Nick Griffin

[evilwebby]

The daily mail trot out the same bollocks about us needing immigrants to do the jobs us lazy English won't do.

At the same time as ****ging the immigrants (mostly muslims) at every opportunity.

WTF has it got to do with the Daily Mail?

It's a bit fcking closed minded and purile when you can't see past where someone comes from. All people are individuals with their own hopes and dreams, just like you or I. My family are immigants from Vietnam and I can tell you we didn't uproot ourselves and cross half way around the world because we though we could live off UK government handouts.

 

[malcson]

Correct.

It's not just tax from the immigrant, it's the tertiary effect of local businesses supporting the immigration population, like shops, financial services, pubs etc.

By the way Nik, you're getting EU and non-EU issues entangled and forming a wider view without many facts. Polish people don't hate preach, for example.

In regards to EU migration, people on here are apparently unaware of things like the habitual residency test which all but prevents benefit claimants for temporary workers who try to fiddle the system - they literally cannot just walk across the border and make a claim for benefits, it just can't be done - or the employment statistics of EU migrants.

To be honest, non-EU immigrants cause 99% of the perceived issues on here. The economic (job) test for non-EU immigrants is much looser, the reasons for entering the country are often based on personal (asylum) reasons or wedding a British person, and unfortunately this area of immigration is growing by 2% a year even under the Tories so any perceived issues are exacerbated year on year.

You may note I say "perceived" issues, because non-EU immigration is still barely a statistic in terms of overall population. They really are a minority, yet you'd believe we were absolutely flooded with terrorists intent on imposing Sharia Law next week if you believed some people on here!

Bare in mind the net migration figure is about 250,000, yet our population is 62 million.

So, for me, I agree we need to tighten the borders in regards to people coming in from Asia and Africa, but the stated problems on this thread are overblown dramatically, and the benefits of EU migration to our country blow out of the water the downsides.

Spot on, yes we need to control immigration but it's not the issue many on here make out.

Many of the problems people describe and assign to 'immigrants' are more often about British citizens who happen to be a different colour to themselves. It is more acceptable for the BNP to say these issues are caused by 'immigration' when what they actually mean is 'British Asians' or 'British Afro Carribeans'. As a country we do have social problems in certain areas and these areas are often (not exclusively) inhabited by black or Asian Britains, they are not 'immigrants'.

 

[Ratkiller]

WTF has it got to do with the Daily Mail?

It's a bit fcking closed minded and purile when you can't see past where someone comes from. All people are individuals with their own hopes and dreams, just like you or I. My family are immigants from Vietnam and I can tell you we didn't uproot ourselves and cross half way around the world because we though we could live off UK government handouts.

I have absolutely no idea what you saw in my post to warrant such a response.

You've completely lost me.

 

[Tubey]

Tbh, is it unfair to say shut the boarders completely for like 2 years or so until we sort the mess out?

 

[EFCNIK]

Hahaha tbf Tubes, epic banter.

 

[Deloodid]

where is Tony Blair on that scale??

 

[malfosse]

People carry on the conversation so so do I.

End of the day it's very easy to have liberal views on a forum, you're always going to look good. And its very easy to make someone with my views look bad, or look like something Im not. I just dont let get to me.

It was a serious question, would you allow somebody in who could contribute something to this country, or do you advocate a closed border, regulated border etc, I personally agree with you on not allowing criminals in.

 

[EFCNIK]

It was a serious question, would you allow somebody in who could contribute something to this country, or do you advocate a closed border, regulated border etc, I personally agree with you on not allowing criminals in.

I have mentioned on numerous occasions how we should only let people in who can contribute so I dont know why youre asking that. I literally dont see why anyone would think any different.

Regulated, tighter border. Not fully closed, not as open. I.E a REASONABLE middle ground. Which is pretty much what I base my political beliefs on. At the moment we are too far one way. Party's like the BNP are too far the other way. Sensible, no bull**** politics is what we need and all I've ever said I believe in.

