UK to get 'unified' border force

Talk about anything and everything not related to this site or the Dreamcast, such as news stories, political discussion, or anything else. If there's not a forum for it, it belongs in here. Also, be warned that personal insults, threats, and spamming will not be tolerated.
User avatar
Specially Cork
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11625
https://www.artistsworkshop.eu/meble-kuchenne-na-wymiar-warszawa-gdzie-zamowic/
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2002 10:01 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: UK to get 'unified' border force

Post by Specially Cork »

And employers take the view 'why pay decent minimum wage when these illegals will do it for peanuts' therefore taking away jobs from those that should be here
You do realise there is a legal minimum wage right? If jobs are available and British people are refusing to work for that amount, then that is their fault. You can't say asylum seekers are stealing their jobs. I'll say this for the third time now: we have a shortage of manual labourers. You seem to be under the impression there is a big queue of British people gagging for any job that comes along. There isn't, because they're picky and lazy. If some British person decided to drop out of school with no qualifications and doesn't like the idea of busting their ass for minimum wage, while some asylum seeker does, that is their fault.
as for the vast waves of illegals we have the majority of these so called 'asylum seekers' often go home to the place they said their lives were in danger for holidays for gods sake, therefore they have no legal right to be here & are illegal.
Proof? Why do you keep quoting the Daily Mail in your posts as if it is pure fact? Show me some factual data proving that the majority of asylum seekers go on holiday to where they left. You can't, because it is sensationlist tabloid bollocks.
but since you are obviously out for a pointless argument why bother to make any points at all?
I'm not out for a pointless argument. When I see someone displaying the small-minded, tabloid-reader arrogance that you have showed in this thread, I feel I have a duty to make you aware of the facts and how wrong you are. It's people who think like you that are the biggest threat to this country's society.

This argument isn't a clash of opinions. I can backup my beliefs with actual proven facts. You don't just think differently from me, you are factually incorrect.
Image
User avatar
Hawq
Soul Sold for DCEmu
Soul Sold for DCEmu
Posts: 7817
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2002 1:43 pm
Location: Great Britain
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Re: UK to get 'unified' border force

Post by Hawq »

BoneyCork wrote:
And employers take the view 'why pay decent minimum wage when these illegals will do it for peanuts' therefore taking away jobs from those that should be here
You do realise there is a legal minimum wage right? If jobs are available and British people are refusing to work for that amount, then that is their fault. You can't say asylum seekers are stealing their jobs. I'll say this for the third time now: we have a shortage of manual labourers. You seem to be under the impression there is a big queue of British people gagging for any job that comes along. There isn't, because they're picky and lazy. If some British person decided to drop out of school with no qualifications and doesn't like the idea of busting their ass for minimum wage, while some asylum seeker does, that is their fault.
When illegal immigrants undercut the minimum wage it lessons the chances of a native who will want to work for at least that getting the job, OK its mainly the rather dodgy places that will do this but its still a problem, if a company can get away with it who do you think they'd rather hire? the more expensive guy?
BoneyCork wrote:
as for the vast waves of illegals we have the majority of these so called 'asylum seekers' often go home to the place they said their lives were in danger for holidays for gods sake, therefore they have no legal right to be here & are illegal.
Proof? Why do you keep quoting the Daily Mail in your posts as if it is pure fact? Show me some factual data proving that the majority of asylum seekers go on holiday to where they left. You can't, because it is sensationlist tabloid bollocks.
I have never read the daily mail in my life but with the amount that go back to have holidays & visit family its rather suspicious and if they are genuinely seeking asylum then why not stop in the first safe country they come to? why cross several perfectly safe countries to get here?
BoneyCork wrote:
but since you are obviously out for a pointless argument why bother to make any points at all?
I'm not out for a pointless argument. When I see someone displaying the small-minded, tabloid-reader arrogance that you have showed in this thread, I feel I have a duty to make you aware of the facts and how wrong you are. It's people who think like you that are the biggest threat to this country's society.

