver said:
Russ T Bolt said:
pcvdriver said:
but we need a level of immigration in excess of the 50's and 60's to actually pay the taxes that support our elderly. I for one don't want to have to work into my 80's
Do illegal immigrants pay taxes ?In fact it tickles me to think how annoyed some are going to get when they realise - we need immigrants more than they'd like to admit!!!
I can just see some vein-popping types, spluttering into their cornflakes of a morning, incandescent with rage..... These effing (insert favoured racist derogatory remark) coming over here and working to pay taxes - so I can have a pension paid to me every fortnight...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25880373
The radical action is to design a system that is self supporting. The original idea of a state pension kicked in at far beyond the normal life expectancy. Very few people were expected to get it.
I don't think we should go back to that but politicians are buying votes with our grandchildrens' taxes.
Those who are taking "time out" before going onto uni or post uni careers, who tend to do their bit of worldwide travel - then get on with their careers.
Then we have economic migrants, leaving their homeland to look for a better life abroad. If both groups came here to stay permanently, then I'd concede you had a point.
However, most immigrants as they get older, prefer to go back to their homelands to enjoy their retirements. So while this is the case, we should make full use of their wish to live here. We have a ticking time-bomb in the form of a much lower birthrate than 50 years ago, which is now starting to have a serious knock on effect.
We also need a wide range of socio-economic employment skills bases too. We need everyone from toilet cleaners to bankers and everything in between. Natural levels have a way of finding well, er.....natural levels, so if people come and find their skills aren't in the demand they had hoped - they retrain or move where their skills are needed.
That's why I'm glad I live in Scotland, as at least we aren't just sticking our heads in the sand and hoping the problem will just go away.....Westminster has shied away from any meaningful discussion on immigration since old uncle Enoch's Rivers of blood speeches - which have so far pretty much failed to materialise, save for a handful of disgusting racist murders over the years.
My grandparents were economic immigrants. They didn't go back.
If migrants have kids here than they tend to stay - family is important.
Immigration is not a "free win" however much you want it to be. It equally isn't a disaster.
Immigration needs to be planned. Houses, schools, hospitals, roads, rail links need to be built. Doctors, teachers, police need to be trained and or recruited.
The problem that you seem eager to solve is an aging population and the cost of looking after them with pensions and healthcare. Importing people to achieve this only helps if they leave. Some do. Many don't.
Being concerned about immigration is not racist per se. In fact, the typical left-wing attack of racism on anyone who questions immigration policies is part of the problem. It stifles intelligent debate on the topic and is the subject's version of Godwin's.
kowalski655 said:
Beeb last night saying they are claiming asylum...didn't take long did it.
If I was a Sikh or a non Muslim and lived in Afghanistan I'd try my best to get the hell out and claim asylum too. Despite what American and British leaders like to tell us the country is still an absolute sEdited by kowalski655 on Tuesday 19th August 12:58
thole with the Taliban or other religious tribals still controlling vast parts of it.Nevertheless, I do feel they should claim asylum in the first safe country they get to and these guys must have passed through a fair few to get here.
steveT350C said:
How many got through safely? Not good for anyone, except he racketeers. Hang the traitors.kowalski655 said:
Im sure Tilbury is lovely at this time of year! Ideal for a romantic walk along the docks as the sun sets behind the cranes 
But if they truly want asylum from the lunacy of Afghanistan,maybe they should have asked one of the many countries that they no doubt passed through that are just as safe as here? Beeb(spelt right this time!) says they needed a translator,so not as if they have any great affinity for the UK!
Why don't they go to a Muslim country?? I see lots of Muslims fleeing 'terror spots' across the globe, and being taken in by western countries, but I never see an Islamic nation inviting them all in to succour and support their beleaguered brethren.But if they truly want asylum from the lunacy of Afghanistan,maybe they should have asked one of the many countries that they no doubt passed through that are just as safe as here? Beeb(spelt right this time!) says they needed a translator,so not as if they have any great affinity for the UK!
King Herald said:
Why don't they go to a Muslim country?? I see lots of Muslims fleeing 'terror spots' across the globe, and being taken in by western countries, but I never see an Islamic nation inviting them all in to succour and support their beleaguered brethren.
