Appalling stuff from the Daily Express

Originally Posted by freezin

...snip....

I don't read the BNP's literature, but I have read UKIP's and don't find anything to support what you have suggested. But if you want to supply a specific policy or quote from UKIP, I'll think again, of course. And as for using emotive languague, you have been at least as guilty of that than I have. But I think we will obviously disagree on that! Just how would you describe immigration at the present level? (Net 180,00 pa.) To describe it as "mass" was not a "trick" at all.

The quote you requested - Link
"The UKIP's manifesto promises "freedom from overcrowding" by pushing for an "end to mass immigration". It says illegal immigration is out of control and the UKIP would ensure Britain is "no longer the dumping ground for Europe's problems". The document's cover depicts three white babies with the slogan: "Concerned about their future? This is their country, make sure it stays that way." "

re "mass" immigration - 180k net per year, in 20 years that would be 3.2 million (out of the present 60 million) - 5% - new definition of "mass" I hadn't come across before (the Oxford Dictionary defines mass as "a majority of" or "a large number" - when did 5% become a majority or large number?) And anyway, you are doing the old politician's trick of extrapolating a recent pattern into a fixed pattern for the future.

Originally Posted by freezin

...In believing that people are incapable of making up their own minds after listening to the various commentators, I think you are being particularly patronising.

Mainstream parties without a doubt support immigration at levels are unprecedented in British history. (They even want Turkey in the EU.) I accept that you can't answer for Labour and the Lib Dems, but perhaps you know why the Tories do?

If you think I am being patronising in pointing out the difference between informing and inflaming, that is entirely your prerogative. However, you are doing it again, aren't you? - can you show me in any of the manifestos or policies of the parties you have named, that they support "mass immigration" (your words, not mine). I actually think you are being misleading when you present opinions as facts (Mainstream parties without a doubt support immigration at levels).

Originally Posted by freezin

...Yes, it is when comparing like with like, and I can’t really see the point of doing anything else.
11 Bangladesh
14 Republic of China
16 Palestinian territories
19 South Korea
23 Netherlands
26 Lebanon
27 Rwanda
29 Belgium
30 Japan
31 India
32 El Salvador
40 Israel
42 Philippines
46 Vietnam
48 United Kingdom
50 Germany
54 Italy

And with few exceptions (most notably Belgium and the Netherlands) none of those countries have accepted unrestricted immigration on anything even close to the level seen in Britain. And I’d still be interested to hear your thoughts on the quality of life for future inhabitants of this country. (Official predicted population increase of 10 million by 2075.)

I thought I had already answered that - I think that the quality of life for future inhabitants of this country will be fine (global warming, fossil fuel depletion notwithstanding); I think they will do what all immigrants to this country have done - blend in, enrich our culture, and become part of Britain.

I am amazed you don't think that countries like the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Israel, Japan is comparing like with like, but that is because, once again, you have used the politician's trick of moving the goalposts - we were initially discussing population density, and you then changed it to immigration levels.

btw, you are doing it again - changing the facts to support your argument - the UK does not have "unrestricted immigration" - but why let facts get in the way of a polemic, huh?

No time to answer now, duty calls, but I'll be back tomorrow.

Originally Posted by freezin

No time to answer now, duty calls, but I'll be back tomorrow.

Our debate, scintilllating though it has been, is probably over, as, just like last time, it will (most likely) become a two-way conversation between a wet Tory and a not-so-wet UKIP supporter - fun for us, but v.v.v. boring for the other forum members.

[BBKing]

There were similar predictions regarding the influx of Irish workers over here working on the motorways.
Apparently by now we should be overrun by Irish, yet I'm pretty sure we're not.

Three of them being my direct ancestors. Irish population of my borough - 3%.

There's a limited amount of brain time one can devote to people who draw straight lines on graphs in order to frighten themselves.

[Xaccers]

3%!!!!! OMG They're going to take over!!!!! *panic attack*
How would the 97% ever hope to stand up to them if they decided on forcing a Catholic state on us?
Think of the children!