This argument isn't a clash of opinions. I can backup my beliefs with actual proven facts. You don't just think differently from me, you are factually incorrect.
Its about you believing that any viewpoint other than yours is wrong, you seem unable to accept people may have differing views on things. The simple fact here is that we need an effective border co the country to stop the flood of illegals entering the country (which is the entire point of this thread, kindly take the personal mud slinging elsewhere) surely anyone with any sense at all would agree we need proper border controls yes?
Image
The Prisoner - Makes NGE's ending look almost intelligible.
theres no-one else to blame

Bored? figure out where the above lines from. Answers
User avatar
Specially Cork
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11625
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2002 10:01 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: UK to get 'unified' border force

Post by Specially Cork »

Hawq wrote:The simple fact here is that we need an effective border co the country to stop the flood of illegals entering the country (which is the entire point of this thread, kindly take the personal mud slinging elsewhere) surely anyone with any sense at all would agree we need proper border controls yes?
Hawq - What are we talking about here? Illegal immigrants and asylum seekers are 2 completely different things, but you seem to keep grouping them together. I completely agree that we need decent border control to stop illegal immigrants, and I also agree that illegal immigrants working for less than mimum wage steal employment oppurtunities. But "illegal immigration" is a completely seperate issue from "asylum seekers". I am all for the UK accepting asylum seekers. They are legal immigrants and ultimately give more back to the economy than they take away.
but with the amount that go back to have holidays & visit family its rather suspicious and if they are genuinely seeking asylum then why not stop in the first safe country they come to? why cross several perfectly safe countries to get here?
How many asylum seekers go on holidays to visit family? This is the second time you've referred to the amount that do, so please post the figure, or at least your factual source.

Again, the UK only hosts 2% of the world's refugees. That's 98% going elsewhere. In the EU, in terms of applications per head of population, we rank 8th. Austria ranks top, one of the first countries asylum seekers travel through. The top 10 refugee host countries are: Iran, Pakistan, Germany, Tanzania, US, Serbia and Montenegro, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, China and Armenia. Notice there is no UK. We are a much smaller target for asylum seekers than you think.
Image
User avatar
APE
Newsposter
Newsposter
Posts: 2802
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2001 7:44 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: UK to get 'unified' border force

Post by APE »

I must be missing something. A Hikikomori is trying to tell everyone how people who don't contribute shouldn't be allowed in the UK and the UK shares 100% of it's borders with water. How is illegal immigration supposed to occur on a scale that you people can freak out about? Not like you've got a few thousand miles of border with a country whose economy is in the trash.
Image
A few fries short of a happy meal.
User avatar
I.M. Weasel
Iron Muskateer Weasel
Posts: 2780
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2002 4:45 am
Location: The city of the future, Los Braingeles
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 3 times
Contact:

Re: UK to get 'unified' border force

Post by I.M. Weasel »

Hawq wrote:
BoneyCork wrote:
And employers take the view 'why pay decent minimum wage when these illegals will do it for peanuts' therefore taking away jobs from those that should be here
You do realise there is a legal minimum wage right? If jobs are available and British people are refusing to work for that amount, then that is their fault. You can't say asylum seekers are stealing their jobs. I'll say this for the third time now: we have a shortage of manual labourers. You seem to be under the impression there is a big queue of British people gagging for any job that comes along. There isn't, because they're picky and lazy. If some British person decided to drop out of school with no qualifications and doesn't like the idea of busting their ass for minimum wage, while some asylum seeker does, that is their fault.
When illegal immigrants undercut the minimum wage it lessons the chances of a native who will want to work for at least that getting the job, OK its mainly the rather dodgy places that will do this but its still a problem, if a company can get away with it who do you think they'd rather hire? the more expensive guy?
[/quote]

You're saying that any and every company that could hire these illegal immigrants would. That's a grosssssss overstatement.

You seem to be easily inflamed by immigrants of any type, so here's an idea. Start petitioning your party or constituents or whatever, and start working towards mandating stronger penalties on companies that hire illegals. Less opportunity for jobs, less illegal immigration.

additionally, would you or any forth-coming brits want to work for such 'dodgy' companies that commit criminal acts daily to make the most money possible?
:arrow: http://tofuheavyindustries.com
Mac Dream Tool / Mac Dream Tool Services (released Sept. 2019)
Creator of Various awesome Video Games

"You don't have to be forgiven. Clint Eastwood taught us that."
User avatar
Hawq
Soul Sold for DCEmu
Soul Sold for DCEmu
Posts: 7817
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2002 1:43 pm
Location: Great Britain
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Re: UK to get 'unified' border force

Post by Hawq »

