Hmm so its all the "whites" fault?

The "whites" created tribes in Africa?

I really have to hear how the British created the Hutu and Tutsi tribes and got them to kill each other

As for Zimbabwe, considering Mugabe and the regime that has been there since Britain forced the end of the old regime and oversaw with international monitors an election that gave "blacks", the ovewhelming majority in the old Rhodesia, the vote, how exactly have "whites" been responsible for the genocide perpetrated by Mugabe?

Care to explain to me how "whites" are responsible for the slavery that still exists in Africa?

"Blacks" enslaving and selling people to other "blacks" in countries run by their own people?

You call yourself the last honest white person?

You are another "white" boy trying to prove your "black" credentials in order to fit in

Well heres the bad news, you are "white", and no matter how often you play the card, you are always going to be "white"

Live with it

I'm not familliar enough with Kiekegaard to know if he considers self-made fear an inessential part of our human make-up or whether he thinks of it as a basic, insummountable factor in our being. If it's the latter, which for Freud it certainly has to be, then ultimately it's just another type of 'instinctual fear' - one of the drives. This would have to mean that power (as a potential source of fear) is itself equally natural. However, even given this, and the very point that renders Darwin and Nietzche (but not Hegel or - more problematically - Marx) intolerable in anything beyond the most primitive point in human history, is the fact that power is almost always un-naturally allocated. The only instance I see of natural power allocation is that between an infant and an adult. Otherwise, as we know, the greatest gateway to power is wealth which is obtained either by good fortune or labour (depending on the circumstances) rather than nature. If I understand you correctly, and that power is indeed a natural force (which I believe it is) then there's the obvious possibility that the wrong people may have it, and that oppression may not stem from the withholding of freedom, but the denial of power to its rightfull owners - freedom is not power, and vice versa.

Which sort of brings us back to Marx I suppose, but only sort of, in that I definitely don't believe labour to be a natural phenomenon, any more than principles of ownership. If fear is natural, then so is power. Consequently neither can be 'earned' or even allocated because of some idea of 'justice' - natural justice, like karma, being something that frankly doesn't exist outside of New Age bookshops and vigilantee groups.

The question then has to be who does warrant power, on what basis do they warrant it, and what purpose should it serve?

Quote:

Originally Posted by demonrail666 The question then has to be who does warrant power, on what basis do they warrant it, and what purpose should it serve?

Well, my British friend, this is the best that civilization has ever come up with and is likely to ever come up with in answer to those very questions.
Who warrants power? We The People
On what basis do they warrant it? through fair democratic representation in accordance with their basic human rights
What purpose should it serve? The power of We The People, if instituted properly and its spirit subsequently safeguarded through the generations, should serve We The People.

And some have ideas that will revitalize the U.S. Constitution.

www.amoreperfectconstitution.com

____________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Power
Nietzsche's The Will To Power is a mishmash of aphorisms and journal scribblings which was largely assembled posthumously. At his best, Nietzsche is a dark poet such as in Thus Spake Zarathustra. When he's good, he's attacking Hegel in his own roundabout and often contradictory way, and when he's bad, which is most of the time, he's really ridiculously juvenile and downright goofy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwanda

my mistake, it is not the British it was the Belgians, and for this confusion I am truly sorry, but none-the-less, whoever the foreign influence was, the arguement is that the genocide in Rwanda has European origins, which is true...

YES! EXACTLY! There were no tribes in africa before Eurocentric definitions of what tribes are was applied to africans through European colonial adminstration and beaurcracy (ie, calling a person in Rwanda a 'Hutu' on a piece of paper and then perpeuating this identity as if it were engraved in stone)...

African identity before European intervention was one of transition and constant adaptation. There were few solid "national" or "ethnic" groups with strictly defined separations between other "nation" or "ethnic" groups. Europeans in many circumstances created these divisions in a divide and conquer philisophy.

So you maintain the "whites" created these tribes?