Originally Posted by Xaccers

3%!!!!! OMG They're going to take over!!!!! *panic attack*
How would the 97% ever hope to stand up to them if they decided on forcing a Catholic state on us?
Think of the children!

Well, being a Catholic state, there would be lots of them.....

Speaking as a descendant of Irish Catholic immigrants

[BBKing]

My Dad's actually an only child! My brother-in-law, also Catholic, is one of four, though, so that redresses it slightly. The number of practicing Catholics isn't far off the number of practicing Anglicans these days (with Poles and other eastern Europeans coming in it may well be higher now...).

That 3% is those defined as Irish citizens who were denied their right to vote in 2005 due to a Hounslow bureaucratic cockup. There'll be more (like me) who are Irish citizens (which is 'having a parent or grandparent born there') who aren't counted because we're, er, integrated.

Light relief time - those of a strong stomach can look through the postings made by contributors to the Express forum. There's one (http://www.express.co.uk/users/profile/spaniel_lover) who thinks that immigrant women should be sterilised after their second child, and then there's this character:

http://www.express.co.uk/myexpress/profile/Robertz

His profile sets out his views fairly clearly:

My life ambition is to live long enough to see the politically correct brigade melted down for glue.

Perhaps we can point Locky in their direction? On a serious note, it's more evidence for the suggestion that people who hold 'liberal-do-gooder-politically-correct-brigade' views are also likely to possess violently anti-individual quasi-fascist (and quite possibly misogynistic) opinions that have no place in a civilised society. Which is presumably why they read the Daily Getsworse in the first place.

I wish I knew what he had a comment removed for, if they allowed the one about forcibly sterilising women.

**This comment has been removed. Please do not use offensive or racially offensive language in Have Your Say. Thanks, The Daily Express Webdesk.**

Bloody PC liberal do-gooder Daily Express, eh?!

Originally Posted by foreverwar

The quote you requested - Link
"The UKIP's manifesto promises "freedom from overcrowding" by pushing for an "end to mass immigration". It says illegal immigration is out of control and the UKIP would ensure Britain is "no longer the dumping ground for Europe's problems". The document's cover depicts three white babies with the slogan: "Concerned about their future? This is their country, make sure it stays that way." "

I can't comment on a document I haven't seen and can't find any trace of. However UKIP (and UKIP Scotland) say the following about immigration (with no babies in sight). There is more on the UKIP website.

Britain cannot continue to accommodate immigration at its present net rate of a million newcomers every four years. However, while the official statistics are now showing a fall in asylum applications, the numbers of those permitted to enter legally has been rising sharply as a result of both the eastern expansion of the European Union (note 10) and deliberate government policy. The Labour government’s untenable excuse is that we need large numbers of immigrant workers.

The Conservatives have promised to impose quotas on immigration. Given that Britain has accepted EU control over the treatment and assessment of asylum seekers (note 11), this is no more credible than their promise to ignore EU fishing policy.

The first responsibility of a British government is to its own population, not to those who would like to settle here. All British people, including our ethnic minorities, want immigration brought under control. Having taken Britain out of the EU, the UK Independence Party would aim to approach zero net immigration both by imposing far stricter limits on legal immigrants and by taking control, at last, of the vexed problem of illegal immigration.

• Adopt a ‘points’ system for evaluating applications for work permits based on an identified need for specific skills and other tests of suitability. Applicants from EU countries to be treated in the same way as those from any other country. Stricter control of residence rights granted because of family connections.
• Reinstate embarkation controls to check those entering and leaving Britain. It is essential to keep proper records of those crossing our borders – the government has admitted it has little idea who is in the country.
• ‘Britishness’ tests to encourage those settling here to acquire knowledge of our language and culture and to assimilate fully into our society.
• Set our own criteria for determining those deemed to be refugees. No refugee status to be considered for asylum seekers who arrived via some other ‘safe’ country.
• More rigour in deporting those who are refused the right to stay. Only one in five are currently removed.
• All those entering Britain with the intention of staying to be subject to health checks for certain communicable diseases.