BoneyCork wrote:
Hawq wrote:The simple fact here is that we need an effective border co the country to stop the flood of illegals entering the country (which is the entire point of this thread, kindly take the personal mud slinging elsewhere) surely anyone with any sense at all would agree we need proper border controls yes?
Hawq - What are we talking about here? Illegal immigrants and asylum seekers are 2 completely different things, but you seem to keep grouping them together. I completely agree that we need decent border control to stop illegal immigrants, and I also agree that illegal immigrants working for less than mimum wage steal employment oppurtunities. But "illegal immigration" is a completely seperate issue from "asylum seekers". I am all for the UK accepting asylum seekers. They are legal immigrants and ultimately give more back to the economy than they take away.
Legal immigration isnt the problem neither are legitimate cases of asylum seeking (though if its so legit why not stop in the first safe country?) its the ones that vanish into the shadows & just stay after being told to leave that are the problem, with proper border controls we could maybe stand a chance of doing something about this (though that bit would have to be tied into holding them in a secure facility while their claims are checked out). Hell come to think of it a limit to legal ones would be nice, white British male is becoming a minority in some parts of the country.
BoneyCork wrote:
but with the amount that go back to have holidays & visit family its rather suspicious and if they are genuinely seeking asylum then why not stop in the first safe country they come to? why cross several perfectly safe countries to get here?
How many asylum seekers go on holidays to visit family? This is the second time you've referred to the amount that do, so please post the figure, or at least your factual source.

Again, the UK only hosts 2% of the world's refugees. That's 98% going elsewhere. In the EU, in terms of applications per head of population, we rank 8th. Austria ranks top, one of the first countries asylum seekers travel through. The top 10 refugee host countries are: Iran, Pakistan, Germany, Tanzania, US, Serbia and Montenegro, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, China and Armenia. Notice there is no UK. We are a much smaller target for asylum seekers than you think.
With the soft touch the goverments seen as we have a great big target painted on us

APE wrote:I must be missing something. A Hikikomori is trying to tell everyone how people who don't contribute shouldn't be allowed in the UK and the UK shares 100% of it's borders with water. How is illegal immigration supposed to occur on a scale that you people can freak out about? Not like you've got a few thousand miles of border with a country whose economy is in the trash.
They often sneak in in the backs of trucks & such crossing the channel but the amount that come claiming asylum then either vanish into the shadows as the decisions being made or simply dont leave after they've been told to go home is very high.
Image
The Prisoner - Makes NGE's ending look almost intelligible.
theres no-one else to blame

Bored? figure out where the above lines from. Answers
User avatar
Specially Cork
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11625
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2002 10:01 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: UK to get 'unified' border force

Post by Specially Cork »

With the soft touch the goverments seen as we have a great big target painted on us
So why do only 2% come here?
Image
Ex-Cyber
DCEmu User with No Life
DCEmu User with No Life
Posts: 3641
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 1:55 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: UK to get 'unified' border force

Post by Ex-Cyber »

Hawq wrote:the amount that come claiming asylum then either vanish into the shadows as the decisions being made or simply dont leave after they've been told to go home is very high
And how "very high" is that amount, exactly?
"You know, I have a great, wonderful, really original method of teaching antitrust law, and it kept 80 percent of the students awake. They learned things. It was fabulous." -- Justice Stephen Breyer
User avatar
Hawq
Soul Sold for DCEmu
Soul Sold for DCEmu
Posts: 7817
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2002 1:43 pm
Location: Great Britain
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Re: UK to get 'unified' border force

Post by Hawq »

BoneyCork wrote:
With the soft touch the goverments seen as we have a great big target painted on us
So why do only 2% come here?
That number seems very low & the more important question is 'why do they travel through several perfectly safe countries to get here?' because of the soft touch & handouts of course, they have to get through at least france or ireland (roundabout route) or any other safe place first to get here unless they smuggle themselves onto a plane

Ex-Cyber wrote:
Hawq wrote:the amount that come claiming asylum then either vanish into the shadows as the decisions being made or simply dont leave after they've been told to go home is very high
And how "very high" is that amount, exactly?
The main problem is that the government & its agencies simply dont know the exact numbers but you often read of ones that were ordered to leave & didnt, mostly when they end up convicted of crimes of some sort, one a year or two back ran down a kid while driving with no insurance and he was meant to have left about a year before then. That however isnt the point of the topic is it? the point is we need a unified decent border patrol & stand a chance of getting one at last
Image
The Prisoner - Makes NGE's ending look almost intelligible.
theres no-one else to blame