Perhaps you could also tell me who invented the mutlitude of languages spoken across Africa before the "whites" ever set foot in the place

while colonizers often pitted groups against each other, and colonizers of later times have been mostly white (the conquest of india was a prime example, but the japanese were in manchuria, and the hittites in egypt, and the tartars in china, and the turks all over the middle east and eastern europe), humans have been slaughtering each other for a myriad reasons since the beginning of times, reasons like what side of the bread to put the butter on...




skin color is just an excuse like any other bullshit excuse to kill people.

Why won't this thread die?

Well said

That deserves rep

you have to aim for the head

I think both sides are right. There I said it.

In the absence of anything better, at least anything that's actually found a concrete social form, I suppose I have to agree. As much as I wish I didn't. I was sort of hoping that it might come from some less obvious region of the universe but, for all its ills America, at least in that document, does seem to have laid out the best model.

Have you seen the proposed european constitution?

I haven't no. Do you have a link?

No I am trying to find the damned thing as its being discussed at the moment amongst euro "politicians"

Oh silly me, I forgot its not a constitution, its a treaty!

I just saw a news report from nearby Prince William County, Virginia that disturbed me.

Turns out there's a referendum ballot about illegal immigration. The county wants authorization to allot fourteen million dollars to police the issue. Well, the county's school system is currently in a thirty-two million dollar deficit shortfall. I suppose those hicks (the woman ranting on TV was some middle-age battle axe in what appeared to be Wal*Mart clothing) don't want to have their taxes raised for schools, but as long as it reinforces their irrational fears and hatred, everything is a-okay.

What these morons fail to realize is that it is the federal government's responsibility to enforce the existing laws that require companies to verify an employee's legal residency status and that these laws are intentionally not being enforced due to political corruption. And you just know these irate rednecks are the same ones who vote Republican.

So the mob approves 14 million and the only thing it guarantees is that no illegal immigrants in the county can get business licenses!

Well, some fat cat is partying it up tonight in anticipation of all that taxpayer money hitting their coffers soon, that's for damn sure. What a bunch of friggen morons.

The U.S.A. is fast becoming a nation of imbeciles and I don't know how much more I can take. It seems to me that it's only a matter of time before the historical revisionists completely take over and strip away our liberties and human rights. And it seems to me that every generation just gets stupider and stupider and hence, only more malleable to being completely controlled and programmed. After all, the young people of today, to list but a few general problematic areas, go to shitty, underfunded schools, with shitty, underpaid teachers and have shitty, substandard food for lunch in the cafeteria. It's sad...the good people should have won the big fight. We've had so many chances to take the money out of politics during the relatively peaceful time of the Cold War. Abuses of contracts were being discovered back then and people were outraged, but somehow they lost their way by being distracted with bullshit. I really do believe we are doomed and I really believe I must seriously start making plans to leave this country.

I dont see anything wrong with spending money on removing people from a country who are there illegally

Thats the whole point in having laws, to have them enforced

The day we start abitrarily ignoring one law because we dont like it is the day everyone is on a slippery slope to anarchy

If you dont like the law, campaign to get it changed

You mentioned human rights, what about the rights of people to decide who should and who shouldnt be in their country?

Even the majority have rights

It's the federal government's responsibility. If the hicks want to do something about their own county by raising money themselves, then that's their right with a majority vote, but hell, why essentially take away 14 million from their local school systems that are already 32 million in debt?

Wouldn't it be more effective and reasonable for these hicks just to educate themselves on the origins of the issue and find a solution by endorsing the correct candidates for congress and the presidency? And doesn't it make more sense to do a county-wide petition and send that to the appropriate departments of the federal government?


Dude, the RICO Act is being ignored by the Feds. Through intentional lack of enforcement, they allow companies to hire illegal aliens to make money for kickbacks, campaign contributions, and in an implicit exchange for the Mexicans that are here legally to vote Republican. And as the cherry on top, the intentional lack of federal immigration enforcement also manages to get people flared-up and divided politically over a hot-button wedge issue so that they will be putty in the hands of their respective puppetmaster.

