Do You Think Immigrants Should Serve?

[GommeInc]

The immigration problem with the UK and France is interesting, you have to consider the ideas between the two countries. If we were France, we wouldn't want people in our country trying to go to another country who is denying them access. No-one will :/ I can see if and why France may not like immigrants heading towards us, and you can understand why we don't want immigrants here (well, some do some don't ) There's no way to actually solve this problem :/

Anyway, to the point at hand... Having immigrants as soldiers is interesting... Because that would make them fear immigrating and would not necessarily cruel. Then again, that's assuming ALL immigrants are evil and useless...

[Accipiter]

didn't read through all posts.

but i have to state, what kind of immigrant, you have the drug trading immigrants, you have terrorist immigrants.

I think your getting at the ones who fled war, which are asylum seekers not immigrants, and i would say no, because if their asylum seekers running from war they don't want to be thrown back into anything related to it. Seeing as when they leave they will be hated by people who fought in their country and it would probaly start a new fued.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I didn't say we were in a war, you're avoiding the subject because you knew if someone like UKIP were in power in WW2, not only would we have lost but millions more people would've died.

:rolleyes:
I will ask again..
How are UKIP racist?

Well seeing as you link relentlessly to the telegraph and moreso to the daily fail what other conclusion am I meant to think? That you are a free-thinker that looks at everything for several viewpoints? Like someone who makes an informed and intelligent argument?

http://jobs.telegraph.co.uk/job/2579...y+Co-ordinator


There is one example that I found, on the telegraph government-jobs website of a useless non-job, sometimes it makes me wonder how did we ever manage without these people?

But it has 524 local government jobs. and 26 government jobs, whilst guardian's just goes under 'government'


AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA AHHAA load of tosh! The border controls here are to stop those coming in who aren't citizens or legally allowed to remain here! A sign of a sovereign nation (which isn't even relevant to the EU rubbish you talk of, because we aren't in the schengen zone).

Yeah, that's why they put up tax to 50% on those earning a LOT of money. And yeah, they should take more of a percentage, so others can attempt to be able to do the same.

The unions have little to no power now because they were destroyed by the tories. The percentage of people in unions is fairly low.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3404715.stm[/QUOTE]

Sorry, where and when do I link to the Daily Mail or Daily Telegraph(?), if you actually knew what you were talking about you'd know I am against posting links from sources, because if I post from the Mail or Telegraph that would prove nothing and would of course be a biased source, just like if you linked me to the Guardian/a left wing/EU site it would also be biased.

The illegal immigrants aren't allowed to live here no, but the fact we dont know who and where they are means we cannot deport them. You are so quick to point to the European Union, but as ever, i'm still as interested as ever to know if you support a referendum on the European Union & Lisbon Treaty? - because we all know what the answer will be, people want control of this country, people want control of our borders and as in 1989 when the Soviet Union began its collapse, once people get their say and become fed up with people with agendas such as yours ruling them, the sooner it will all end.

The European Union makes over 75% of our laws, so no, the EU 'rubbish' I talk of isn't rubbish, thats why people like you (Labour and the European Union) are so afraid to give people a say on it, because the answer will be no.

The tories did destroy the unions, and thank heavens they did. If you want to return to the days of mass unemployment, the 3 day week, power cuts and the United Kingdom going cap-in-hand to the IMF then more fool you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3404715.stm

well done my friend
nicely owned there +rep[/QUOTE]

The questions you both still need to answer;

• How are the United Kingdom Independance Party racist? (Ardemax & alex)
• What did Robert Kilroy Silk say that was racist? (alex)
• When do I link myself to the Daily Mail/Telegraph to prove my points? (alex)

[alexxxxx]

:rolleyes:
I will ask again..
How are UKIP racist?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3404715.stm

Sorry, where and when do I link to the Daily Mail or Daily Telegraph(?), if you actually knew what you were talking about you'd know I am against posting links from sources, because if I post from the Mail or Telegraph that would prove nothing and would of course be a biased source, just like if you linked me to the Guardian/a left wing/EU site it would also be biased.

Every pathetic thread you start in current topics links to a torygraph or mail source http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=605421 for example.

I rarely link to the guardian as it is, mostly, left wing. I link to official websites because they are the rules and it it's from the horses mouth. Those websites provide evidence of what they do and the rules. There's no bias in it, it is what it is.