Bored? figure out where the above lines from. Answers
User avatar
AgentGreen
More like GAY-gentGreen
More like GAY-gentGreen
Posts: 2706
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2003 6:59 pm
Location: Waiting in the sky
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: UK to get 'unified' border force

Post by AgentGreen »

By that token, natural born Britons should be deported too because it's not just illegals who commit crimes. :roll:
Image
User avatar
Roofus
President & CEO Roofuscorp, LLC
President & CEO Roofuscorp, LLC
Posts: 9898
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 11:42 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: UK to get 'unified' border force

Post by Roofus »

AgentGreen wrote:By that token, natural born Britons should be deported too because it's not just illegals who commit crimes. :roll:
They have a right to commit crimes. :roll:
User avatar
Hawq
Soul Sold for DCEmu
Soul Sold for DCEmu
Posts: 7817
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2002 1:43 pm
Location: Great Britain
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Re: UK to get 'unified' border force

Post by Hawq »

AgentGreen wrote:By that token, natural born Britons should be deported too because it's not just illegals who commit crimes. :roll:
Says who? no-one here said anything remotely like that or are you reading a different thing to the rest of us?
Roofus wrote:They have a right to commit crimes. :roll:
Nope but they have the right to be in the country.
Image
The Prisoner - Makes NGE's ending look almost intelligible.
theres no-one else to blame

Bored? figure out where the above lines from. Answers
User avatar
AgentGreen
More like GAY-gentGreen
More like GAY-gentGreen
Posts: 2706
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2003 6:59 pm
Location: Waiting in the sky
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: UK to get 'unified' border force

Post by AgentGreen »

Hawq wrote:
AgentGreen wrote:By that token, natural born Britons should be deported too because it's not just illegals who commit crimes. :roll:
Says who? no-one here said anything remotely like that or are you reading a different thing to the rest of us?
you wrote:one a year or two back ran down a kid while driving with no insurance and he was meant to have left about a year before then
Image
User avatar
Specially Cork
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11625
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2002 10:01 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: UK to get 'unified' border force

Post by Specially Cork »

Hawq wrote:
BoneyCork wrote:
With the soft touch the goverments seen as we have a great big target painted on us
So why do only 2% come here?
That number seems very low
Because the facts are completely different from the sensationalist tabloid spin that you believe in? I don't care if you think it seems too low. You haven't been able to refute a single one of my facts, or provide any evidence to the contrary.
Hawq wrote:& the more important question is 'why do they travel through several perfectly safe countries to get here?' because of the soft touch & handouts of course,
98% don't. Again, the top 10 destinations for asylum seekers are:
Iran, Pakistan, Germany, Tanzania, US, Serbia and Montenegro, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, China and Armenia.
How many times do I have to keep throwing facts at you before you bother to pay attention them? If I posted "UK is the #1 destination for asylum seekers and we take 50% of them" you'd probably believe me in an instant. Is something only true when it doesn't prove you wrong?
Hawq wrote:they have to get through at least france or ireland (roundabout route) or any other safe place first to get here unless they smuggle themselves onto a plane
So geographically closer countries should accept all asylum seekers while we accept none? That's hardly fair. Especially when we need immigrants to keep this country functioning.
Hawq wrote:The main problem is that the government & its agencies simply dont know the exact numbers
So why do you keep saying that it is a high number? If the government and agencies don't know, how the hell do you?
Hawq wrote:but you often read of ones that were ordered to leave & didnt, mostly when they end up convicted of crimes of some sort. one a year or two back ran down a kid while driving with no insurance and he was meant to have left about a year before then. That however isnt the point of the topic is it?
You only often read about them if you buy raggy tabloids. Also how do you know they mostly end up as criminals. Got any figures? You're mentioning one situation as if it is common and reprasentitive. You do realise tabloids arne't going to report when asylum seekers don't commit crimes right? Nobody would buy the paper then.
Hawq wrote:the point is we need a unified decent border patrol & stand a chance of getting one at last
I agree. Illegal immigrants are a problem. This has nothing to do with asylum seekers though.