No county, not even motherfucking Los Angeles County, needs an extra 14 million to police immigration. I'm sorry, but they have enough taxpayer money and resources toget the job done on their existing budgets; they just aren't doing their job. And no one needs to agree to pay one extra cent in federal taxes either to get the job done under some convoluted federal plan either. All we need are honest and capable leaders in government. Build a wall you say? More National Guard troops at the borders? That's some stupid motherfucking shit, brother. How fucking hard is it to drive around until a bunch of Mexicans working are spotted and do on-site inspections that force a company representative to verify that they are all legal? How hard is it to make sure manufacturing plants are up to federal immigration standards? You know, it's not like there are all that many manufacturing plants in the whole country anymore now that our asses have been sold out to China.

All that needs to happen is the forcing of compliance with immigration law. This can be done simply. All we need is an additional law that levies a heavy, financially crippling fine to any company that cannot produce documentation in a reasonable amount of time and basically assumes they are guilty if they cannot readily produce the proper paperwork that checks out as verifiable. This will force companies to respect the laws of the United States and be ready to be investigated and it will provide law enforcement a tool to get the job done in a speedy manner. Should companies be profiled based on the national origin of many of their employees? You're damn straight, they should. It will save taxpayer money to go after the obvious lawbreakers and not waste time policing a bunch of companies that have no interest or history in hiring cheap, illegal labor. But of course, you won't hear any politician proferring such a common sense approach; after all, the problem would be on its way to being solved and that's just not how they do things. The pig-fuckers are only in it to make motherfucking money, you see, because they thrive on strife and societal problems only bring them prosperity.

The whole referendum ballot thing today in Prince William County is basically nothing more than a boondoggle scam that appeals to people's hatred to get them to fork over their cash. And in the end, the entire effort will accomplish absolutely nothing.

It's fucking sick.

ha ha ha ha. until very recently, a number of states had laws against sodomy-- a "crime" which in some places included oral sex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_..._United_States

im sure some sorry cockbags wanted them enforced while they were in the books, but what a joke it must have been.

I say deport them all, to some island and let them survive there.

Of course I am only kidding.

like khchris said on the first page, we all, in the form of our parents or grandparents, unless you're a native american, come from illegal immigrants.
i myself don't have a hatred or am mad or angry at illegal immigrants
why? because i come from it.
if my parents didn't come here in '72 and '80 respectively, i would be some kid living in the caribbean,
with hardly an opportunity to go to a great college and work great jobs and grow up and live in fucking New York City, of all places.
it's a really stupid thing to be angry about, on the general level.
really stupid.

Both of my parents came to this country during the last century. As I wrote in my very first post, America was made great by its immigrants and it's legal immigration. I also wrote this near the beginning of this thread and have reiterated it a few times.

What we see today is illegal immigration at alarming levels, lungfish. I don't have hatred for the illegals, I have disdain for the people using them as cheap labor that entice them over our borders with the ready promise of employment, even though they are illegal.

Interesting to read that you have an Irish/Italian background atari. Any mobsters in the family?
I've got quite a few nasty fellas in my blood line.

Some family members have said there's a relation to Lucky Luciano, but I'm not sure it's factual. It seems improbable to me. I am related to some successful people that aren't mobsters though, like Jack Kevorkian, some UPI people, and others.

My mother's family hails from Providence, RI. Remember when Silvio and Christopher go and visit the creepy wackadoos in Providence to take care of Johnny Sack? The hit gets called off though, and Johnny dies later in prison.

A combination of a Gambino and Dr. Death? Nice.
I miss the Sopranos.

And the good thing is people got those laws changed

If people dont like this law get that repealled too

During the last century, the majority of migration was legal and controlled

The problem today is uncontrolled illegal immigration

Its fine if you don't mind kiddy fiddler, rapists, thieves and god knows what else slipping into your country and you dont know they are there

I watched an interesting programme on what you get as a reesult of SOME illegal immigration, MS-13

Now thats a very interesting example of what illegal immigrants can create in Los Angeles, and now in 33 states in the USA and 6 other countries

It was interesting to watch how the US government deported members on completion of sentence only to have them not only reenter illegally but to take over many of the gangs smuggling both people and drugs

