After latest immigration stats should the UK consider deporting immigrants?

Watch this thread
Poll: After record immigration levels should the UK consider deporting immigrants?
Yes (17)
36.96%
No (29)
63.04%
Ace123
Badges: 2
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
After immigration levels hitting the highest ever in history should the UK consider deportation to ease the pressure on the NHS,jobs, schools,housing etc

Gross immigration hit 636,000 in 1 year
Net immigration hit 330,000 in 1 year
8.2 million immigrants are now in the UK

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...t-record-level
0
reply
Moonstruck16
Badges: 5
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
Popcorn ready

Posted from TSR Mobile
2
reply
amigafan2003
Badges: 3
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
At a meeting on Friday in York, Yorkshire, native British leaders weighed a handful of proposals about the future of the UK’s large, illegal mainland European Saxon, Norman and Viking population. After a long debate, they decided to extend a road to citizenship for those without criminal records or contagious diseases.“We will give Saxons, Normans and Vikings the option to apply for Native Citizenship,” explained John Seas of the British Native Council. “To obtain legal status, each applicant must write a heartfelt apology for their ancestors’ crimes, pay an application fee of £5,000, and, if currently on any ancestral Native land, they must relinquish that land to the British Native Council or pay the market price, which we decide."

“Any illegal Saxon, Norman or Viking who has a criminal record of any sort, minus traffic and parking tickets, will be deported back to their native land. Anybody with contagious diseases like HIV, smallpox, herpes, etc, will not qualify and will also be deported.”Saxon, Norman and Viking colonization of the British Isles began in the 4th century and continued into the 11th century, when arrivals from France (then Frankia), Norway and Denmark first established settlements on land that had been occupied by native peoples.Despite the large number of Saxons, Normans and Vikings residing in the United Kingdom, historical scholars mostly agree that indigenous lands were taken illegally through war, genocide and forced displacement.Despite the council’s decision, a native group called UKIP lambasted the move, claiming amnesty will only serve to reward lawbreakers.“They all need to be deported back to mainland Europe,” Fred Long from UKIP said. “They came here illegally and took a giant **** on our land. They took our jobs, overstreched our healthcare system and stole everything we have because they were too lazy to improve and develop their own countries.”Scholars have pointed out the schemes folly though, in that it would only leave around 60,000 residents in Britain, and would cripple the nations finances.
3
reply
niceguy95
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
Deporting millions of people ain't gonna happen any time soon buddy lol
1
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
Well I'll be the evil ******* that says we need to halt asylum seekers- who are not our responsibility (inb4 colonialism, Iraq etc - these are all from places the west hasn't intervened: just maybe it's because they come from degenerate, inferior cultures that enjoy killing gays and stoning women along with other culturally diverse practices)

Maybe if they stayed in their countries it would lead to a growing support for change in their home countries? Turkey and Tunisia are showing signs of progress.

In the meantime they are giving immigration, particularly EU immigration who are a net benefit and far less likely to settle (as well as the free trade and free movement to Europe which is vital to so much of our business).

I am not some petty racist: Indian, East Asian, European of every hue and southern Africans have integrated well within British culture too. Many, many British Muslims have obviously integrated well too- however I do believe that the faith of Islam is simply not at a point in which it is compatible with Liberal Democracy until it is broadly as irrelevant as Catholicism and Protestantism are today.
0
reply
Mister Morality
Badges: 2
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
Voluntary repatriation could be a thing. It would also be used as a stick to beat liberals, because immigrants and non-whites who lived here for several generations can't be said to be oppressed by us: we're giving them an option out. If they decide to stay, they are doing so by choice and should abide by our own laws and customs, instead of the multikult nonsense that divides communities.

At the same time, we don't need any more migrants who are unwilling to become truly British. No more Muslims or Jews and you must have a respect for our values instead of attempting to subvert them.
1
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
While we should certainly prevent any further asylum and spousal immigration and non-EU immigration from poor nations, i think that deporting people is too extreme.

We may encourage people to leave by prohibiting the building of new mosques, banning the burka and taking a much harder line to those sympathetic to terrorism though. This could be done for most oppressive religions (i'm fine with Jews, Buddhists and Christians).
2
reply
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by Davij038)
Well I'll be the evil ******* that says we need to halt asylum seekers- who are not our responsibility (inb4 colonialism, Iraq etc - these are all from places the west hasn't intervened: just maybe it's because they come from degenerate, inferior cultures that enjoy killing gays and stoning women along with other culturally diverse practices)

Maybe if they stayed in their countries it would lead to a growing support for change in their home countries? Turkey and Tunisia are showing signs of progress.

In the meantime they are giving immigration, particularly EU immigration who are a net benefit and far less likely to settle (as well as the free trade and free movement to Europe which is vital to so much of our business).

I am not some petty racist: Indian, East Asian, European of every hue and southern Africans have integrated well within British culture too. Many, many British Muslims have obviously integrated well too- however I do believe that the faith of Islam is simply not at a point in which it is compatible with Liberal Democracy until it is broadly as irrelevant as Catholicism and Protestantism are today.
Yeah how selfish are these people escaping persecution and war in their own countries. How selfish of them not to stay in their war zone.

In the 1930s and 40s country after country turned away Jewish refugees desparately seeking a safe haven from the Nazis. Everyone adopting a 'it's not our problem approach ' Look how well that turned out.

Some people never learn. Shame.
6
reply
The_Mighty_Bush
Badges: 3
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
I would certainly consider it for the Mohammedans.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by Bornblue)
Yeah how selfish are these people escaping persecution and war in their own countries. How selfish of them not to stay in their war zone.

In the 1930s and 40s country after country turned away Jewish refugees desparately seeking a safe haven from the Nazis. Everyone adopting a 'it's not our problem approach ' Look how well that turned out.

Some people never learn. Shame.
I never said xnything about them being selfish. But nice supposition anyway.

Besides- Jewish refugee were a small number in comparison and were also generally highly skilled and educated and coming fr Europe were already integrated into western culture.

Additionally this system is not sustainable- there are too many people fleeing poverty and oppression and there is already growing resentment from the native population about taking in such numbers and it only increases the chance of us turning the UK into somewhere that persecutes people and electing a far right state- taking in asylum seekers is a good thing but not at an unsustainable rate.
0
reply
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by Davij038)
I never said xnything about them being selfish. But nice supposition anyway.

Besides- Jewish refugee were a small number in comparison and were also generally highly skilled and educated and coming fr Europe were already integrated into western culture.

Additionally this system is not sustainable- there are too many people fleeing poverty and oppression and there is already growing resentment from the native population about taking in such numbers and it only increases the chance of us turning the UK into somewhere that persecutes people and electing a far right state- taking in asylum seekers is a good thing but not at an unsustainable rate.
The rate of Jews wasn't small - it was huge amounts - Moat countries rejected them. The daily mail wrote articles about the negative effects of the influx of Jewish refugees.
When someone is fleeing for their lives it should not matter whether they are 'high skilled'? Do you really lack that much compassion? To some people there are more important issues then 'can I gain financially from this' but that's capitalism for you- money above everything.
0
reply
breenm
Badges: 9
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
Eurgh immigrants are not the problem. Strained NHS, schools and local housing provision are due to lack of investment and privatisation. Immigration is a distraction from the real issues, like how thousands of people have died after being wrongly declared fit for work. Of course, the elite like to keep us distracted so we don't throw the tax-evading, corrupt scum out.
Asylum seekers should be welcomed. Would you send them 'home'? Then blood is on your hands.
If population size is a concern, most population growth is down to people having children, and so any legislation regarding population would have to use this, not immigration, as its main focus. You could end immigration into Britain entirely, but our population would still grow at an ecologically unsustainable pace, and the problems we have would persist.

And on deportation specifically - do you realise what deportation is? Deportation is ripping people away from their homes, their jobs, their current lives, and saying 'not our problem'. It is a completely inhumane way to deal with people who have done nothing wrong [except incur the wrath of a few closet racists], and are legally living in the UK.
1
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by Bornblue)
The rate of Jews wasn't small - it was huge amounts - Moat countries rejected them. The daily mail wrote articles about the negative effects of the influx of Jewish refugees.
In comparison to today the numbers were small. The daily mail supported hitter back in the day - so that's not surprising, there is a world of difference between accepting refugees from our continent and accepting refugees from the world over.

When someone is fleeing for their lives it should not matter whether they are 'high skilled'? Do you really lack that much compassion? To some people there are more important issues then 'can I gain financially from this' but that's capitalism for you- money above everything.
Heads over hearts I'm afraid: there're two points here;

One: there is obviously some cost involved and for wrong or right there is is the issue of democracy which although flawed in some aspects is key to how we function as a society: most people voted to oppose further immigration - as you know I strongly dislike ukip but they are nothing compared to the Likes of Golden Dawn- so I think in the longer term that it is irresponsible to allow further number s of people in.

The second point is that these people are genuine victims of the country of their origin and that even amongst the UKs poorest will be able to adequately support themselves- but what about the children that are subsequently brought up here? The evidence shows that most UK home grown terrorists have been brought up in such environments and have needed to Latch onto a particular identity (their religion) in order to work out why they are in such dire straits (ie council housing etc ) - the case seems to be that quite frequently it's all the fault of the Western world etc; Not only can this be seen in the rise of anti demotion but in the lesser heard sectarian violence beginning to emerge between minorities in minorities (notably gay, non practising, women and Shia Muslims) this is a growing problem and needs to be addressed before allowing more in.

And here's where capitalism comes in: refugees from India, Jews, EU migrants came here and became self sufficient and made something of themselves- they refused to be treated as victims and ingrained themselves into British culture- many fantastic British Muslims who have accepted British culture exist but I fear they are becoming a minority.
0
reply
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
Well **** that idea. That is all.
1
reply
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
What a load of bull.

(Original post by Davij038)
In comparison to today the numbers were small. The daily mail supported hitter back in the day - so that's not surprising, there is a world of difference between accepting refugees from our continent and accepting refugees from the world over.
No there isn't a 'world of difference'. People being persecuted and fleeing for their lives all deserve a safe place to go - the idea we should shun them because they're not from Europe is utterly absurd.

Heads over hearts I'm afraid: there're two points here;
That right wing phrase is quite hilarious - you see you don't mean 'heads over hearts', you mean 'wallets over basic human compassion'.


One: there is obviously some cost involved and for wrong or right there is is the issue of democracy which although flawed in some aspects is key to how we function as a society: most people voted to oppose further immigration - as you know I strongly dislike ukip but they are nothing compared to the Likes of Golden Dawn- so I think in the longer term that it is irresponsible to allow further number s of people in.
These are people fleeing for their lives to escape a war zone - they're not coming over here to be terrorists. They don't hang on to a boat for thousands of miles, risk drowning and then risk suffocating in a lorrry to come over here for no good reason - they're escaping a warzone and it is morally reprehensible not to let them in. It's equivalent to all those countries that turned Jewish refugees away who were seeking protection from the Nazis. But yeah, I guess I was unrealistic hoping for a tory to show a hint of compassion.

The second point is that these people are genuine victims of the country of their origin and that even amongst the UKs poorest will be able to adequately support themselves- but what about the children that are subsequently brought up here? The evidence shows that most UK home grown terrorists have been brought up in such environments and have needed to Latch onto a particular identity (their religion) in order to work out why they are in such dire straits (ie council housing etc ) - the case seems to be that quite frequently it's all the fault of the Western world etc; Not only can this be seen in the rise of anti demotion but in the lesser heard sectarian violence beginning to emerge between minorities in minorities (notably gay, non practising, women and Shia Muslims) this is a growing problem and needs to be addressed before allowing more in.
They're not all Muslims, far from it. And these people are esaping from a war zone with theit children - they're not terrorists. You've made a completley fallicous link,

And here's where capitalism comes in: refugees from India, Jews, EU migrants came here and became self sufficient and made something of themselves- they refused to be treated as victims and ingrained themselves into British culture- many fantastic British Muslims who have accepted British culture exist but I fear they are becoming a minority.
So you think fanatical muslims are a majority? Do you have even the slightest bit of data or evidence to back this up? No I thought not. You claim to hate the Daily Mail yet have just rolled off one of their favourite myths. Well played.

And you do realise not all or even most of these migrants are muslims?
But yeah capitalism - let's put our wallets ahead of basic human decency.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by Bornblue)
What a load of bull.


No there isn't a 'world of difference'. People being persecuted and fleeing for their lives all deserve a safe place to go - the idea we should shun them because they're not from Europe is utterly absurd.


That right wing phrase is quite hilarious - you see you don't mean 'heads over hearts', you mean 'wallets over basic human compassion'.




These are people fleeing for their lives to escape a war zone - they're not coming over here to be terrorists. They don't hang on to a boat for thousands of miles, risk drowning and then risk suffocating in a lorrry to come over here for no good reason - they're escaping a warzone and it is morally reprehensible not to let them in. It's equivalent to all those countries that turned Jewish refugees away who were seeking protection from the Nazis. But yeah, I guess I was unrealistic hoping for a tory to show a hint of compassion.



They're not all Muslims, far from it. And these people are esaping from a war zone with theit children - they're not terrorists. You've made a completley fallicous link,


So you think fanatical muslims are a majority? Do you have even the slightest bit of data or evidence to back this up? No I thought not. You claim to hate the Daily Mail yet have just rolled off one of their favourite myths. Well played.

And you do realise not all or even most of these migrants are muslims?
But yeah capitalism - let's put our wallets ahead of basic human decency.
I write I fear that liberal Muslims are becoming a minority. You can deduce from this that I think they are currently a majority. I had hoped with your exam results that this would be simple logic for you. Evidence? We have the second highest number of Isis recruits in the country for one.

You've also ignored completely the part where I say that the refugees aren't going to become terrorists but their children for reasons I outlined are very susceptible.

You also said that you think Safdam Houssain was a pretty cool guy: I don't think he was a cool guy: he was a genocidal tyrant.

Yes I know you didn't say that, I thought I'd try out your style of debating for a change.
0
reply
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by Davij038)
I write I fear that liberal Muslims are becoming a minority. You can deduce from this that I think they are currently a majority. I had hoped with your exam results that this would be simple logic for you. Evidence? We have the second highest number of Isis recruits in the country for one.

You've also ignored completely the part where I say that the refugees aren't going to become terrorists but their children for reasons I outlined are very susceptible.

You also said that you think Safdam Houssain was a pretty cool guy: I don't think he was a cool guy: he was a genocidal tyrant.

Yes I know you didn't say that, I thought I'd try out your style of debating for a change.
That's not evidence. What percent of muslims in the UK join Isis? Your fear is entirely misplaced.
No their children are escaping a war zone, no reason at all why they'd become terrorists.
0
reply
Mr JB
Badges: 2
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
What a daft idea. They should be allowed to stay. The reason the quality of life in the UK has dropped tenfold is because of the government splashing money up the wall, wasting it on vanity projects, allocating it to departments that really do not need to exist and protecting number one financially. Furthermore, they are more than happy to keep the country in debt, make the poorest 99%+ pay for it and let the richest get away with tax reliefs and subsidies at the expense of the poorest. It is all one big con. The system is gamed in favour of the elites and they know it. They love to play divide and conquer politics to turn natives against immigrants and immigrants against the natives because it keeps you distracted from blaming those really responsible, the elites. How about we let in loads of refugees and deport all the self serving politicians in Westminster? That would be a much better idea.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by Bornblue)
That's not evidence. What percent of muslims in the UK join Isis? Your fear is entirely misplaced.
No their children are escaping a war zone, no reason at all why they'd become terrorists.
A small but growing number- also reports of sectarian violence amongst Muslims as well as anti semitism is on the rise too.

The very young children as well as future offspring will have no memory of their hardships. If we could guarantee everyone of those refugees was infertile or gay then fine we could accept far more of them. we could of course discriminate purely against Muslims but that would be illegal though I think one country did that. But then that would stir up our own Muslim population quite reasonably.
0
reply
username987675
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
Let's not forget a lot of those 8.2 million people pay tax, some are even citizens. The reason there is strain on vital public services is because conservatives couldn't give a crap what happens to public services. If you want to relieve pressure on public services then why not try investing in them rather than sucking them dry...
2
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Psychology Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (273)
42.06%
The paper was reasonable (269)
41.45%
Not feeling great about that exam... (60)
9.24%
It was TERRIBLE (47)
7.24%

Watched Threads

View All