The illegal immigrants aren't allowed to live here no, but the fact we dont know who and where they are means we cannot deport them. You are so quick to point to the European Union, but as ever, i'm still as interested as ever to know if you support a referendum on the European Union & Lisbon Treaty? - because we all know what the answer will be, people want control of this country, people want control of our borders and as in 1989 when the Soviet Union began its collapse, once people get their say and become fed up with people with agendas such as yours ruling them, the sooner it will all end.

I mentioned the EU because you seemed to make it sound like our membership had something to do with why we don't know how many are here, which is a complete irrelevance to the point you were making.

The European Union makes over 75% of our laws, so no, the EU 'rubbish' I talk of isn't rubbish, thats why people like you (Labour and the European Union) are so afraid to give people a say on it, because the answer will be no.

I've answered these pathetic arguments before.

The tories did destroy the unions, and thank heavens they did. If you want to return to the days of mass unemployment, the 3 day week, power cuts and the United Kingdom going cap-in-hand to the IMF then more fool you.

Did I say I wanted to go back to mass strikes?

The questions you both still need to answer;

• How are the United Kingdom Independance Party racist? (Ardemax & alex)
  

• I've told you why I think there are racists in the UKIP. I didn't actually say UKIP were racist itself.
  

• What did Robert Kilroy Silk say that was racist? (alex)

[-:Undertaker:-]

Every pathetic thread you start in current topics links to a torygraph or mail source http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=605421 for example.

I rarely link to the guardian as it is, mostly, left wing. I link to official websites because they are the rules and it it's from the horses mouth. Those websites provide evidence of what they do and the rules. There's no bias in it, it is what it is.


I mentioned the EU because you seemed to make it sound like our membership had something to do with why we don't know how many are here, which is a complete irrelevance to the point you were making.


I've answered these pathetic arguments before.

Did I say I wanted to go back to mass strikes?

I've told you why I think there are racists in the UKIP. I didn't actually say UKIP were racist itself.

Calling all arabs suicide bombers I'd say was racist. My arab cousins aren't suicide bombers.

I never said you prove your points with telegraph or mail links, I just said that I think your sense of reality and perspective has been quashed by mainly/seuly reading these sources, which I believe to be true as, like i've already said, you start threads linking these at the beginning of threads in current affairs. You rarely back your points with sources ever.

..you stated I linked to the Mail/Telegraph to use in debates, I never ever link to them when debating an issue, I only use them as a news source/a starter, so again, caught out.

The European Union is linked to the issue as we have open borders apparentley, anyway thats what you seem to tell us is one of the benefits of the European Union; we cannot control who comes here to work/not work from the EU, all three main parties have accepted this sadly.

Indeed you have answered them, and you seem intent on driving the European Union down our throats, so while you may of answered them the British people still haven't answered it, we are waiting for our referendum because we have always valued democracy as a country.

You seem to think that the tories cutting down on the unions and their power was a bad thing, the way you worded it, so yes if you are critical of the Thatcher government then you do want to go back to those days which is a very sad outlook isn't it?.

UKIP can't be racist itself, its a party not a person, just like the BNP can't be racist, it cant think for itself - its an organisation. Infact here, in your exact words; "UKIP - Useless closet racists." - so I will ask yet again, what is racist about UKIP?

Robert Kilroy Silk did not call all arabs suicide bombers, if you can find a quote with him saying all arabs are suicide bombers then I would dearly love to see it. Infact what he did say was this, which certainly isn't racist; "We're told that the Arabs loathe us. Really? For liberating the Iraqis? For subsidising the lifestyles of people in Egypt and Jordan, to name but two, for giving them vast amounts of aid? For providing them with science, medicine, technology and all the other benefits of the West? They should go down on their knees and thank God for the munificence of the United States. What do they think we feel about them? That we adore them for the way they murdered more than 3,000 civilians on 11 September 2001 and then danced in the hot, dusty streets to celebrate the murders? That we admire them for the cold-blooded killings in Mombasa, Yemen and elsewhere? That we admire them for being suicide bombers, limb-amputators, women repressors?'" - I managed to get an A in English GCSE, and as far as I can see, he does not say "all arabs" there, which again, shows you are making it up as you go along.

I'm afraid you did say I use sources such as the Daily Mail/Telegraph in my debate and that I, to quote "Well seeing as you link relentlessly to the telegraph and moreso to the daily fail" - so as you have now surely realised, what you said was not true and that I do not link relentlessly to the Daily Mail/Telegraph.

At the end of the day I can read from Sky News, the Daily Mail or the Daily Telegraph about any issues, such as how the European Union and this Labour government refuses to give the people of this country a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty which it promised to do so, but i'll still believe the same, that this country was promised a referendum and it is being refused one because the government knows it will lose.