Regarding wikipedia, probably isnt the best source material to quote on anything

I am curious how you believe that immigration restrictions some how can identify sexual predators and thieves and directly prohibit all of them and that the only ones who make it into this country are illegal, in other words, what makes you so sure that these kinds of people do not make into countries under legal status? further, do you honestly believe that these constitute some kind of majority or even sizable proportion of immigrants (legal or illegal) in order to even consider it a valid factor to consider in immigration policy?
and also, it is not just a problem of today, through US history, illegal immigration has been part of reality. it is not anything new. tens of thousands of people a year migrate into the US illegally, perhaps for the past two hundred years.... legal or illegal are just buzzwords and invented concepts.

don't be a tithead, that wikipedia article is fine for its purposes, which is just to illustrate the existence of "sodomy laws". it's not like i'm quoting the dictionary to make a scientific point. wikipedia in fact knows a shitload more than you. it is probably more accurate than your "programme"--tv journalists have turds for brains anyway. so that last quip is a spurious argument, a red herring, a crock. let's refocus on what really matters. the immigration laws.

but first-- about the MS13, and they can be deported or jailed. but legal italian immigrants brought the cosa nostra, legal irish immigrants brough their gangs and mobs, so have recent russian immigrants, and before them the vietnamese in orange county. that's nothing new. wash your eyes and put things in perspective. there's always a percentage of criminal assholes in any population. but making matters unfriendly for ALL undocumented workers (i don't like to call them "illegal immigrants", but whatever) is throwing the baby with the bathwater, and it's a bad proposition.

the real fact is that this country depends on immigrant labor. immigration laws however have installed a monster bureaucracy which is hard to navigate, and with impossible requirements. if you are poor, and don't have a rich sponsor, there is no chance in hell you can get in legally these days. if you're a middle class mexican, you can come in no problems, take your trip, and go home. if you're poor, with a nice job, and property, guess what-- you can't come in legally. so the people who could fill the jobs that americans don't want to do (construction, restaurants, hotels, fast food, janitorial, agricultural, landscaping, chicken factories, hog farms, etc) are kept out. so guess what-- people who know the jobs are here and who need those jobs are going to break in no matter what.

the great majority of them only want a chance to survive and prosper. they work their asses off, study, and educate their children. when i was in college i met this immigrant guy from el salvador who at age 19 had 2 jobs and went to school at night. i worked in this building at the university and he and all the janitors were immigrants of dubious origins, some older ones had benefitted from an amnesty in 1985 or something, but they all worked like there was no tomorrow.

if you think this country doesn't need more people like that, and that the bulk of the potatochip-eating tv-watching compulsive-shopping drug-taking utterly spoiled "citizens" have a lot to offer to the future, you are truly deluded. take out the hard-driving immigrants and this country goes to shit in 2 decades. america has always fed on fresh blood.

same thing with the sciences by the way-- do you think a lot of american citizens want to be stuck 16 hours a day in a lab when they could be "managers" in an ad agency or some sort of corporate structure? who do you think is driving innovation and discovery in american universities? wake up and smell the reagents. without imports from asia, europe and latin america this country's geek supply would dry out in months.

what we need is legislation that allows poor but ambitious people to come in legally to work, and that makes it easy for technically qualified people to come and study and find work afterwards. the current system doesn't allow that, that's why it's fucked.

Wikipedia is full of anomalies and after seeing some of the monster untruths on it recently I wouldnt use it to give me the time of day if I had a dozen watches to compare it with

I think we need to get a couple of things straight

I am not against legal migration, far from it

I believe, as you seem to, that it is healthy for any economy

What I am strongly against is illegal, uncontrolled migration

The overwhelming number of illegal immigrants dont make their own way into countries, they come via organised professional criminal gangs

That revenue then goes into further criminal activity, guns, drugs etc

MS-13 is one of those gangs

Yes controlled migration for people of all abilities should be made easier

But numbers still need controlling and unfortunately there is always going to be a percentage of people who, regardless of how fair or liberal the entry system is, think that they still have the right to enter a country even when refused admittance

Its tantamount to someone being able to walk in your house and take up residence and there is nothing you can do about it

Or is it your assertion that there should be a totally open door policy in the USA?

