Calais migrant crisis: UK police 'should help'

[darmstadt]

Don't forget that the UK has a history of 'importing' migrants to work here over the years, for example, following the end of World War II, substantial groups of people from Soviet-controlled territories settled in Britain, particularly Poles and Ukrainians. The UK recruited displaced people as so-called European Volunteer Workers in order to provide labour to industries that were required in order to aid economic recovery after the war. Of course the well know mass migration of workers in the '50s and the '60s from all over the English-speaking Caribbean, particularly Jamaica, who settled in Britain. These immigrants were invited to fill labour requirements in London’s hospitals, transportation venues and railway development. They are widely viewed as having been a major contributing factor to the rebuilding of the post-war urban London economy (This was stopped with the introduction of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, good old Enoch.) There was also the migration of Italians and Portugese who were needed in the Midlands to work, primarily, in the brick fields and there are many other such stories.

Whose not to say that although a person maybe East European in origin but who's family may have been here for quite a long time. For example, there was an influx of refugees from Hungary, following the crushing of the 1956 Hungarian revolution and I knew some of them and their family, all of whom grew up in the UK, studied hard and worked hard.

Sadly there are too many sweeping generalisations today...

[tomtomagain]

Sadly there are too many sweeping generalisations today...

There are two types of people. Those that make sweeping generalisations. And those that don't.




Actually there hasn't been too much generalisation. And nobody, called anybody a racist. So there.

[DodgyAgent]

Don't forget that the UK has a history of 'importing' migrants to work here over the years, for example, following the end of World War II, substantial groups of people from Soviet-controlled territories settled in Britain, particularly Poles and Ukrainians. The UK recruited displaced people as so-called European Volunteer Workers in order to provide labour to industries that were required in order to aid economic recovery after the war. Of course the well know mass migration of workers in the '50s and the '60s from all over the English-speaking Caribbean, particularly Jamaica, who settled in Britain. These immigrants were invited to fill labour requirements in London’s hospitals, transportation venues and railway development. They are widely viewed as having been a major contributing factor to the rebuilding of the post-war urban London economy (This was stopped with the introduction of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, good old Enoch.) There was also the migration of Italians and Portugese who were needed in the Midlands to work, primarily, in the brick fields and there are many other such stories.

Whose not to say that although a person maybe East European in origin but who's family may have been here for quite a long time. For example, there was an influx of refugees from Hungary, following the crushing of the 1956 Hungarian revolution and I knew some of them and their family, all of whom grew up in the UK, studied hard and worked hard.

Sadly there are too many sweeping generalisations today...

We only need people who are prepared to work have skills we need and wish to join with much of our culture. We do not need criminals and we do not need people who want to impose the culture of the country they came from on us. In other words we pick who we want.

[darmstadt]

We only need people who are prepared to work have skills we need and wish to join with much of our culture. We do not need criminals and we do not need people who want to impose the culture of the country they came from on us. In other words we pick who we want.

What, like dodgy Russian oligarchs?

[Flashman]

Snapshot: New Immigration Report Is Written By 'Expert' Who Predicted 2004 Influx Would Be 'Relatively Small'

Cynics might be interested to note the identity of the lead author of today's report. Christian Dustmann also wrote the ill-judged 2003 Home Office report that played down the numbers of EU migrants that would arrive in the country. Back then the study predicted net immigration following the 2004 EU enlargement "will be relatively small, at between 5,000 and 13,000 immigrants per year up to 2010". As UKIP and the Tories love to tell us, we now know that net migration from these countries was over 80,000 per year

[DodgyAgent]

What, like dodgy Russian oligarchs?

where would Chelski be without them?

[darmstadt]

Snapshot: New Immigration Report Is Written By 'Expert' Who Predicted 2004 Influx Would Be 'Relatively Small'

Ah yes, Breitbart. I see their London editor is now a senior aide to UKIP

Who do you believe?

[d000hg]

What is your supporting evidence for ->

Because the law is different for EU citizens.

[DodgyAgent]

Ah yes, Breitbart. I see their London editor is now a senior aide to UKIP

Who do you believe?

The facts are either right or wrong. It is not a matter of whether the person delivering them is dodgy or not. It is the interpretation of those facts that is a matter of whether you agree with them or not.

[darmstadt]

The facts are either right or wrong. It is not a matter of whether the person delivering them is dodgy or not. It is the interpretation of those facts that is a matter of whether you agree with them or not.

So if they're wrong but the person who delivers them in such a way that you agree with them, then they're right? Or is it that you only listen to one side of the argument because it goes against your beliefs to take into account the other side?