In these discussions, I always call for people to not use links to different sources, because eventually it turns into people posting me socialist/communist/guardian sources, which I could easily just post back Mail/Telegraphy or UKIP articles, but I don't; because I don't need the aid of the newspapers or political websites to form my own opinion.

The Daily Mail/Telegraph are popular because people agree with them, the European Union is unpopular because people don't agree with it - simple as that, theres no brainwashing by the newspapers or Rupert Murdoch with sinister business interests, you dont buy a house you dont like in the hope that it will grow on you, just like you dont buy a newspaper you dont agree with.

[alexxxxx]

..you stated I linked to the Mail/Telegraph to use in debates, I never ever link to them when debating an issue, I only use them as a news source/a starter, so again, caught out.

Did I ever say you used them as a source in a debate? No. Read what I wrote.

The European Union is linked to the issue as we have open borders apparentley, anyway thats what you seem to tell us is one of the benefits of the European Union; we cannot control who comes here to work/not work from the EU, all three main parties have accepted this sadly.

We don't have open borders. There is an enforced border between us and mainland Europe, there is not one with Ireland. But Ireland only has open borders with us. You obviously don't understand what an open or enforced border is.

You seem to think that the tories cutting down on the unions and their power was a bad thing, the way you worded it, so yes if you are critical of the Thatcher government then you do want to go back to those days which is a very sad outlook isn't it?.

Unions are not a bad thing per se, as they have achieved many important things in the fields of worker safety, fair pay and others. I've never said I want to go back to the days where strikes are everywhere. If I wanted to do that, I'd go to France, where even my Work Experience was cut short due to a strike.

UKIP can't be racist itself, its a party not a person, just like the BNP can't be racist, it cant think for itself - its an organisation. Infact here, in your exact words; "UKIP - Useless closet racists." - so I will ask yet again, what is racist about UKIP?

No, a party can be racist. The BNP is racist, in what it posts on it's website, I find particularly offensive, it's general direction. UKIP is not racist in what it says, nor is any of it's policies, however, a member can be a racist. I've never said that UKIP were racist.

Robert Kilroy Silk did not call all arabs suicide bombers, if you can find a quote with him saying all arabs are suicide bombers then I would dearly love to see it. Infact what he did say was this, which certainly isn't racist; "We're told that the Arabs loathe us. Really? For liberating the Iraqis? For subsidising the lifestyles of people in Egypt and Jordan, to name but two, for giving them vast amounts of aid? For providing them with science, medicine, technology and all the other benefits of the West? They should go down on their knees and thank God for the munificence of the United States. What do they think we feel about them? That we adore them for the way they murdered more than 3,000 civilians on 11 September 2001 and then danced in the hot, dusty streets to celebrate the murders? That we admire them for the cold-blooded killings in Mombasa, Yemen and elsewhere? That we admire them for being suicide bombers, limb-amputators, women repressors?'" - I managed to get an A in English GCSE, and as far as I can see, he does not say "all arabs" there, which again, shows you are making it up as you go along.

I still find what he wrote was unacceptable and racist. It's a generalisation.

I'm afraid you did say I use sources such as the Daily Mail/Telegraph in my debate and that I, to quote "Well seeing as you link relentlessly to the telegraph and moreso to the daily fail" - so as you have now surely realised, what you said was not true and that I do not link relentlessly to the Daily Mail/Telegraph.

That quote does not infer what you say it does. I've never said you use your links to back up your debates, in fact i've stated that you never do.

At the end of the day I can read from Sky News, the Daily Mail or the Daily Telegraph about any issues, such as how the European Union and this Labour government refuses to give the people of this country a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty which it promised to do so, but i'll still believe the same, that this country was promised a referendum and it is being refused one because the government knows it will lose.

Irrelevant drivel.

In these discussions, I always call for people to not use links to different sources, because eventually it turns into people posting me socialist/communist/guardian sources, which I could easily just post back Mail/Telegraphy or UKIP articles, but I don't; because I don't need the aid of the newspapers or political websites to form my own opinion.

The Daily Mail/Telegraph are popular because people agree with them, the European Union is unpopular because people don't agree with it - simple as that, theres no brainwashing by the newspapers or Rupert Murdoch with sinister business interests, you dont buy a house you dont like in the hope that it will grow on you, just like you dont buy a newspaper you dont agree with.

What's this to do with the debate? You've driven off the fact that what you originally posted already happens, I've destroyed you over your accusation that the Guardian Newspaper carries adverts for non-jobs provided by the labour party, so it stays in business when the same thing happens at the Telegraph as the recruitment firm (or department) advertise in more than paper. You've been very quiet about that.

You can't accept that your closed mindedness, which is evident in your posts and link, has somehow hazed your view on reality, nor are you willing to engage in a debate that has to stay on topic and you have to push some rubbish right-wing agenda completely irrelevant to the original post. When faced with the facts, which contradict you inhibitions, you ignore, call it false, propaganda or all lies or come back with something stupidly irrelevant to take the original point away. I am as guilty as you in carrying on with these debates but that's because I'm intrigued in what you think about the world and to see a classic example of an outraged reader of particular right wing drivel. You're incredibly predictable. Almost everything you say comes down to the same point, with any sort of answer ignored. There are people like you up and down the land engineered by the press to become more and more outraged and less and less out of touch with reality so they can sell more and more. Each exclusive scandal written from half truths or story written on fabricated facts to get you all worked up and made to hate a particular group of people. You're a stereotype. A sad stereotype.

I truly don't care what you say about me, because I know I'm more capable of you in holding a decent debate. I hope what I said brought upon you some home truths and you can see how you can be seen this way.

[Black_Apalachi]

I was reading this debate in detail but the posts are getting way too long to bother now .

The immigration problem with the UK and France is interesting, you have to consider the ideas between the two countries. If we were France, we wouldn't want people in our country trying to go to another country who is denying them access. No-one will :/ I can see if and why France may not like immigrants heading towards us, and you can understand why we don't want immigrants here (well, some do some don't ) There's no way to actually solve this problem :/

Anyway, to the point at hand... Having immigrants as soldiers is interesting... Because that would make them fear immigrating and would not necessarily cruel. Then again, that's assuming ALL immigrants are evil and useless...

Yeah but I still say it's France's problem. Maybe they should sort it out at the other end of the country where the immigrants are actually coming in. If they did what we are doing then the problem would be Italy's problem or whichever countries they're coming through.

As for using 'Immigrants should serve' as an empty threat to scare them away; that would be a good idea until it came to those who still decided to come over. In reality such a system would never be put into practice for various reasons.

[VirtualG]

No, just because they want to come to another country to improve their lives doesn't mean they should serve in the British army.

Plus, if any of these countries are similar to Turkey, you get forced to do the army for 2 years anyway. Training etc. My brother in law had to leave London to do it for 2 years a few years back. It's really stupid.

Why did you highlight British? Ok, one country I can think of off the top of my head like Turkey was Ukraine, and during World Wars, UK, Australia, New Zealand, America, etc...

Most people emmigrate to take advantage of wherever they're moving to, there wouldn't be much point in emmigrating otherwise. I think immigration should be controlled but your idea is impractical. As for "white country", Australia is founded on immigration, it's where we sent out convicts. The indigenous people are aborigines who, by nationalist logic, should be in control of the country. The same goes for native Americans in the USA.

Thats not immigration, as such, it was empire building...

if we didn't open our arms in world war 2, what would've happened to the immigrants? oh that's right, been killed.

NSS, But thats very different cercumstances.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Did I ever say you used them as a source in a debate? No. Read what I wrote.


We don't have open borders. There is an enforced border between us and mainland Europe, there is not one with Ireland. But Ireland only has open borders with us. You obviously don't understand what an open or enforced border is.


Unions are not a bad thing per se, as they have achieved many important things in the fields of worker safety, fair pay and others. I've never said I want to go back to the days where strikes are everywhere. If I wanted to do that, I'd go to France, where even my Work Experience was cut short due to a strike.

No, a party can be racist. The BNP is racist, in what it posts on it's website, I find particularly offensive, it's general direction. UKIP is not racist in what it says, nor is any of it's policies, however, a member can be a racist. I've never said that UKIP were racist.

I still find what he wrote was unacceptable and racist. It's a generalisation.

That quote does not infer what you say it does. I've never said you use your links to back up your debates, in fact i've stated that you never do.


Irrelevant drivel.

What's this to do with the debate? You've driven off the fact that what you originally posted already happens, I've destroyed you over your accusation that the Guardian Newspaper carries adverts for non-jobs provided by the labour party, so it stays in business when the same thing happens at the Telegraph as the recruitment firm (or department) advertise in more than paper. You've been very quiet about that.

