£20 billion in NHS cuts? Will doctors be sacked or the useless?

[MetalGear]

Okay. However anyone can claim that Plus most illegals as I have stated, destroy their identity papers so having a place to send them can be quite hard to find out.

Sure, it makes it harder, but not impossible.

Of course not. But that brings me to my point. Your definitions are lacking. People fleeing war or torture are legit asylum seekers and should be given all the possibility to integrate into society. However they are not illegal immigrants This is a huge definition difference. Illegal immigrants come here to Europe for a better life, work and so on, not fleeing war and political/religious/sexual persecution.

I define "illegal immigrants" as it should be defined...those who enter the country and live here illegally, asylum seekers or not. But i get what your saying about the differences in definition, if you would prefer i refer to those escaping from some political turmoil "asylum seekers" then i will call them as such.

I agree, but 99% of illegal immigrants can return to their home country if we knew where they came from. What you are talking about here is asylum seekers... the real deal, not the fake economic type.

Yes, i am talking about Ayslum seekers, keeping them, educating them, integrating them. Not throwing them on the street and keeping our fingers crossed that somehow they will learn English and work.

We have a bit of a dilemma here, regarding the "illegals".
We should do all in our power to track down where they came from and send them back. If we are unable to then we should threaten legal action....if they still refuse, and would rather be in a British prison then Morocco, for example, then i think legal action against them is what we must follow through with. They remain in prison for 5 years, for example, but that can be terminated if the government finds them another country willing to bring them in, in which case we transfer them there (we should be totally intolerant to illegals). If in the period of time they are imprisoned we are unable to find some other country to dump them on, then we should give them a recourse action to apply for citizenship and stay. What choice do we have?

Are you now? Are these true illegals, asylum seekers or migrants legally in the country? There is one hell of a difference. I dont know about the UK but in most countries, illegal immigrants that are picked up are put in prison/holding camps not in council estates. If the UK does that.. talk about brain dead policies... but they go back decades not just that of the Labour government.

My policy is:

- Asylum seekers begin an immediate social programme in state funded polytechnic universities to help them learn a trade of there choice and learn English with a temporary Visa.

- Ayslum seekers are given a 5 year deadline to finish there university course and then find a job with the help of the government, the Visa covers these 5 years. If they complete it, they are given citizenship and there visa is disbanded.

- More controversially, we record the fingerprints and names of those Asylum Seekers in the country and put them on a police database to be able to identify them easier. Precautionary measure, imo. The left would probably kill me for this idea though.

If they fail in doing so we need to find some other road. I dont know what that road will be...im not a politician at the moment, so i havent put much thought into it.

Unfortunately, current Asylum seekers are not given this option. Instead they stay knowing very little English and are placed in council estates, unable to work or communicate with society, causing serious isolations.

Illegals stay until the government can find a way to send them back, but in that time they live off tax payer money, yes. Its called idiocracy.

And I have stated you are not being very clear in your definitions. Those we cant send back due to war or what not, are asylum seekers not illegal immigrants. As for real illegal immigrants I agree fully, however it is not that simple. First you have to (as I stated) make a positive identification of who they are and where they are from, and then you have to have an agreement with said country of accepting back their own people. The first can be very very difficult and the second is pretty standard for most countries once identification has been established.

I have acknowledged and confronted this problem read above btw.

No I am not. However that is the free market for you.. as long as they meet local labour laws and minimum wage requirement then that is part of life. Not their fault that Brits are too lazy to work for less and longer.

Yes, read my post to Republic_of_public for more information. http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...-doctors-sacked-useless-3.html#post1058647720

And regardless of that.... Poland is in the EU, and hence Poles can travel and work where they want within the EU, just like you can in Denmark, and I can in Spain and several million Brits do in the EU.

I think its a good thing Poles come here and work cheaper. Hence why im a stronger advocate of the EU.
I was merely pointing out Skinheads had a point though.

 

[PeteEU]

Sure, it makes it harder, but not impossible.

Often it is impossible. There is very little difference between someone coming from Nigeria or Niger or Ivory Coast.. or the occupied areas of Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt or Syria.. very hard to positively id said persons.

I define "illegal immigrants" as it should be defined...those who enter the country and live here illegally, asylum seekers or not. But i get what your saying about the differences in definition, if you would prefer i refer to those escaping from some political turmoil "asylum seekers" then i will call them as such.