As for the companies that employ illegal immigrants, the individuals who run those companies should be fined out of their own pockets not the company

Make liability personal not corporate

The same way that known terrorists and known criminals are also refused entry by passport checks.

And where did I say that the only people who make it into the USA are illegal???

I do believe that profesional criminals and sexual predators do constitute a small but significant percentage of illegal immigrants and represent a disproportionate danger to the population

Yes illegal immigration has always been a factor, however, never on the scale that it takes place today

12 MILLION illegal immigrants???

balls. you think "programmes" dont' feature monster untruths, greater than wikipedia's? you trust the tv without question?

but if you don't wanna read wikipedia, fine-- here's a publication from cornell university

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html

enjoy.

but this really distracts and misses the point, it's a side argument, it's a stupid discussion. my point bringing up sodomy laws was that there are a lot of stupid laws out there and it would be idiotic to enforce them all. ***that is all***. stop arguing about wikipedia vs. tv here, or start a separate thread about it.


well yes i am against illegal uncontrolled immigration as well. but there is a middle point.

look, when prohibition made alcohol illegal, there was still a demand for alcohol, so the supply came from beyond the bounds of the law. the more the government tried to enforce this ridiculous law, the stronger the mobs became.

same story with drug laws. there is a point when enforcement becomes ridiculous.

now when alcohol was legalized again, quality controls are in place, taxes are collected, and there is very little bathtub gin circulating these days.

with immigration, there is DEMAND for immigrant labor, there is a healthy SUPPLY of it, but the mechanisms for regulation are not in place. immigration laws are unrealistic, so the supply comes from beyond the law.

if there was a good law in place to handle the supply of foreign labor, these problems wouldn't exist in the first place. sure if all was regulated still a lot of foofoos would oppose the influx of darkies who smell of garlic, but who do you think is keeping the country from turning into a trash heap?

any time you institute a law that doesnt fit well into reality, that law is going to get fucked more times than a thai whore. current immigration laws are unrealistic and dysfunctional and that's where the problem arises. enforcing the current laws would royally fuck the economy-- that's why they are not enforced except in the case of criminals. people who have ignorantly tried to run the immigrants out of their towns have destroyed their local economies. most people aren't that stupid, so they look the other way.

now about the house metaphor-- that metaphor is inaccurate and stupid. it's propaganda, not truth. when is the last time you saw an immigrant in your living room? most people live in tiny houses or apartments, that's not what a country is like. having a person in your country is not like having a stranger in your bedroom watching you fuck.

a better simile would be a large victorian mansion where the butler has hired a mick to do the shrubbery because lord wankington cannot afford the hiring of a proper gardener, and lady wankington insists that the shrubbery is taken care of, or you, the butler, will suffer the consequences. so your undocumented worker, in order to be able to provide you with services at a low cost builds a hut somewhere in a corner of the hunting grounds and catches rabbits to feed his childen.

"lord wankington, do you mind having a mick living in a hut in some remote corner of your hunting grounds, and catching rabbits, if he will take care of the shrubbery for cheap?"'

...

Firstly I didnt make a point that tv was more accurate than wikipedia, I simply pointed out wikipedia isnt the best thing you can use as a reference

Get over it

And media some form of bias or inaccurracy including tv

I am also aware that there have been what could now be classed as inappropriate laws such as the one on sodomy, the point I made was instead of breaking a law if you dont like it, as with the law on sodomy you can always get it changed, not just set yourself up as being above the law

You would be the first one to moan if someone decided they didnt like the law on burglary and turned your house over

You cant just select the laws you choose to abide by and ones you wont

What you propose is to allow anyone who wants to enter a country to come in in a controlled manner

Don't you think there is a point at which a country is just too over crowded?

Infrastructures stretched to breaking point as is the case in the UK?