Oh you agree we shouldnt let criminals in? How generous.

 

[Bungle]

I have mentioned on numerous occasions how we should only let people in who can contribute so I dont know why youre asking that. I literally dont see why anyone would think any different.

Regulated, tighter border. Not fully closed, not as open. I.E a REASONABLE middle ground. Which is pretty much what I base my political beliefs on. At the moment we are too far one way. Party's like the BNP are too far the other way. Sensible, no bull**** politics is what we need and all I've ever said I believe in.

Oh you agree we shouldnt let criminals in? How generous.

I agree mate

 

[malfosse]

I have mentioned on numerous occasions how we should only let people in who can contribute so I dont know why youre asking that. I literally dont see why anyone would think any different.

Regulated, tighter border. Not fully closed, not as open. I.E a REASONABLE middle ground. Which is pretty much what I base my political beliefs on. At the moment we are too far one way. Party's like the BNP are too far the other way. Sensible, no bull**** politics is what we need and all I've ever said I believe in.

Oh you agree we shouldnt let criminals in? How generous.

Why so confrontational? It was a perfectly valid question to ask.

 

[Blue 1]

Erm... I don't think we actually do let criminals in*. They become criminals once they're here. That's the trouble. How are we to know what they're going to get up to when we let them in?

If they're illegal immigrants we don't let them in. They find their own way in in spite of the system.

*unless they're genuine asylum cases.

 

[evilwebby]

I have mentioned on numerous occasions how we should only let people in who can contribute so I dont know why youre asking that. I literally dont see why anyone would think any different.

Regulated, tighter border. Not fully closed, not as open. I.E a REASONABLE middle ground. Which is pretty much what I base my political beliefs on. At the moment we are too far one way. Party's like the BNP are too far the other way. Sensible, no bull**** politics is what we need and all I've ever said I believe in.

Oh you agree we shouldnt let criminals in? How generous.

Not as straightforward as that.

What about genuine asylum seekers and economic migrants?

By definition, anyone who turns up on UK borders with nothing but a backpack and a pocket of goodwill has not yet contributed anything. What about families? Should we let the working dad in, but not his wife and kids? On what humanitarian grounds should we judge that EU migrants are given an easier passage than non-EU?

It's very difficult to judge these things by a form with tickboxes. When my family came here we spoke little English and had little to offer, but my parents worked hard and brought us up in the correct manner, and I dare say that each of us have contributed considerably than the average worker.

 

[malfosse]

Erm... I don't think we actually do let criminals in*. They become criminals once they're here. That's the trouble. How are we to know what they're going to get up to when we let them in?

If they're illegal immigrants we don't let them in. They find their own way in in spite of the system.

*unless they're genuine asylum cases.

You're right, I meant as in stricter border control, as opposed to a closed border.

 

[EFCNIK]

Not as straightforward as that.

What about genuine asylum seekers and economic migrants?

By definition, anyone who turns up on UK borders with nothing but a backpack and a pocket of goodwill has not yet contributed anything. What about families? Should we let the working dad in, but not his wife and kids? On what humanitarian grounds should we judge that EU migrants are given an easier passage than non-EU?

It's very difficult to judge these things by a form with tickboxes. When my family came here we spoke little English and had little to offer, but my parents worked hard and brought us up in the correct manner, and I dare say that each of us have contributed considerably than the average worker.

IMO no one within the EU is a genuine asylum seeker. And anyone outside, is it really our problem? Why should our tax payers have to pay for another countries problems? As horrible as that sounds.

 

[Blue 1]

IMO no one within the EU is a genuine asylum seeker. And anyone outside, is it really our problem? Why should our tax payers have to pay for another countries problems? As horrible as that sounds.

That's the start of a philosphical debate about whether or not you believe you have a duty to your fellow man or not, isn't it?

I think the world is a smaller place than a lot of people realise, and it'll only get better if we help those who needs it, not tell them to get f*cked.

Never know when it might be us relying on them, too.