UKIP - The Future - Volume 4

[TTwiggy]

Planet Blatark-9 said:

ETA - a friend of mine owned a holiday home in Tenerife... but when she wanted to sell it she wasn't allowed to take that money out of the country. I'm sure that must make all of Tenerife racist, - right???

Wasn't allowed to, or didn't want to deal with the UK tax implications?

[Planet Blatark-9]

TTwiggy said:

Wasn't allowed to, or didn't want to deal with the UK tax implications?

She told me that she was not allowed to, but I will check with her....


As for criminals, an aquaintance of mine was recently attacked by an illegal immigrant with a knife (he was caught which is how we know his status).

I believe immigration is a good thing, hard to argue that it isn't. But too much of anything good thing becomes a bad thing. Water is good for you... but drink too much and you will die.

As for economical benefit, - there is much more to immigration than just financial benefit.

[tangerine_sedge]

rs1952 said:

wc98 said:

i do not want criminals from anywhere coming here, i do not want beggars coming here,and i do not want people filling the unskilled jobs that our very own feckless could be doing to get a foot on the ladder towards actually contributing something for a change.

We see a lot of this sort of reasoning from UKIP

But we never see the numbers. We are told by UKIP and others that it is a known and a clear problem, but it is never quantified. It seems to me a little simplistic - "we have to let these people in under EU rules so they must be turning us over. Stands to reason, dunnit?"

So perhaps you know who these criminals and beggars are? What are their names and addresses?

To be fair to UKIP, this is the point they make. No-one seemingly knows who is coming here, what their past is or when they leave. On the other hand (I've stood up for UKIP, so now it's time to criticise them) this doesn't neccessarily mean that most of the people coming here are serial criminals either, which is the picture painted all to often by kippers.

[TTwiggy]

Planet Blatark-9 said:

TTwiggy said:

Wasn't allowed to, or didn't want to deal with the UK tax implications?

She told me that she was not allowed to, but I will check with her....

30 seconds on google and I found several companies (from banks like Santander to independent FX places) happy to move money to and from Tenerife.

[don4l]

tangerine_sedge said:

To be fair to UKIP, this is the point they make. No-one seemingly knows who is coming here, what their past is or when they leave. On the other hand (I've stood up for UKIP, so now it's time to criticise them) this doesn't neccessarily mean that most of the people coming here are serial criminals either, which is the picture painted all to often by kippers.

I don't think that I have ever heard a kipper suggest that a majority of immigrants from any particular country are criminals.

I'm sure that most immigrants are here to better themselves through hard work.

However, we really don't want to let any criminals in at all.

[TKF]

Planet Blatark-9 said:

TTwiggy said:

Wasn't allowed to, or didn't want to deal with the UK tax implications?

She told me that she was not allowed to, but I will check with her....


As for criminals, an aquaintance of mine was recently attacked by an illegal immigrant with a knife (he was caught which is how we know his status).

I believe immigration is a good thing, hard to argue that it isn't. But too much of anything good thing becomes a bad thing. Water is good for you... but drink too much and you will die.

As for economical benefit, - there is much more to immigration than just financial benefit.

What has an illegal immigrant got to do with the economic benefits of immigration?

[wc98]

tangerine_sedge said:

rs1952 said:

wc98 said:

i do not want criminals from anywhere coming here, i do not want beggars coming here,and i do not want people filling the unskilled jobs that our very own feckless could be doing to get a foot on the ladder towards actually contributing something for a change.

We see a lot of this sort of reasoning from UKIP

But we never see the numbers. We are told by UKIP and others that it is a known and a clear problem, but it is never quantified. It seems to me a little simplistic - "we have to let these people in under EU rules so they must be turning us over. Stands to reason, dunnit?"

So perhaps you know who these criminals and beggars are? What are their names and addresses?

To be fair to UKIP, this is the point they make. No-one seemingly knows who is coming here, what their past is or when they leave. On the other hand (I've stood up for UKIP, so now it's time to criticise them) this doesn't neccessarily mean that most of the people coming here are serial criminals either, which is the picture painted all to often by kippers.

agreed on all counts . the main issue is the amount of unskilled people coming, the issue being it compounds the problem we have of getting our own unskilled people off benefits and into the work place. relying on immigration to fill the unskilled and low skilled roles is laziness and counterproductive in the long run.

[Axionknight]

TKF said:

What has an illegal immigrant got to do with the economic benefits of immigration?

Well if he isn't here legally how can he really contribute to society? He won't be paying his way without a national insurance number for example, will he? Yet here he is using up costly police resources, no doubt if his victim had diddled him with a hammer and smashed his teeth out our NHS would have had to sort that too.

Edited by Axionknight on Tuesday 21st April 13:02

[Timsta]

DJRC said:

So your original "we" wasn't actually a we at all then. Thank you for your pointless answer, you win today's £2500 jackpot.

Can you please clarify this statement? Are you saying that because I'm not a citizen, that my opinion doesn't matter? I have family members who are British, are they part of your "we?" Just checking, because they don't seem to fall into the "we" of which you speak.

If I apply for citizenship will my opinion count more? You sound like the very people you see in UKIP.

[TKF]

Axionknight said:

TKF said:

What has an illegal immigrant got to do with the economic benefits of immigration?

Well if he isn't here legally how can he really contribute to society? He won't be paying his way without a national insurance number for example, will he? Yet here he is using up costly police resources, no doubt if his victim had diddled him with a hammer and smashed his teeth out our NHS would have had to sort that too.

