Is lslam fuelling the right wings debate on immigration?

Original post by Errm6

I suggest you read it back over...

I have and it's still not what I suggested at all

I'd argue with you sloppy but expect you to be banned again some time soon

Reply 42

Errm6

1

Original post by BaconandSauce

I have and it's still not what I suggested at all

I'd argue with you sloppy but expect you to be banned again some time soon

That wouldn't stop one from creating a new account, though, would it?

I see there to be no valid reason why feel incompetent enough to hold a discussion, on what is perhaps, your only knowledgeable* subject.

*I use the term "knowledgeable", very loosely...

Reply 43

scrotgrot

16

The right wing are perfectly capable of fuelling it themselves. They're fanatical enough.

Now, about all these dead disabled people...

Reply 44

Original post by Errm6

That wouldn't stop one from creating a new account, though, would it?

I see there to be no valid reason why feel incompetent enough to hold a discussion, on what is perhaps, your only knowledgeable* subject.

*I use the term "knowledgeable", very loosely...

And that one will be banned as well

Perhaps you should ask yourself why this is and reflect on your own issues for a while

and FYI a discussion involves the exchanging of ideas something you are unwilling to do (no matter what user name you pick)

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 45

Errm6

1

Original post by BaconandSauce

And that one will be banned as well

Perhaps you should ask yourself why this is and reflect on your own issues for a while

and FYI a discussion involves the exchanging of ideas something you are unwilling to do (no matter what user name you pick)

But your point that a debate is futile because the person is banned does not stop you from responding. You have my assurance that I will respond to whatever arguments you fathom up....

Reply 46

Original post by Errm6

But your point that a debate is futile because the person is banned does not stop you from responding. You have my assurance that I will respond to whatever arguments you fathom up....

It means you're not worth my time. You are not a constructive member of TSR (your repeated banns show us this) you are simply a troll who add nothing to the forum.

and you do not exchange ideas you simply attack people for theirs.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 47

mariachi

18

Original post by Good bloke

You don't need readmission treaties, as the people always have the right to travel to their native land

you need a readmission treaty. Let's say ;

undocumented immigrant arrives. Says he's from Syria, and claims asylum. You hire interpreter (who knows Syrian dialects), you interrogate him. He doesn't come from Syria. You try to find out where he comes from. Hire other interpreters. Interrogate him. He still claims he's from Syria

If you're lucky, you eventually find out where he comes from. He's from Morocco.
You contact Moroccans, tell them we are repatriating a Moroccan citizen.

Moroccans answer : how so ? prove he's Moroccan. Until you do so, keep him.

If you don't have a readmission treaty, Moroccans are not obliged to accept your findings.

So, how do you repatriate your Moroccan ? send the Army and disembark him by force ? if not, what do you do with your Syrian/Moroccan ?

Reply 48

Errm6

1

Original post by BaconandSauce

It means your not worth my time. You are not a constructive member of TSR (your repeated banns show us this) you are simply a troll who add nothing to the forum.

and you do not exchange ideas you simply attack people for theirs.

Surely your ideas stand up to scrutiny?

If not, why do you continue to persist with them?

Reply 49

Original post by BaconandSauce

Yes they should be UK qualified as the UK is not France or the USA.

I think this is just madness - it also goes against our international treaty obligations. You've now also switched from UK "trained" to "qualified". Sure equivalent qualification is acceptable?

Nothing wrong with saying services should be in the language of a persons country now is there. If we had the same issue with the French or Polish Churches then yes I would

So, the French ambassador giving a speech at a French or bilingual school in the UK should speak in English, and all teaching should be in English?

No just muslim ones give the issue we have with the sources of money coming from intolerant countries preaching an intolerant form of Islam. Any other groups having the same issues should be treated accordingly

There's no intolerance in other religions?

I have no issue with arbitration but it must comply with the UK laws

If it's arbitration it doesn't need a religious element. The core of sharia law discriminates against women, and sharia courts should not be allowed in this country.

Yes if you are out preaching this then you can't complain when you are refused access to them or legislation based on them.

Ok, restrict my human rights, I say that Islam is incompatible with Human Rights legislation.

I've always said if you want to reduce muslim prisoners simply tell muslims we will start to implement the hudud punishments for criminality.

Doesn't work as a deterrent in islamic states (as capital punishment is not a deterrent in the USA), so no reason to believe it would work here.

for comparable issues yes I'd have no issues at all

So, when are you starting your campaign for censorship of the bible?