Sikhs and Muslims don't get on too well But they could have stopped off at many non-Muslim countries along the way - but more beneficial to come here.
El Guapo said:
The question isn't whether or not we need immigration to support our ageing population, it's whether we should have an immigration policy with associated rules that are enforced or simply open our borders to all and sundry.
These economic refugees had already found their way into the EU but felt it necessary to continue their journey to the UK. There are reasons for this, chief among them being the knowledge that the UK is "soft" on illegal immigrants. They know that they are less likely to receive economic aid in Italy, Germany or France than they are in the UK. It is for the same reason that there are encampments of illegal immigrants in Calais trying to make their way here.
I am not against immigration, but I am against tolerance to illegal immigration.
The rules are pretty clear on the subject, illegal immigrants should be dealt with by the country they enter the EU via; any and all expenses the UK incur looking after these guests should be paid for by Belgium, and I think the Ritz is probably the most suitable accommodation. These economic refugees had already found their way into the EU but felt it necessary to continue their journey to the UK. There are reasons for this, chief among them being the knowledge that the UK is "soft" on illegal immigrants. They know that they are less likely to receive economic aid in Italy, Germany or France than they are in the UK. It is for the same reason that there are encampments of illegal immigrants in Calais trying to make their way here.
I am not against immigration, but I am against tolerance to illegal immigration.
StevieBee said:
Much of the UK's Foreign Aid is aimed at helping low-income and developing countries become more stable and pleasant places to live and thus reduce the levels of immigration from these very countries. Yet, the same people who bemoan the levels of immigration also bemoan the levels of foreign aid. You can't have it both ways unless you close the border and revert to the 1950s and 1960s approach to such issues with a big "No Blacks" sign put up all points of entry which would create problems immeasurably worse than those perceived at present.
This in spades; the sooner we can raise the whole of the world to the level of Hans Rosling's wash people the better it will be for everyone.hidetheelephants said:
El Guapo said:
The question isn't whether or not we need immigration to support our ageing population, it's whether we should have an immigration policy with associated rules that are enforced or simply open our borders to all and sundry.
These economic refugees had already found their way into the EU but felt it necessary to continue their journey to the UK. There are reasons for this, chief among them being the knowledge that the UK is "soft" on illegal immigrants. They know that they are less likely to receive economic aid in Italy, Germany or France than they are in the UK. It is for the same reason that there are encampments of illegal immigrants in Calais trying to make their way here.
I am not against immigration, but I am against tolerance to illegal immigration.
The rules are pretty clear on the subject, illegal immigrants should be dealt with by the country they enter the EU via; any and all expenses the UK incur looking after these guests should be paid for by Belgium, and I think the Ritz is probably the most suitable accommodation. These economic refugees had already found their way into the EU but felt it necessary to continue their journey to the UK. There are reasons for this, chief among them being the knowledge that the UK is "soft" on illegal immigrants. They know that they are less likely to receive economic aid in Italy, Germany or France than they are in the UK. It is for the same reason that there are encampments of illegal immigrants in Calais trying to make their way here.
I am not against immigration, but I am against tolerance to illegal immigration.
StevieBee said:
Much of the UK's Foreign Aid is aimed at helping low-income and developing countries become more stable and pleasant places to live and thus reduce the levels of immigration from these very countries. Yet, the same people who bemoan the levels of immigration also bemoan the levels of foreign aid. You can't have it both ways unless you close the border and revert to the 1950s and 1960s approach to such issues with a big "No Blacks" sign put up all points of entry which would create problems immeasurably worse than those perceived at present.
This in spades; the sooner we can raise the whole of the world to the level of Hans Rosling's wash people the better it will be for everyone.King Herald said:
Why don't they go to a Muslim country?? I see lots of Muslims fleeing 'terror spots' across the globe, and being taken in by western countries, but I never see an Islamic nation inviting them all in to succour and support their beleaguered brethren.
False.There are 1 million Syrian refugees in Lebanon a country of 4 million. These refugees came about due to a prolonged civil war where the rebels (read terrorists) have received support from the west.
There are 2 million Palestinian refugees in Jordan. These Palestinians were displaced due to zionist actions supported by the west.