I'm done arguing with you anyway. I'm tired of posting facts for you while you continue to ignore them. There's no point in trying to have any sort of serious discussion with someone who clearly lives in la-la land and doesn't care about the truth unless it supports his views.
Image
User avatar
butters
Classic Games Lover
Classic Games Lover
Posts: 5088
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 6:50 pm
Location: Lubbock, Texas, United States, Sol 3, Milky Way Galaxy
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: UK to get 'unified' border force

Post by butters »

Just skimmed through this. As an outsider to this whole thing, Hawq has no credibility. He doesn't cite facts in his arguments. As for Pavelbure, his hatred of Muslims is horrible, to the point of being almost as bad as the radical minority of Muslims who kill Americans and/or Brits.
User avatar
Hawq
Soul Sold for DCEmu
Soul Sold for DCEmu
Posts: 7817
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2002 1:43 pm
Location: Great Britain
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Re: UK to get 'unified' border force

Post by Hawq »

AgentGreen wrote:
Hawq wrote:
AgentGreen wrote:By that token, natural born Britons should be deported too because it's not just illegals who commit crimes. :roll:
Says who? no-one here said anything remotely like that or are you reading a different thing to the rest of us?
you wrote:one a year or two back ran down a kid while driving with no insurance and he was meant to have left about a year before then
Yes an illegal that had no right to be here did that & if he had left or been kicked out when he was menat to he wouldnt have run downa kid here would he?
BoneyCork wrote:
Hawq wrote:
BoneyCork wrote:
With the soft touch the goverments seen as we have a great big target painted on us
So why do only 2% come here?
That number seems very low
Because the facts are completely different from the sensationalist tabloid spin that you believe in? I don't care if you think it seems too low. You haven't been able to refute a single one of my facts, or provide any evidence to the contrary.
Hawq wrote:& the more important question is 'why do they travel through several perfectly safe countries to get here?' because of the soft touch & handouts of course,
98% don't. Again, the top 10 destinations for asylum seekers are:
Iran, Pakistan, Germany, Tanzania, US, Serbia and Montenegro, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, China and Armenia.
How many times do I have to keep throwing facts at you before you bother to pay attention them? If I posted "UK is the #1 destination for asylum seekers and we take 50% of them" you'd probably believe me in an instant. Is something only true when it doesn't prove you wrong?
Hawq wrote:they have to get through at least france or ireland (roundabout route) or any other safe place first to get here unless they smuggle themselves onto a plane
So geographically closer countries should accept all asylum seekers while we accept none? That's hardly fair. Especially when we need immigrants to keep this country functioning.
Hawq wrote:The main problem is that the government & its agencies simply dont know the exact numbers
So why do you keep saying that it is a high number? If the government and agencies don't know, how the hell do you?
Hawq wrote:but you often read of ones that were ordered to leave & didnt, mostly when they end up convicted of crimes of some sort. one a year or two back ran down a kid while driving with no insurance and he was meant to have left about a year before then. That however isnt the point of the topic is it?
You only often read about them if you buy raggy tabloids. Also how do you know they mostly end up as criminals. Got any figures? You're mentioning one situation as if it is common and reprasentitive. You do realise tabloids arne't going to report when asylum seekers don't commit crimes right? Nobody would buy the paper then.
Hawq wrote:the point is we need a unified decent border patrol & stand a chance of getting one at last
I agree. Illegal immigrants are a problem. This has nothing to do with asylum seekers though.

I'm done arguing with you anyway. I'm tired of posting facts for you while you continue to ignore them. There's no point in trying to have any sort of serious discussion with someone who clearly lives in la-la land and doesn't care about the truth unless it supports his views.
You are still clearly out for an argument for no reason even though you agree with me that we need the border controls, very odd why think the numbers are high? because the government admitted it thats why then admitted they lost track of just how high the number was, its pretty clear who the person that doesnt reason things out here is as you continue to argue off topic when you already admit you agree with the whole point of the thread. I'd get annoyed but its frankly not worth it & neither are you.
Image
The Prisoner - Makes NGE's ending look almost intelligible.
theres no-one else to blame

Bored? figure out where the above lines from. Answers
User avatar
butters
Classic Games Lover
Classic Games Lover
Posts: 5088
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 6:50 pm
Location: Lubbock, Texas, United States, Sol 3, Milky Way Galaxy
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: UK to get 'unified' border force

Post by butters »

I have one more thing to add. You think you Brits have issues with illegal immigrants? Try living in the southern U.S., where Mexicans only have to cross a dried up river.
Sir Savant
Somewhat Dumb Knight
Posts: 3653
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:26 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: UK to get 'unified' border force

Post by Sir Savant »