The only thing the party gets wrong, imo, is in thinking all British people want immigration brought under control. They're not policies that would suit everyone, but they are not racist policies.

Originally Posted by foreverwar

re "mass" immigration - 180k net per year, in 20 years that would be 3.2 million (out of the present 60 million) - 5% - new definition of "mass" I hadn't come across before (the Oxford Dictionary defines mass as "a majority of" or "a large number" - when did 5% become a majority or large number?) And anyway, you are doing the old politician's trick of extrapolating a recent pattern into a fixed pattern for the future.

Immigration is running at unprecedented levels. So again, how would you describe the scale of it as it stands now?

Originally Posted by foreverwar

If you think I am being patronising in pointing out the difference between informing and inflaming, that is entirely your prerogative. However, you are doing it again, aren't you? - can you show me in any of the manifestos or policies of the parties you have named, that they support "mass immigration" (your words, not mine). I actually think you are being misleading when you present opinions as facts (Mainstream parties without a doubt support immigration at levels).

I have no objection to you expressing an opinion about whether a source "informing" or "inflaming", but I do object to your suggestion that adults are incapable of making up their own minds. Re-reading what I wrote, that much is clear.

And all mainstream parties support mass immigration because they have no credible policy to stop it. (And I'll continue to call it mass immigration until you come up with a suitable alternative.) The Conservative Party's policy is here but this post is long enough already without going into why it's not credible. But they at least acknowledged the problem ...

This Government has lost effective control of our borders. More than 150,000 people (net) come to Britain every year, a population the size of Peterborough. Labour see “no obvious upper limit to legal immigration�.
Our asylum system is in chaos. Instead of offering a safe haven to those most in need, the current system encourages illegality. Desperate individuals are forced into the hands of people smugglers and when they reach Britain they are open to continuing exploitation in the underground economy. Only two out of every ten asylum seekers are found to have a genuine claim.
Britain has reached a turning-point. That is why a Conservative Government will bring immigration back under control. We have set out a series of practical and considered steps to restore control and fairness to our immigration system.

Originally Posted by foreverwar

... I think that the quality of life for future inhabitants of this country will be fine (global warming, fossil fuel depletion notwithstanding); I think they will do what all immigrants to this country have done - blend in, enrich our culture, and become part of Britain.

You "think" immigrants will do that. Numbers don't come into it apparently. OK, fine.

Originally Posted by foreverwar

I am amazed you don't think that countries like the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Israel, Japan is comparing like with like, but that is because, once again, you have used the politician's trick of moving the goalposts - we were initially discussing population density, and you then changed it to immigration levels.

btw, you are doing it again - changing the facts to support your argument - the UK does not have "unrestricted immigration" - but why let facts get in the way of a polemic, huh?

The Netherlands and Belgium are exceptions as I said. Germany and Italy are not more densely populated than the UK. Japan's population is not remotely built on immigration, and Israel exists because of immigration. And I think population density is inextricably linked to the immigration debate.

I haven't changed any facts (and that's rich from someone who, to put it kindly, was very quick to make an assumption here.) We view facts from different perspectives, and I'm sure you're sophisticated enough to understand that. But this debate will always be hotly contested and rightly so.

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Our debate, scintilllating though it has been, is probably over, as, just like last time, it will (most likely) become a two-way conversation between a wet Tory and a not-so-wet UKIP supporter - fun for us, but v.v.v. boring for the other forum members.

You could well be right. I don't know about you, but I feel some points just have to be answered regardless of how boring our discusion might be.

[Xaccers]

Britain cannot continue to accommodate immigration at its present net rate of a million newcomers every four years.

That's nice. How do they know it's going to remain constant at that rate?
Can I borrow their crystal ball to get next week's lotto numbers?

Interesting you mention Israel.
Despite spending what, around 40% of it's annual budget on defence, and having way higher proportions of immigrants than any other country, they're doing rather well wouldn't you say?
So why is immigration good for Israel but bad for the UK?