No not really arbitration is acceptable win the UK and I don't care what they call themselves as long as they are making judgments in accordance with existing UK law.

Yes, really, because I mentioned elements other than arbitration.

Reply 50

Original post by BaconandSauce

and that's the issue

claim asylum in Germany get citizenship and then move straight to the UK

They have to gain citizenship, and be economically active (ie "workers") for this to happen. Otherwise the government is not applying the rules. (though the current government doesn't seem to know its arse from its elbow on this front)

Reply 51

Original post by typonaut

They have to gain citizenship, and be economically active (ie "workers" :wink:

for this to happen. Otherwise the government is not applying the rules. (though the current government doesn't seem to know its arse from its elbow on this front)

They need citizenship

the idea that 10000 -20000 odd Somalians who moved from the Netherlands to the UK are all 'workers' doesn't ring true

From the same link I posted earlier

Somali-born migrants have the lowest employment rate among all immigrants in the UK.^[99] Figures published by the Office for National Statistics show high rates of economic inactivity and unemployment amongst Somali immigrants. In the three months to June 2008, 31.4 per cent of Somali men and 84.2 per cent of Somali women were economically inactive (the statistics include students, carers and the long-term sick, injured or disabled in this group).^[100]^[101] Of those who were economically active, 41.4 per cent of the men and 39.1 per cent of the women were unemployed.

But I'll agree with you on the last part :biggrin:

Reply 52

Original post by typonaut

I think this is just madness - it also goes against our international treaty obligations.

what international treaty obligations would we be breading by saying the language used in mosques in the UK should be the language of this country?

Do mosques in say Pakistan break international treaties by having sermons in Pakistani?

So, the French ambassador giving a speech at a French or bilingual school in the UK should speak in English, and all teaching should be in English?

this is about using the language of the country in places of worship in this country

There's no intolerance in other religions?

OK I'll stop here as you clearly aren't reading my posts as I clearly stated '
Any other groups having the same issues should be treated accordingly'

Reply 53

Original post by BaconandSauce

They need citizenship

the idea that 10000 -20000 odd Somalians who moved from the Netherlands to the UK are all 'workers' doesn't ring true

They don't all need to be workers, but there has to be at least one worker in the family. All I'm pointing out here, and I think you accept, is that the EU regulations are for free movement of workers, not free movement of people. If something else is happening then the government is not applying the rules properly.

Reply 54

Original post by typonaut

They don't all need to be workers, but there has to be at least one worker in the family. All I'm pointing out here, and I think you accept, is that the EU regulations are for free movement of workers, not free movement of people. If something else is happening then the government is not applying the rules properly.

Simply not true

all you need is a business 'Idea'

Just look at the stats with regard to those coming to work in the UK but as self employed (hint for one country it's 6 out of 10)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10652199/Six-out-of-10-Romanian-and-Bulgarian-immigrants-claimed-self-employed-status.html

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 55

Original post by BaconandSauce

what international treaty obligations would we be breading by saying the language used in mosques in the UK should be the language of this country?

Free movement of workers within the EU, equivalent qualification regulations. You wrote that people would have to be trained in the UK, this breaks the obligations I have stated.

Do mosques in say Pakistan break international treaties by having sermons in Pakistani?

Go and live in Pakistan and find out. Imposing this in the UK breaks the right to freedom of religion.

this is about using the language of the country in places of worship in this country

This won't work - how do you define a place of worship, you already wrote about people preaching in the street. What if they are not "preaching", but just giving their political views?

OK I'll stop here as you clearly aren't reading my posts as I clearly stated '
Any other groups having the same issues should be treated accordingly'

So, religious groups that support the death penalty in the USA, for example, should be banned from supporting other religious groups in the UK?

Reply 56

Original post by tebr

Posted from TSR Mobile

Get your facts right. USA attacked Iraq in the early 1990s.

So you wouldn't have had an issue if Iraq had invaded Saudi Arabia? or the occupation of Kuwait?

Reply 57

Original post by BaconandSauce

Simply not true

all you need is a business 'Idea'

Just look at the stats with regard to those coming to work in the UK but as self employed (hint for one country it's 6 out of 10)

I never wrote "employed", I wrote "worker"/"workers" - the self-employed are economically active. But, the self-employed usually cannot receive benefits. The EU freedom of movement is for "workers", not "people".

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=457

Reply 58