I believe the current popular term for them is "Gammon"

As I've stated several times above, the numbers and costs involved for asylum seekers is so small, the issue is pretty irrelevant, wherever they come from/through and how they get here. Plus or minus a few if we leave the Dublin agreement is neither here nor there.

The whole issue is like arguing because a packet of rice you bought contains one less grain of rice than the previous packet you bought!

 

Only if immigration...UNCONTROLLED immigration, has no effect on you.

If you were starving, or your family was, one grain of rice in each packet WOULD be important.

To say otherwise is the height of arrogance and selfishness.

And asylum seekers? really?
Nope, economic migrants, 99.9999% of 'em.

 

Only if the packet contained 3 grains of rice! Dear god, think about what you're writing.

Can you provide any proof? Are you saying the governments screening for genuine asylum seekers is not good enough? Have you read the requirements of what they need to provide? Have you got figures for how many get refused?

Or as usual is it rhetoric?

 

Irony; didn't he emigrate to France and then return to the UK as an NHS tourist?

Awaits vitriolic reply

 

 

Wrong, as usual. What a wnaker.

 

Ah, Mr Fukcwit. No insults this time?

Three grains, a bag, what IS the difference? If we are to be cheated does it matter if we are cheated big, or little?

And AGAIN I ask, how can WE give asylum to anyone entering from france, belgium, Ireland? Because that's what you are wanting.

They ARE NOT asylum seekers, since they cannot legally claim asylum here. They are economic migrants and we don't either need, or want them here.


And before anyone says it, no, they aren't refugees either: check out the number of young males, compared to the old, infirm,and children? And where's all their females? Waiting to be sent for once they are in...

 

That's why I used the question mark you miserable old sod.

 

I haven't insulted you for months, yet you immediately come back with Mr ****wit, speaks volumes. But whatever, you're still wrong.

Try reading what people post, and try some research, you are so wrong about how this works it beggars belief. Actually, with you it doesn't. All you do is spout your bile without any backup. You are the flat earther of Brexit beliefs.

Actually, I want them here, it annoys you

 

 

So in your world, what happens to the economic migrants who come here?

Either they are legal, have been given a working visa before traveling and didn't arrive on a boat, so are off topic for this discussion. Otherwise they are illegal and therefore cannot claim any benefits so also somewhat off topic here. The illegals who are caught can either be sent straight home or can claim asylum (therefore become an asylum seeker rather than economic migrant) and no doubt will be refused asylum and sent home.

As I have said above and you either didn't read our just chose to ignore, British people on benefits don't get less because money is being diverted to asylum seekers, they get less money because the government policy is to give them less money and is independant from immigration. The burden for asylum seekers on the tax payer is so small that it's irrelevant, hence the single grain in a bag of rice analagy, you're just not going to notice if there is one grain more or less!

 

Right wing no-hopers !

 

Question, to all you bleeding heart liberals:

Do we NEED the level of immigration we have, when we patently cannot afford to look after those in need FROM the UK?

And if we don't need 'em, why in the name of all that's right, do you lot want them flooding in?

I'd bet my pension that no-one who pleads for them to be allowed to come/stay has had ANY negative interactions?

I wish you all interesting lives....LOL

 

You could afford them simply by increasing taxes. We look after everyone here and I pay 52% tax. Problem with people like you is that you don't want to pay increased taxes and then complain when the government have no money.

 

I paid taxes all my life. I still do, as do both my sons. I even pay tax on my meagre state pension, which they class as a benefit, so depriving me of carer's allowance. I'm now a full-time carer for nowt. So don't get all holier-than-thou about paying taxes. My poor wife paid huge sums too.

Trouble with people like you is that you've not yet had any negatives from the huge influx of Eastern europeans and others.

You will. Then, you'll be talking out of the other one of your faces.

You lot remind me of the loathsome celebs who exhort the rank and file to give towards charities, while sitting on eye-watering fortunes, and even EARNING from said charities. It's not affecting you, so the rest don't matter......

 

If it's a course of action dictated by a logical, reasoned analysis of the facts, you can bet your bottom-dollar he won't agree with it, because to do that, he'd have to understand it first.

 

i live in Holland and we have far more immigrants per capita so stop talking sh1te.

tax structure here is 36%, 38% and 52% so i will talk about taxes as much as I please. We get better benefits here because we give the government more of our money. No one complains because it enables the government to give us a higher standard of services.

in a nutshell, you talk ****. You dispicable racist old man.

 

NHS alone has a staffing crisis - 40,000 nurses needed for a start. Plenty of industries are having severe problems recruiting suitably experienced and qualified staff. This country can obviously afford to look after those in need, this government simply chooses not to.

They're not flooding in. Immigration, emigration, and general movement of labour throughout the world has been a fact of life for centuries. It's a subject that has been used time and time again to divert attention from the real causes of people's discontent. And a certain number of people fall for it every time.

 

Yes as they provide a huge pool of resource that the UK depserately needs, and their demographic means they are required to fund old duffers like you.

See above

I've had plenty of negative interactions with the indigenous population, can you tell me where I can send them please? Actually, we can send some to your gaffe in France as you won't be needing it anymore.......

I have nothing but good interactions with immigrants, they all work very hard. I'm sure there are some who are less than great, but again, see above.

 

Are you talking about general immigration or asylum seekers? This thread is about the asylum seekers and the rant from Hopkins, not about general immigration!

As I keep telling you, the number of asylum seekers is so low that is makes no difference! Its not that I want them, but the numbers are so small, I don't really see it as in important issue and in general I'm all for providing a safe home to someone who may otherwise be killed if they stayed in their country of origin.

As for the general, legal immigration, then they have no impact on being able to afford to look after those in need from the UK, on the contrary, they have been proven to pay more tax than they ever claim in benefits and have a greater net contribution to the tax/welfare system than British people do as the majority leave when they get older - particularly EU immigrants! As has been said many times on the Brexit thread, yet you still fail to grasp, the number of migrants coming to the UK is driven primarily by the economic need to fill jobs, so yes we do need the current level of immigration.

As above, for asylum seekers the numbers are so low, I don't really care if they come or not!
For legal migrants coming to work, if there is an economic need for migrants, then I'm OK with it, but would much rather prioritise EU migrants with similar cultures to our own than non-EU migrants with vastly different cultures - unfortunately Brexit will have the effect of replacing the EU migrants with "less desirable" non EU migrants.

 

Marky, old girl: tell us how many degrees you have?

 

I won't be needing it?
what are you on about Fukcwit scum?

 

I've got seventeen of the things. You prove I haven't!

 

So that'll be none then?

 

No, I have at least seventeen, and you can't prove I haven't!

Liar, denier, pants on fire, etc