boyfriday Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Me too, not sure why that would give you the knowledge to know that most have contributed before claiming. Because the financial status of (legal) immigrants has to be established before they're allowed entry into the country. Immigration is one of the causes of overpopulation, the thing is you always appear to assume that people opposed to immigration are opposed to it because they are a racist which is not the case; I am opposed to it because it contributes to overpopulation. Frankly MrSmith I'm becoming sick to death of the 'reverse race card' occassionally being played when an anti-immigrationist proposes an argument. As far as I know no one on this thread has accused anyone of being a racist for having an anti immigration stance and for my own part I've never accused someone of being racist for being concerned about immigration..in fact in my post which you quoted I clearly state immigrants who are unable to support themselves shouldn't be here, although I'd balance that by saying I believe we should make provision for genuine refugees. Why not confine yourself to what is actually being said rather than overlaying some other sentiment onto the contributions of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 The answer relates to both points - of those I know who have dependent (elderly) relatives, they still don't send money back to France (as such). They send money...erm...'elsewhere' (if at all), and it gets accessed there from France. Usually in cash form. To make a long story short, transactions and amounts are not traceable to the UK or French treasury, if one was minded to try and get any stats for the purpose/sake of the argument at hand. That money will of course eventually 'resurface' into the [French] 'system' as the money in spent in shops, etc. And is, incidentally, exactly the method I would use if I had to support relatives in France. Ok, but I think it confirms the original point that the host country, 'loses' revenue because ex pats are sending money, in one form or another back to their native countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AWOL Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Some of the people who make the most nose about foreigners and immigration actually are racists who hate foreigners though. If you wish to think that , go ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Some of the people who make the most nose about foreigners and immigration actually are racists who hate foreigners though. Just because your noisy friends are racists, doesn't make everyone that opposes immigration a racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AWOL Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Because the financial status of (legal) immigrants has to be established before they're allowed entry into the country. Frankly MrSmith I'm becoming sick to death of the 'reverse race card' occassionally being played when an anti-immigrationist proposes an argument. As far as I know no one on this thread has accused anyone of being a racist for having an anti immigration stance and for my own part I've never accused someone of being racist for being concerned about immigration..in fact in my post which you quoted I clearly state immigrants who are unable to support themselves shouldn't be here, although I'd balance that by saying I believe we should make provision for genuine refugees. Why not confine yourself to what is actually being said rather than overlaying some other sentiment onto the contributions of others. You come over as a racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Because the financial status of (legal) immigrants has to be established before they're allowed entry into the country. No it doesn't the EU as free movement of people. Frankly MrSmith I'm becoming sick to death of the 'reverse race card' occassionally being played when an anti-immigrationist proposes an argument. As far as I know no one on this thread has accused anyone of being a racist for having an anti immigration stance and for my own part I've never accused someone of being racist for being concerned about immigration..in fact in my post which you quoted I clearly state immigrants who are unable to support themselves shouldn't be here, although I'd balance that by saying I believe we should make provision for genuine refugees.I don't just read this thread, what you say in other threads defines you. Why not confine yourself to what is actually being said rather than overlaying some other sentiment onto the contributions of others. Practice what you preach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 For far too long the politically correct and people with agendas have branded people who think that England has too many foreigners as racist. They are NOT racist , they are merely looking at the logistics of housing, employing and feeding masses of extra people. I think that there are far too many foreigners in England but am certainly NOT racist and do not hate foreigners. If I ordered food in a restaurant and was served with more potatoes than I could eat, I could claim that there were too many potatoes on my plate. It would not mean that I hate potatoes . Someone is going to accuse me of spud bashing soon....I just know it! I think people who put forward a coherent argument, based on facts and an objective assessment of immigration will be debated with accordingly. If someone's dislike of immigration is purely because they dislike dark faces, that's entirely a matter for them, but by definition they are racists, I don't know why appending such a description to them is like hurling a lump of Kryptonite at Superman, they should at least have the courage of their convictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 I think people who put forward a coherent argument, based on facts and an objective assessment of immigration will be debated with accordingly. If someone's dislike of immigration is purely because they dislike dark faces, that's entirely a matter for them, but by definition they are racists, I don't know why appending such a description to them is like hurling a lump of Kryptonite at Superman, they should at least have the courage of their convictions. You always distract from any attempt of a coherent discussion by calling other member racists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamrocker Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 ..and people who bust a gut denouncing immigrants ought to spend a year familiarising themselves with the majority (not all) of immigrants who come here to work, contribute and are thoroughly nice people. Personally I wouldn't want to spend a year living on a street of Brits (black or white) who didn't demonstrate those qualities-and there are plenty enough of them. Youre pontificating again the OP is about immigration problems there may be good immigrants no one is denying that but the thread is not about them is it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 I don't just read this thread, what you say in other threads defines you. That's fine but what you've read doesn't confirm what you say, because I'm very careful when using that kind language because it's irrelevant and doesn't enlighten the debate. As I said evidence that counters your statement is in the very post of mine that you quoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.