Hawq wrote:
AgentGreen wrote:
Hawq wrote:
AgentGreen wrote:By that token, natural born Britons should be deported too because it's not just illegals who commit crimes. :roll:
Says who? no-one here said anything remotely like that or are you reading a different thing to the rest of us?
you wrote:one a year or two back ran down a kid while driving with no insurance and he was meant to have left about a year before then
Yes an illegal that had no right to be here did that & if he had left or been kicked out when he was menat to he wouldnt have run downa kid here would he?
Agree, although I think the point is that regardless of your legal status, running people down is a no-no, and methinks that is what Agentgreen is trying to point out.
Hawq wrote:
BoneyCork wrote:
Hawq wrote:
BoneyCork wrote:
With the soft touch the goverments seen as we have a great big target painted on us
So why do only 2% come here?
That number seems very low
Because the facts are completely different from the sensationalist tabloid spin that you believe in? I don't care if you think it seems too low. You haven't been able to refute a single one of my facts, or provide any evidence to the contrary.
Hawq wrote:& the more important question is 'why do they travel through several perfectly safe countries to get here?' because of the soft touch & handouts of course,
98% don't. Again, the top 10 destinations for asylum seekers are:
Iran, Pakistan, Germany, Tanzania, US, Serbia and Montenegro, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, China and Armenia.
How many times do I have to keep throwing facts at you before you bother to pay attention them? If I posted "UK is the #1 destination for asylum seekers and we take 50% of them" you'd probably believe me in an instant. Is something only true when it doesn't prove you wrong?
Hawq wrote:they have to get through at least france or ireland (roundabout route) or any other safe place first to get here unless they smuggle themselves onto a plane
So geographically closer countries should accept all asylum seekers while we accept none? That's hardly fair. Especially when we need immigrants to keep this country functioning.
Hawq wrote:The main problem is that the government & its agencies simply dont know the exact numbers
So why do you keep saying that it is a high number? If the government and agencies don't know, how the hell do you?
Hawq wrote:but you often read of ones that were ordered to leave & didnt, mostly when they end up convicted of crimes of some sort. one a year or two back ran down a kid while driving with no insurance and he was meant to have left about a year before then. That however isnt the point of the topic is it?
You only often read about them if you buy raggy tabloids. Also how do you know they mostly end up as criminals. Got any figures? You're mentioning one situation as if it is common and reprasentitive. You do realise tabloids arne't going to report when asylum seekers don't commit crimes right? Nobody would buy the paper then.
Hawq wrote:the point is we need a unified decent border patrol & stand a chance of getting one at last
I agree. Illegal immigrants are a problem. This has nothing to do with asylum seekers though.

I'm done arguing with you anyway. I'm tired of posting facts for you while you continue to ignore them. There's no point in trying to have any sort of serious discussion with someone who clearly lives in la-la land and doesn't care about the truth unless it supports his views.
You are still clearly out for an argument for no reason even though you agree with me that we need the border controls, very odd why think the numbers are high? because the government admitted it thats why then admitted they lost track of just how high the number was, its pretty clear who the person that doesnt reason things out here is as you continue to argue off topic when you already admit you agree with the whole point of the thread. I'd get annoyed but its frankly not worth it & neither are you.
Can you cite a non-tabloid source saying that the government issued a statement concerning a high-level of illegal immigration and another where the government says they lost track of the exact numbers?
butters wrote:I have one more thing to add. You think you Brits have issues with illegal immigrants? Try living in the southern U.S., where Mexicans only have to cross a dried up river.
Not so easy anymore. Used to be that sections of the border were completely unmanned. Last 10 or 15 years they have been beefing up patrols and such (the Border Watching clubs as well, the name slips my mind) so that one really has to cross the river and then a huge-ass desert. Really vey dangerous, as there are many vigilantes, rapists/murderers and thieves in the areas. Many still die in the transit.

It is sometimes much easier to get a Visa or something that allows you to come in as a Visitor and then just not take the flight back. There are, of course, services that will help you cross the border, but again, you can be tricked out of thousands of dollars by con artists.
User avatar
Wagh
Wagh
Posts: 5746
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 7:59 pm
Location: YSOH
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0
Contact:

Re: UK to get 'unified' border force

Post by Wagh »

butters wrote:I have one more thing to add. You think you Brits have issues with illegal immigrants? Try living in the southern U.S., where Mexicans only have to cross a dried up river.


Yeah!

Fuckin mexicans.


:roll:
Bush and Hussein together in bed
Giving H-E-A-D head
Y'all motherfuckers heard what we said
Billions made and millions dead
Post Reply