As for your point on the communities that have removed illegal immigrants collapsing

Out of the 14 areas that removed illegal immigrants only 1 ran into problems

1 out of 14

I can live with that

The solution is controlled immigration to satisfy the labour market from skilled to unskilled, with draconian penalties for anyone employing illegal immigrants and immediate deportation for illegal immigrants

Sorry I dont do morse code

you were quick to point out the limitations of wikipedia when i used it as a simple shorthand to illustrate--not base-- my argument.

but you mentioned your "programme" as the foundation of your knowledge on the mara salvatruca for your arguments here.

funny. get over it.

to address your other point, i would not moan if someone burglarized my house. i only moan when i ejaculate-- which is thrice daily. but if burglarized, i'd get pissed off and hunt down the culprits whenever possible.

yes, there are many good laws in place, and for a purpose. but do not claim --oh wise one!-- that there aren't any laws that you don't routinely break. not only the absurd ones like these:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle2251280.ece [disclaimer: newspaper article might contain inaccuracies]

but all manner of rules and regulations too cumbersome or absurd to even deserve being noticed.

anyway, i can choose to obey some laws and disobey others. i call it free will. i will have to deal with the consequences of flaunting the law of course, if caught and found guilty, but i CAN do that. i have a free mind. in fact, when you find a law to be unjust you can purposefully break it in an act of civil disobedience. it's a tool to fight tyrannies, used from gandhi to rosa parks. did you know gandhi broke colonial law by making his own sea salt? he chose. he wasn't a fucking drone.

and did you read the cornell article i posted? the texas law was repealed as a result of legal action-- two people were found in the act of "sodomy" and charged and tried with this stupid "crime". THEY WERE BREAKING THE LAW, and as a result of their trial the law was (finally) repealed.

sorry to disappoint your expectations, but society is not an S&M dungeon, and people do not compulsorily obey the master. societies are fluid, power shifts constantly, spaces are conquered and lost, laws are not written in stone but fought in court and in the court of public opinon; and people, societies, economies, and cultures mutate endlessly-- and it's a good thing.

now, i do not pretend to know what's the story with immigrants in england, what infrastructures are stretched or not; i have no fucking clue and i don't care. i am completely uninformed, so i will not issue an opinion on the matter. but what you claim is going on in the UK (if it's true) is not happening here.

in america, people have ranted against immigrants since its inception-- benjamin franklin was wary of germans, for example-- and the indians had all manner of complaints against the pilgrims---but immigrants have always been good for the country and the economy-- from the chinese who built the railroads to the mexicans that cleaned my backyard this morning. immigrants give to the economy more than they take away. that's why they wear ratty clothes.

so i'm speaking only about the united states, and my discusion is focused on that. if you have problems with the way your country is being managed, i suggest you take it up with your prime minister, as here on the board we are really unable to address those complaints.

now "1 out of 14" refers to... who, what , when , where, why, and how? i know at times i may come across as a know-it-all, but i'm not a mind reader, so i don't know who, what, when, where, why and how these "14" were.

in any case, i'm glad you're not running america, or your own country for that matter-- however, your protofascist "solutions" might play well in malaysia. you could try a career as a politician there:

http://news.scotsman.com/internation...?id=1240492007 [disclaimer: newspaper article might contain inaccuracies]

funny though, they still have millions of illegal immigrants, canings notwithstanding.

i would love to discuss how free markets require not only the free movement of capital, goods, and services, but ultimately, also the free movement of labor. however, i have no hope for this, as this is a dull discussion-- in spite of your adequate rhethorical skills (for which i commend you), you're not grasping the complexities of the situation being discussed, you're not demonstrating subtlety in your thinking but merely stating simplistic notions, and you present no ideas worthy of practical application. so i'm afraid this is not an enriching exchange for me. where is nature scene when one needs him?

in any case, please don't take this personally... feel free to continue this discussion, but i have a bunch of interesting books to read that demand my immediate attention.

...

oh yes, i may come back just to be a pain in the ass, of course. it's what i do.

This was headline news in Holland this morning.
A new rapport that was published on Tuesday.