He's illegal. Nobody wants him here, not just UKIP.

[steveT350C]

Suzanne Evans taking calls on LBC starting now

[Digga]

rs1952 said:

We see a lot of this sort of reasoning from UKIP

But we never see the numbers. We are told by UKIP and others that it is a known and a clear problem, but it is never quantified. It seems to me a little simplistic - "we have to let these people in under EU rules so they must be turning us over. Stands to reason, dunnit?"

So perhaps you know who these criminals and beggars are? What are their names and addresses?

No one can possibly know the numbers - there is only guesswork. We've had open borders since the mid 90s (police were told at that time to 'do nothing' with illegals other than supply them with the address of the nearest immigration office) so if anyone is honest, they have to admit no one really knows who is here.

Do you think that a wise idea, especially given the worldwide climate of anti-western and anti-British terrorism? Do you think it good that someone can claim asylum here from say Somalia, only to find some of the butchers, bds, rapists and warlords that were wrecking their previous home have also decided to join them here?

[s2art]

TTwiggy said:

They may have access to many things, the PNC is not one of them.

This subject has been covered inumerable times on SP&L. Sometimes as a result of a direct question where a poster with a chequered past is concerned about an upcoming trip, and sometimes as a result of some anti-BiB posters pointing out that the low threshold level that our polic have in respect of arrest (even where it leads to no charges) technically makes the arrestee unable to use the visa waiver scheme to visit the USA.

The response, from both serving police and lawyers is always the same: while the choice to 'come clean' is at the traveller's discretion, US immigration has no access to our criminal records database at the point of traveller immigration. It only matters for those moving there on a more permanent basis or where something else might cause US immigration to carry out further checks on an individual.

Also, I struggle to understand how you were in a position to know the exact circumstances of this person being turned back for an assault charge? US immigration is pretty hardcore and they don't like people 'hanging around.' So unless you've got exceptional hearing I don't see how you could know what was being said at passport control (and this assumes that they didn't follow usual procedure and take the person to a private area first).

But if personal anecdotes trump everything then I can tell you that I have a colleague who was a 'rather naughty boy' in his youth who travels to the US 2-3 times a year for business or pleasure. He has never revealed his convictions and has never been turned back.

I am sceptical about the US authorities not having access to the PNC. The secret squirrels have access, and so do several other agencies. So it wouldnt surprise me that the US have some form of access. As for your colleague, how long ago was his conviction? If long enough it would be 'spent' and not show up on a normal search.

[Scuffers]

s2art said:

I am sceptical about the US authorities not having access to the PNC. The secret squirrels have access, and so do several other agencies. So it wouldnt surprise me that the US have some form of access. As for your colleague, how long ago was his conviction? If long enough it would be 'spent' and not show up on a normal search.

this ^^^

they may not have an agreement for access, but I would wager real money they have access.

[TTwiggy]

Scuffers said:

s2art said:

I am sceptical about the US authorities not having access to the PNC. The secret squirrels have access, and so do several other agencies. So it wouldnt surprise me that the US have some form of access. As for your colleague, how long ago was his conviction? If long enough it would be 'spent' and not show up on a normal search.

this ^^^

they may not have an agreement for access, but I would wager real money they have access.

His last conviction was AFAIK, in his mid 20s. He is now in his mid 40s. The convictions are only 'spent' in respect of UK employment law (unless an enhanced CIB check is required). They will remain on the PNC until he dies (when he's been stopped for minor traffic incidents it causes much 'hilarity' as his caharge sheet comes over the radio while he stands there suited and booted like the upstanding member of society that he is).

What nefarious routes US authorites might have for snooping on other nation states is one thing. What does not happen is any link between a person's passport and their criminal record.

[Mrr T]

don4l said:

However, we really don't want to let any criminals in at all.

In which case you really should vote to stay in the EU as the commission is currently working on proposals which will all countries within the EU to share criminal data.

However, how are you going to stop criminals from outside the EU getting access? I am not sure the question, about criminal activity on the UK landing card achieves much.

[steveT350C]

Guam said:

steveT350C said:

Suzanne Evans taking calls on LBC starting now

Listening to her now, loved the EU wont let you trade with them if you leave caller, being Trumped by the "WTO Rules render that illegal"

She is very much becoming another emerging star of UKIP, along with Steven Wolfe. I have been following her for a while, exchanged a couple of Tweets with her. She knows her stuff and is down to earth and pleasant.

[don4l]

Mrr T said:

don4l said:

However, we really don't want to let any criminals in at all.

In which case you really should vote to stay in the EU as the commission is currently working on proposals which will all countries within the EU to share criminal data.

However, how are you going to stop criminals from outside the EU getting access? I am not sure the question, about criminal activity on the UK landing card achieves much.

The landing card is a total red herring.

Immigrants from many parts of the world need to get a visa from the local embassy before they travel. Part of this process involves checking for a criminal record.

See Here:- https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/when-ca...

[PRTVR]

Mrr T said:

don4l said:

However, we really don't want to let any criminals in at all.

In which case you really should vote to stay in the EU as the commission is currently working on proposals which will all countries within the EU to share criminal data.

But is that not what Interpol was set up for? Why do we need the EU implement things that could and should be covered by Interpol.

[Scuffers]

PRTVR said:

But is that not what Interpol was set up for? Why do we need the EU implement things that could and should be covered by Interpol.

yup, but I am sure the EU can do it for 100x the budget and 1000% less efficiently.