The west went around delibrately creating countries with artificial borders which they knew would never be viable. And even when made somewhat viable (e.g Libya, Iraq), the west go in and destroy.
Now we have people moaning about a few thousand people running away from the strife and violence in their broken countries and coming here.
King Herald said:
Why don't they go to a Muslim country?? I see lots of Muslims fleeing 'terror spots' across the globe, and being taken in by western countries, but I never see an Islamic nation inviting them all in to succour and support their beleaguered brethren.
You've not been looking very hard.Pakistan has 3-5 million refugees, most of them Afghans, Iran has 2-3 million and then there are millions in Jordan and Lebanon too. I'm not suggesting Britain take in more but it's complete nonsense to suggest that 'Islamic nations don't invite them in'.
I suppose there is an argument to be made about the rich Gulf countries taking in more. It always seems to be the poorer Muslim nations or the West who take in a disproportionate number refugees.
Edited by BlackLabel on Monday 25th August 12:22
pcvdriver said:
I had no idea that Belgium had upped-sticks and moved itself to Europe's (and therefore the EU's) Eastern borders. Or perhaps it wasn't Belgium where they entered the EU.....just a thought.
I don't know where they first entered, but the container was described as having started its trip to the UK in Belgium.pcvdriver said:
hidetheelephants said:
I don't know where they first entered, but the container was described as having started its trip to the UK in Belgium.
I'll wager my last shekel that it wasn't Belgium, where they entered the EU though, and that's what counts.....Send all asylum seekers to a country that most needs labour and has plenty of land - Oz, Canada.
Mermaid said:
pcvdriver said:
hidetheelephants said:
I don't know where they first entered, but the container was described as having started its trip to the UK in Belgium.
I'll wager my last shekel that it wasn't Belgium, where they entered the EU though, and that's what counts.....Send all asylum seekers to a country that most needs labour and has plenty of land - Oz, Canada.
pcvdriver said:
I'll wager my last shekel that it wasn't Belgium, where they entered the EU though, and that's what counts.....
Quite possibly. But let Belgium have that headache. We knowthese people arrived to us from Belgium. So back there is where they should go. If the Belgians cannot fathom where they came from, tough. Be more careful about your borders in future. (I would probably guess that they can't owing to the way borders seem to be "managed" in mainland Europe).
If they can, then pass the parcel, claim their refund from the next link and so on until the truly originating EU state is left holding it. (Would be nice to think that any one member state found to be the source too often and they'd be booted out. But that's unlikely too).
It shouldn't be that hard.
StevieBee said:
Much of the UK's Foreign Aid is aimed at helping low-income and developing countries become more stable and pleasant places to live and thus reduce the levels of immigration from these very countries. Yet, the same people who bemoan the levels of immigration also bemoan the levels of foreign aid. You can't have it both ways unless you close the border and revert to the 1950s and 1960s approach to such issues with a big "No Blacks" sign put up all points of entry which would create problems immeasurably worse than those perceived at present.
I think if people genuinely believed this is what our Foreign Aid was being used for, there would be fewer complaints about it.Is there any direct link to the amount of Foreign Aid a country supplies and the amount of immigration it contends with (either from the recipient countries or generally)?
Murph7355 said:
Quite possibly. But let Belgium have that headache. We knowthese people arrived to us from Belgium. So back there is where they should go.
If the Belgians cannot fathom where they came from, tough. Be more careful about your borders in future. (I would probably guess that they can't owing to the way borders seem to be "managed" in mainland Europe).
If they can, then pass the parcel, claim their refund from the next link and so on until the truly originating EU state is left holding it. (Would be nice to think that any one member state found to be the source too often and they'd be booted out. But that's unlikely too).
It shouldn't be that hard.
Greece.If the Belgians cannot fathom where they came from, tough. Be more careful about your borders in future. (I would probably guess that they can't owing to the way borders seem to be "managed" in mainland Europe).
If they can, then pass the parcel, claim their refund from the next link and so on until the truly originating EU state is left holding it. (Would be nice to think that any one member state found to be the source too often and they'd be booted out. But that's unlikely too).
It shouldn't be that hard.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff