Labours contept for democracy.

[DragonofAna]

When news articles and reports don't count as facts, to you and you appear to get your worldview and threads from sites like Stormfront, is there really any point in anyone trying to talk to you? to engage in a debate there has to be some standards of truth and evidence that are shared between the two people.

 

You aren't interested in facts, just rhetoric and trying to stir things up. A nasty mean minded excuse for human being.

 

I have never visited stormfront. I have looked at the various manifestos. I base my judgment on those and not on some fabricated and unsubstantiated stories about what people claim. I could start up a site and choose what information I want to use and proclaim you the child of satan. It would not be true but I am sure I could find something to back me up somewhere

 

And you still have NOT answered any of my questions. What is wrong? No answers?

[Wildcat]

Your facts are all from a site called Iloveimmigrants. Back up your facts with statistics that can be checked rather than a site which just chooses what to give. Indeed there are citations of documents - and if I take a few words from any manifesto I can make just about anything I want and it would be accurately using words from those manifestos.

 

Each fact has a reference, check the facts out yourself and pick fault with them if you think they are misleading. It is false however to say that the argument I have put forward is not evidence based or that you are interested in facts when you discount those you are given:

 

Here are the references:

 

[1] The Government report The Economic Impact of Migration said recent migration has raised the GDP per head of non-migrants by 0.15 percent which is “not an insignificant amount”. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research found around 17 percent of growth between 2004 and 2005 was due to migration.

 

[2] The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Immigration, a Cross-Departmental Submission to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, October 2007.

 

[3] The Treasury found that between the end of 2001 and mid-2006 migration accounted for 15-20 percent of economic growth. This has been calculated at £6 billion during 2006.

 

[4]Rebecca Riley and Martin Weale, Commentary: immigration and its effects, published in National Institute Economic Review, October 2006.

 

[5] Gilpin et al (2006) The impact of free movement of workers from Central and Eastern Europe on the UK labour market commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions states: “…we have found no discernible statistical evidence to suggest that A8 migration his been a contributor to the rise in claimant unemployment in the UK. The Labour Statistics Report from August 2007 shows employment reached an almost all time high at the same time as inflows from EEA countries.

 

[6] The figure is from the most recent study of the kind, Paying their way: the fiscal contribution of Immigrants in the UK, published by IPPR in 2005 and referring to revenues for 2003-2004.

 

[7] Institute of Directors (IoD) report, December 2006 and the British Chamber of Commerce (BCC) survey of the same month. The IoD report showed migrant workers significantly outperformed existing workforce in terms of productivity, education and skills, reliability and sick leave.

 

[8] http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/workingintheuk/tier1/entrepreneur/

 

[9] Dustmann et all, 2007 commissioned by the Low Pay Commission examined the impact of migration for A8 European countries from 2005 to 2007. It found immigration added 1.5p to hourly pay for middle earners and 2.3p for higher earners. Wage impacts on lower paid workers was “very modest”.

 

[10] The Government Actuary’s Department (GAD) found with low migration we would need to pay 27.9 percent Class 1 National Insurance by 2060 but this will be 26.3 percent with higher migration.

 

[11] Royal Geographic Society with IBG, UK Migration Controversies: A Simple Guide, 2-21

 

[12] Government Actuary’s Department. cited in Home Office and DWP report, The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Immigration.

 

[13] Royal Geographic Society with IBG, UK Migration Controversies: A Simple Guide, 11

 

[14] Gott and Johnson, The Migrant Population in the UK: fiscal effects’, 2002

 

[15] Home Office report on data from 1999 to 2000 found migrants paid £2.5 billion more in tax than they used in services.

 

[16] Home Office and DWP report The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Immigration, paragraph 2.2.1

 

[17] UK Border Agency, Myth Buster.

 

[18] According to the Social Letting Tables, only 6.5 per cent of social lettings in 2007/8 and 6.8 per cent in 2008/9 were to households headed by a foreign national.

 

[19] Facts about Migration in the UK

 

[20] Royal Geographic Society with IBG, UK Migration Controversies: A Simple Guide, p9

 

[21] BBC Magazine, 18 December 2009: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8419026.stm

 

[22] Refugee Week, cited in Myth-Busting facts and figures about refugees and asylum seekers, National Assembly Against Racism, sponsored by Unison and others. The mini was designed by Alec Issigonis.

 

[23] Managing Migration Impacts

 

[24] Pat McFadden, minister for Business, Innovation and Skills quoted by Alan Johnson in a speech delivered on 10 February, 2010.

 

[25] Robert Winder, Bloody Foreigners, The Story of Immigration to Britain, Abacus 2004, 17 to 18

 

[26] BBC – Christianity – Religions: St. George

 

You have no explained how mass immigration is responsible for the creation of all these new jobs, or why - accepting the creation of new jobs by immigrants - unemployment is rising.

 

I listed a set of questions which you have continued to ignore whilst posting the same nonsense over and over. I am sure there is a site out there for IlovetheBNP and it will shed them in glorious light with lots of citations and snippets - but that does not make the site claims accurate.

 

How the hell can immigration have helped wages when businesses are setting on immigrants as low earners, and reducing jobs to part time.

 

I could go on but shall refrain from doing so. Your post is full of holes, and I am still undecided on who to vote for but continue to edge towards the BNP as the only party willing to do something about immigration and British jobs for British workers - amongst other things.

 

You mean the questions I answered here, and have repeatedly referred you to:

 

And I suppose I am just supposed to accept those claims without question and think the world is such a lovely place.

Questions

 

1) How can 100 000 illegal or otherwise immigrants create more jobs unless they all have the finances to set up their own businesses?

2) Would 100 000 immigrants not add to the burden of the national health system?

3) The claim is that immigrants are responsible for higher wages - explain.

4) Without comparrisons as to a Britain without these immigrants how can I know that these things would not have happened anyhow?

 

I could go on but if your resource is a site called "I love immigrants" then you can conjure up anything you want.

1) Workers create jobs by boosting the economy and creating demands for services, they do this regardless of their immigration status. It does not take an advanced understanding economics to know we don't have a fixed number of jobs available.

 

2) see above workers stimulate the economy by creating demands and those within the system pay taxes that fund the NHS. Furthermore immigrant workers tend to be of an age group that are net contributors to the NHS and services.

 

3) see above they stimulate the economy by increasing the demand in the domestic market.

 

4) by looking at the analysis in the reports and a basic understanding of economics

 

You will find more answers by clicking on the references to the statements made and looking at the methodology used in their analysis and their conclusions. That is the form evidence would take. What form were you expecting it to take?

 

As for the name of the website, so what? It is the sort of name you would expect to find on a website collecting information together to bust the myths about immigration.

 

It has simply collated the evidence together, look at the reports and criticise them if you think they don't look credible.

 

I could go on but shall refrain from doing so. Your post is full of holes, and I am still undecided on who to vote for but continue to edge towards the BNP as the only party willing to do something about immigration and British jobs for British workers - amongst other things.

 

It is easy to say a post is full of holes when you reject any evidence and pretend you have asked questions that haven't been answered.

 

A vote for the BNP would do nothing for british workers, except impoverish us culturally and economically.

[Wildcat]

They are not "facts" at all...just biased pro-immigration diatribe.

When news articles and reports don't count as facts, to you and you appear to get your worldview and threads from sites like Stormfront, is there really any point in anyone trying to talk to you? to engage in a debate there has to be some standards of truth and evidence that are shared between the two people.

 

You aren't interested in facts, just rhetoric and trying to stir things up. A nasty mean minded excuse for human being.

I have never visited stormfront. I have looked at the various manifestos. I base my judgment on those and not on some fabricated and unsubstantiated stories about what people claim. I could start up a site and choose what information I want to use and proclaim you the child of satan. It would not be true but I am sure I could find something to back me up somewhere

 

And you still have NOT answered any of my questions. What is wrong? No answers?

 

I have never said you have visited Stormfront It is GetItDone that gets his threads from there, like this one.

 

I have answered all your questions. You just keep ignoring them for whatever reason.

[Halibut]

The BNP want to put a stop to new immigrants. And so do most people.

 

They want to send black people 'home'.

 

From the constitution - ''preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples. It is therefore committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white make up of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948.''

 

By the way, what so you assume that they mean when they say they are 'wholly opposed' to any form of racial integration?

[Tony]

Restore by "legal changes" ?

 

Is that a couched term for introducing apartheid to the UK?

[Halibut]

Restore by "legal changes" ?

 

Is that a couched term for introducing apartheid to the UK?

 

They've already said they'll consider non-whites as less than full citizens have they not?

[Wildcat]

Civically British, last in the queue for any social provision.

[DragonofAna]

Wildcat - have you actually read the cited documents at all - I mean further than the title?

 

Let me point out one reference -

An inflow of 296000; outflow of 111000 which shows only a small inflow - until you read the bit that says 77000 of that 111000 return ( giving a total of how many actually leave?)

 

The projections and figures used are based on data from the International Passenger survey - not by the method of immigrants coming into the country who do not buy a ticket and travel first class on via the chunnel.

 

The IPS excludes most persons seeking asylim and some of the dependants of the above - thus omitting a large portion of immigrants.

 

The statements thereafter rely on if this happens and if that happens and assuming this and assuming that. Hardly reliable facts are they?

 

Let's assume and work on ifs and buts rather than on data that is accurate.

 

And that was just one of the sources mentioned on the site you sent me to.

 

I do not expect you to be able to give me absolute answers, and have no need of them. As I said - anyone can cook figures to suit.

 

I really do not care about the insults that keep getting worked over and over and over. I will make up my own mind based upon the statements I read as being what a party intentions are - based upon their manifesto. If that makes me sad or stupid well so be it. I would sooner be stupid and working on facts than gullible and joining in the people bashing some of the posters on SF enjoy so much.

[Halibut]

Wildcat - have you actually read the cited documents at all - I mean further than the title?

 

Let me point out one reference -

An inflow of 296000; outflow of 111000 which shows only a small inflow - until you read the bit that says 77000 of that 111000 return ( giving a total of how many actually leave?)

 

The projections and figures used are based on data from the International Passenger survey - not by the method of immigrants coming into the country who do not buy a ticket and travel first class on via the chunnel.

 

The IPS excludes most persons seeking asylim and some of the dependants of the above - thus omitting a large portion of immigrants.

 

The statements thereafter rely on if this happens and if that happens and assuming this and assuming that. Hardly reliable facts are they?

 

Let's assume and work on ifs and buts rather than on data that is accurate.

 

And that was just one of the sources mentioned on the site you sent me to.

 

I do not expect you to be able to give me absolute answers, and have no need of them. As I said - anyone can cook figures to suit.

 

I really do not care about the insults that keep getting worked over and over and over. I will make up my own mind based upon the statements I read as being what a party intentions are - based upon their manifesto. If that makes me sad or stupid well so be it. I would sooner be stupid and working on facts than gullible and joining in the people bashing some of the posters on SF enjoy so much.

 

What about the fact that they intend to change the law so the non-white members of your family have less rights than the whites? Is that OK with you?

[Tony]

DragonofAna, what are you trying to deduce from your facts?