You can't accept that your closed mindedness, which is evident in your posts and link, has somehow hazed your view on reality, nor are you willing to engage in a debate that has to stay on topic and you have to push some rubbish right-wing agenda completely irrelevant to the original post. When faced with the facts, which contradict you inhibitions, you ignore, call it false, propaganda or all lies or come back with something stupidly irrelevant to take the original point away. I am as guilty as you in carrying on with these debates but that's because I'm intrigued in what you think about the world and to see a classic example of an outraged reader of particular right wing drivel. You're incredibly predictable. Almost everything you say comes down to the same point, with any sort of answer ignored. There are people like you up and down the land engineered by the press to become more and more outraged and less and less out of touch with reality so they can sell more and more. Each exclusive scandal written from half truths or story written on fabricated facts to get you all worked up and made to hate a particular group of people. You're a stereotype. A sad stereotype.

I truly don't care what you say about me, because I know I'm more capable of you in holding a decent debate. I hope what I said brought upon you some home truths and you can see how you can be seen this way.

You have just defeated your own argument, I just said and gave an example of how the European Union forcing the Republic of Ireland to vote again on the Lisbon Treaty is against my beliefs, whether reported on Sky News, BBC News, CNN or the Daily Mail - it doesn't matter, I can still see that is wrong and its the same with any issue, yet you time after time continue to blame the Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph and other best-selling right wing newspapers for everyone being against the European Union - perhaps once, just once, you could accept people don't agree with the European Union and do not want the police state Labour are forcing on this country.

You can read the Guardian and continue to wish for your European superstate which I know you cannot wait for; or you can accept that people do not want a centralised federal superstate ruling us, just as Europe did not want the Third Reich or the Soviet Union ruling them.

I will say again, if anyone disagrees with Labour, the Guardian, European Union or the left in general, they are either crazy right wingers, homophobes, xenophobes or racist, or all of them. You did say UKIP was racist and i'll quote it yet again, "UKIP - Useless closet racists." - because a party doesn't agree with full scale, uncontrolled immigration they are racist? - what a sad sterotypical, politically correct sterotype you are then, who would be perfectly suited to a job similar to those advertised in the Guardian, earning 30k+ a year of taxpayer money doing a useless non-job which benefits no one.

The issue over borders, I thought the whole point on being in the European Union was for economic reasons, and having polish migrants etc doing work in this country?, or does that not exist anymore because that does not suit your side anymore?.

You have basically admitted you made it up about Robert Kilroy Silk then, you call him a outright racist and claimed he said all arabs are suicide bombers, now you call it a generalisation when I actually look into it and find out the truth, that you have twisted what he said to make him look racist, when in fact he never said anything remotely racist.

You say its irrelevant drivel, well I have just proven that my opinions remain the same regardless of what news source posts it, so therefore you are basically covering your ears and refusing to accept that, and continue to bash on about how i'm under the thumb on the Daily Mail. The Guardian issue, the Guardian is subsidised by the government as proven by the number of government jobs advertised in there, and even so if the Telegraph is also being advertised in, how does a paper such as the Guardian manage to earn so much from advertisements yet is a little bought paper. It is like advertising in something very few people read, its a waste of time - but not if that money is subsidising the Guardian, which is it.

[GommeInc]

Yeah but I still say it's France's problem. Maybe they should sort it out at the other end of the country where the immigrants are actually coming in. If they did what we are doing then the problem would be Italy's problem or whichever countries they're coming through.

As for using 'Immigrants should serve' as an empty threat to scare them away; that would be a good idea until it came to those who still decided to come over. In reality such a system would never be put into practice for various reasons.

Indeed, but France can't really control all their borders and it does make you wonder why countries next to France can't just stop them entering, or the ones neighbouring the original country. Money is an issue, and as we have seen with the current economic climate, countries love money too much to go a flaunt it all on things like immigration, even though it would cost far too much and solve very little (unless they brought in tazers, which would be totally inethical).

Do you get the feeling we're sitting in the corner just talking amoungst ourselves?

Also, UKIP aren't racist - that's to those who keep saying that. They hated Robert Kilroysilk (or whatever his name was) and couldn't wait to see the back of him. They believe in letting immigrants in who will help, a dream difficult to achieve.

I still find what he wrote was unacceptable and racist. It's a generalisation.

It's common practice to generalise to put out a point, otherwise you'd have to consider each factor when the initial target that some Arab nationals did dance in the street and hail the fact loads of innocent people died. To save yourself from writing out a lecture to stop yourself from generalisation, you just don't say all. It's like saying Cadbury's chocolate is terrible, by saying "Cadbury's chocolate is horrible" when the caramel, fruit and nut and so forth could all be fine (not the best example, but there's a point in there somewhere ).