Alex, I'm perfectly well aware of the Dictionary meaning of 'economic migrant', but I am also aware that most people apply it to those who come to this Country for a better living because of the Benefits they hope to claim that they can't claim in their own Country.

All Glaswegians are mongrels anyway.

Well it's 6.6% too many as far as I'm concerned.

Those of my family who emmigrated had to have jobs and the cost of rental accommodation before emmigrating.

... If there was such a shortage of skilled labour in the country why was no effort made to train or retrain the available labour pool.

I'm curious, though, to find out if your grandchildren, if they become economic migrants, will have houses ready-bought

What i meant by asylum seekers being really economic refugees was the majority of them PRETENDED to be in Britain because of political reasons

If 6.6% of legal emigrants are claiming benifits that is only the provable drain on the economy, the missing failed asylum seekers must be living somewhere, must be eating somewhere, just by being in Britain they are stealing jobs from UK citizens

So immigrants are a bad thing because (i) they don't work and so are a drain on welfare, or (ii) they do work and therefore steal jobs.

Some fairly muddled thinking there.

red rooster sez: Why in a country with tons of healh and safety, working time directives, and other red tape , are sweatshops allowed?

To prevent the 'bogus asylumer', simply instruct airlines if they want to conduct business in the UK they will fingerprint and copy the passports of all passengers prior to leaving for the UK.

Royston has a medieval cave apparently used by the Knights Templar, a twice-weekly market and a football team that finished third in the Molten Spartan South Midlands Premier League. But one thing it does not have is much of a crime problem. A small Hertfordshire town of just 15,000 people, close to where the county meets Cambridgeshire and Essex, it is home to chemicals company Johnson Matthey and luxury confectioners Hotel Chocolat.

It is an overwhelmingly law-abiding community – there was a murder last year and a bank cash machine was ramraided, and there is the odd report of antisocial street behaviour, but there is little else to give residents a sleepless night. Yet in March a local newspaper revealed that Royston was about to become the first town in the country to have a sophisticated set of police cameras installed on every road in and out.

The seven cameras ringing Royston will record the numberplate of every vehicle that passes them, check the plate against a series of databases and send alerts to police if the vehicle is untaxed, uninsured, suspected of involvement in a crime, or appears on a local or national police "hotlist". The system – known as automatic numberplate recognition (ANPR) – has been in operation since the 1990s and, while relatively little-known, is controversial enough to have developed its own cliches. Proponents maintain that "innocent motorists have nothing to fear," while the anti-ANPR lobby routinely describes the cameras as "the biggest surveillance network that the public has never heard of".

red rooster sez: Why in a country with tons of healh and safety, working time directives, and other red tape , are sweatshops allowed?

greed?

You mean turn every country into a police state?

Maybe some of those Members on the Board could tell us about their experience when they emmigrated.

If i didn't post that then i didn't mean it. People do not have to come here, if they dont like the idea of being identifiable as they leave an aeroplane they can piss of somewhere else, or in fact stay where they are.

If i didn't post that then i didn't mean it. People do not have to come here, if they dont like the idea of being identifiable as they leave an aeroplane they can piss of somewhere else, or in fact stay where they are.

not as if we're a police state already

It's not just other people, though. It's you. And your family. And everybody else. Where do we piss off to if we don't like being fingerprinted just to be on the road to somewhere?

If biometric passports included fingerprints there would be no reason to fingerprint or copy the passports of UK citizens. If you dont like getting fingerprinted, then you dont go abroad.

Fingerprints much like photographs are a form of identification,

What's wrong with photographs as a form of identification?

So immigrants are a bad thing because (i) they don't work and so are a drain on welfare, or (ii) they do work and therefore steal jobs.

Some fairly muddled thinking there.

How exactly would you know this?

Obviously not enough or the majority of EU countries would not be going down this route.

Nowhere do I say that immigrants are a bad thing because they are a drain on welfare

or stealing jobs.

Not so much muddled thinking as muddled understanding.

I did not claim to know this in post 41# I clearly state that it is my opinion.

Try the Citizenship Test.

Would you pass?


http://www.channel4.com/programmes/make-br...itizenship-test

Yippeeeeeee, I only got 54%. it's official, i'm not British

I travel throughout Europe, from France to Italy to Spain, Hungary, Lithuania, Germany, Croatia, Estonia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Austria, Portugal and many other places. I have never been asked to provide a fingerprint. Always a photograph.

it just means they can add it to random checks.

I failed too which didn't surprise me and, to be honest, think most people would fail this test

Try the Citizenship Test.

Would you pass?

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/make-br...itizenship-test

Also as a heathen, why would I want to know the percentage of people who attend church services.

Puts to bed the myth that Britain is a god fearing Christian country, especially when religious leaders try to force their views and opinions on the rest of the country.

This looks like a pretty solid statement that unemployed immigrants are a drain on welfare :

"They should only be allowed in under strictly controlled conditions. These would include that they are able to provide a minimum standard of living for themelves and their dependents without recourse to public funds"

This was said in reference to potential immigrants that do not qualify as immigrants into Britain

and

"If 6.6% of legal emigrants are claiming benifits that is only the provable drain on the economy"

are you trying to say that any money paid out in benifits is not a drain on the economy?

(implying in the process that the drain on the economy may be even greater)

this was said in reference to failed asylum seekers

"just by being in Britain they are stealing jobs from UK citizens"

this was said about failed asylum seekers

Not so much muddled understanding, as muddled recollection of your own posts.

A either knock their argument

B come up with obscure references to justify your point of view.

C Been constantly selective about others peoples posts and will go round in circles to justify your arguments...

Nobody else claims not to have understood what I posted

Nobody else claims that I am trying to deceive them