|
Guest
Location: Bury
Services: NTL 2MB Broadband, x2 phones, digi TV.
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Dutch to ban the wearing of the Burka?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by basa
2003 stats indicate 71% of immigrants granted settlement originated from Asia or Africa ( source: Economic & Social Research Council). Countries whose populations are 90% to 100% Muslim include Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen (source: Middle East Policy Council). Note that most of these are Asia, Arab and African countries (plus some East European for good measure).
|
Do you have a link for the ESRC data please? Some food for thought in the meantime:
"For the past five years we have had 150,000 or so more people immigrating EACH YEAR than emigrating. What Migration Watch doesn't tell you is that this migration has been cyclical and that during much of the postwar period we lost population. Where were they then, lamenting that we were losing a city the size of Birmingham every five years?
But who are these people? The stats used by Michael Howard in support of his "I Believe" conceal some interesting subtleties. Take 2003. In that year 362,000 people left and 513,000 came in - a difference of 151,000. Of those departing, 191,000 were Brits and 171,000 were foreigners. And of those coming in, 277,000 were British returnees and 246,000 were Auslanders . Bear with me. That means that 88,000 more Brits came in than went out and 75,000 more outsiders. Sooo... more than half of that city the size of Birmingham is made up of excess returning Britons.
But the other half is not all knife-wielding Kurds, pimping Albanians and benefit-defrauding West Africans. Of 2003's foreign workers in the UK, 519,000 were from EU states, 127,000 from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, 87,000 were Aussies and Kiwis, 72,000 were Americans, and 500,000 were from other countries, most notably the Philippines, Japan and South Africa.
Still with me? Because this is where it gets interesting. When Michael Howard says that the problem is not ethnicity but numbers - and given that asylum seekers will now make up only about a quarter of the net inflow - the implication is that he will crack down significantly on all these EU, US, Australian and Filipino wannaworks...." http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1397647,00.html
And that Brum suggestion has also been shown to be highly misleading here: http://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/quote.jsp?id=165
And the dangers of such a blurring of the lines regarding immigration (which so often hides a racial agenda, though not terribly well).
"I feel the shadows closing in. In Sittingbourne on Friday night, 2,000 residents, interlaced with members of the BNP, turned up at a meeting called by the council to discuss the establishment of short-term accommodation for asylum-seekers undergoing induction. Many accused asylum-seekers of high levels of criminality, of wanting to poison the water supply, of depriving British people of health facilities, of sexually harassing indigenous women and of terrorism. What is one to do with such unreason? " This is of course, from an opinion piece so not fact as such!
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comme...882497,00.html
Quote:
|
Probably unreasonable to most PC people, but still we are importing the enemy amongst us.
|
Ah, if in doubt, throw out the PC line
Quote:
|
How about the Prevention of Terrorism Act, stop & search, ID cards, 90 day detainment without arrest. IMO all come about with increase in terrorism and immigrant presence.
|
That the Govt are acting like loons is not the fault of immigrants.
|