British economy benefits from migrants, says study

London - Migrants contribute significantly to Britain's economic growth, media reports said Wednesday as a government forum was meeting to discuss whether restrictions on migration from EU- newcomers Romania and Bulgaria should be lifted. Besides being often more skilled, more reliable and harder working than British-born workers, migrants contribute some 6 billion pounds (12 billion dollars) a year to the country's economic growth, according to a report for the government's Migration Impact Forum published on Tuesday.
The arrival of hundreds of thousands of workers - many of them Polish - after the 2004 "Big Bang" EU expansion also had "no discernible" impact on Britain's unemployment rate, said the study, which was carried out jointly by the Treasury, Home Office and Work and Pensions Department.

The proportion of foreign migrants in the workforce has risen from 7.4 per cent in 1997 to 12.5 per cent in 2006, with immigrants now accounting for more than 4 million of the 37-million-strong working- age population of Britain.
"In the long run, our country and Exchequer is better off with immigration rather than without it," Immigration Minister Liam Byrne was quoted as saying in The Times daily.
Less than 6 per cent of employers said they hired migrants for lower wage cost, with many migrants even earning more than British workers, according to the report.
However, it was mainly migrants from western economies who earned more than the British, while workers from Eastern Europe were earning much less.
Employers said they often preferred immigrants because they were more reliable, the report said.
"Native workers sometimes proved unreliable in certain sectors, especially agriculture and hotels and catering, which makes a business difficult to run," according to the report.
The report also added that "in the long run, it is likely that the net fiscal contribution of an immigrant will be greater than that of a non-immigrant."
However, the study also said, migration was putting a strain on housing and public services, such as health and transport, while five out of eight regions reported difficulties on crime and education.
Especially demand for English courses had been growing, the report said.

More...

a) in America it is sort of the idea that we can pick and choose our laws, but the concept has been lost in the masses... its not like you can say you want to be a criminal or anything, but we are supposed to as a society define our laws and prohibitions, not let someone decide them for us...

b) as far as letting anyone who wants to enter a country, well If America and Britain dont like people coming to their countries, why is that they participate and contribute so much into the process of globalization. why did the sun never set on the british empire? why does the US like to carry the big stick?

!@#$%!

I've been reading back through your last couple of long and varied posts and note the clever use of smoke and mirrors to evade the initial point of this discussion

The comparison between prohibition and drugs laws and the current immigration laws being one example

Lets take a look at what you and I have said

We have both said there should be a fairer set of immigration laws/rules to allow people entry from skilled to unskilled

We have both said that immigration is necessary to an economy

And yet you call me a protofascist?

Hmm if thats the case you better stick the same label on yourself

One point that you are missing though is this, the country I live in is MY country, and the country of all the people that live here legitimately

Its up to us, the population, who comes in and doesnt, just the same as you wouldnt let anyone just walk in your house

Or are you stating that people in their own country dont have the right to determine who moves in?

As for laws, yes people can test them and get them changed as in the sodomy case

The good thing about a healthy judicial system is that it constantly evolves and changes with society

But there is a fundamental difference between testing a law because you think its wrong and just breaking it because it doesnt suit your interests as is the case with illegal immigrants and those who employ them

Lets not pretend illegal immigrants break the law for the sake of some higher moral ideal, they dont, they break it because they want your money, education system, health system, housing etc

Some are willing to work for those, some arent

As for the breaking the law article you posted, again sorry to disappoint you but I dont break any of those either, not even the one about the longbow as it was repealled decades ago and is now an urban myth

A more accurate source would have been www.statutelaw.gov.uk

As for presenting no ideas worthy of practical application, once again as we stated the same thing on the two main points of this discussion, you are as guilty as I

Tokolosh

Once again I will state I agree that some immgiration is necessary for a healthy economy

The report you cite is quite interesting, as the previous one some 6 months ago by the government, which, I hasten to add, they didnt like, stated the net input to the economy per migrant worker was in fact 4 pence per person per year

Thats after you take out everything such as free health, education etc etc

What I also find interesting is how a government that has been forced to admit it has absolutely no idea how many migrants, legal and illegal are in this country can calculate figures on an unknown quantity

If you dont kow how many migrants you have how the hell can you determine how much they put into the economy?

Like all statistics you can get them to say anything you like, and governments usually and frequently do

sure...

You look different in that Judy outfit

The colour suits you