It is a very important definition sorry. Because the skin head types and xenophobes throw everyone non British (in this case) into the same box, and it often leads to huge misunderstandings and hatred towards people who do not deserve it.

Yes, i am talking about Ayslum seekers, keeping them, educating them, integrating them. Not throwing them on the street and keeping our fingers crossed that somehow they will learn English and work.

I agree, but then comes free will. We cant force them... can we now. We can only give them incentives to do the right thing.

We have a bit of a dilemma here, regarding the "illegals".
We should do all in our power to track down where they came from and send them back. If we are unable to then we should threaten legal action....if they still refuse, and would rather be in a British prison then Morocco, for example, then i think legal action against them is what we must follow through with. They remain in prison for 5 years, for example, but that can be terminated if the government finds them another country willing to bring them in, in which case we transfer them there (we should be totally intolerant to illegals). If in the period of time they are imprisoned we are unable to find some other country to dump them on, then we should give them a recourse action to apply for citizenship and stay. What choice do we have?

I agree. However we should make it as intolerable as possible so that they will want to go home without turning us into what we all despise.. concentration camps and so on. This is for the economic illegals that we all know who are.

My policy is:

- Asylum seekers begin an immediate social programme in state funded polytechnic universities to help them learn a trade of there choice and learn English with a temporary Visa.

I believe all are offered that.. at least they are in Denmark. That is once granted asylum, because then they are legally in the country.

- Ayslum seekers are given a 5 year deadline to finish there university course and then find a job with the help of the government, the Visa covers these 5 years. If they complete it, they are given citizenship and there visa is disbanded.

5 years is a bit short. What if the asylum seeker first needs to complete language course plus high school? What if the asylum seeker is 10 years old? But I understand what you mean. Setting goals for them.

- More controversially, we record the fingerprints and names of those Asylum Seekers in the country and put them on a police database to be able to identify them easier. Precautionary measure, imo. The left would probably kill me for this idea though.

They already are. DNA is the next step. Once in the asylum system fingerprints are automatic for identification.

Unfortunately, current Asylum seekers are not given this option. Instead they stay knowing very little English and are placed in council estates, unable to work or communicate with society, causing serious isolations.

That might be because the British government has a history of doing so. We had it in DK too until a decade or so ago. Had a huge debate out our Bosnian and Somali asylum seekers at the time. Should their children be allowed to go to school, should the parents be allowed to work.. and all that jazz.

Illegals stay until the government can find a way to send them back, but in that time they live off tax payer money, yes. Its called idiocracy.

Yep that is how it works.. unless you want to put them to work in chain gangs or something.

 

[MetalGear]

Often it is impossible. There is very little difference between someone coming from Nigeria or Niger or Ivory Coast.. or the occupied areas of Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt or Syria.. very hard to positively id said persons.

Thats why we need to twist there arm a bit, threaten legal action, and take up on it if they still refuse.

It is a very important definition sorry. Because the skin head types and xenophobes throw everyone non British (in this case) into the same box, and it often leads to huge misunderstandings and hatred towards people who do not deserve it.

OK, thats your opinion.

I agree, but then comes free will. We cant force them... can we now. We can only give them incentives to do the right thing.

At the end of the day they came here illegally, whether you like it or not, even if they ARE asylum seekers. We should threaten legal action and imprison them if they still refuse, and in the mean time find some other place that will accept them.

I agree. However we should make it as intolerable as possible so that they will want to go home without turning us into what we all despise.. concentration camps and so on. This is for the economic illegals that we all know who are.

Unfortunately we cant just stick them on banana boats and send them back. We have a responsibility to help them. If it means filling up prisons with illegals, then so be it. In the end they would be hypothetically speaking, given the option to apply for citizenship if the government fails to find them a place to live abroad. We would likely need a seperate government institution to deal with these problems, an effective remedy.

I believe all are offered that.. at least they are in Denmark. That is once granted asylum, because then they are legally in the country.

I dont believe they are here.

5 years is a bit short. What if the asylum seeker first needs to complete language course plus high school? What if the asylum seeker is 10 years old? But I understand what you mean. Setting goals for them.

A 10 year old cant go university....anyway, this doesn't apply for Kids, but there parents. Its the the parents who need to work, the kids will learn English at school. If the parents fail to complete there course, the kids will be removed with them. Gives the parents an incentive to integrate.

They already are. DNA is the next step. Once in the asylum system fingerprints are automatic for identification.

Ah ok.

Yep that is how it works.. unless you want to put them to work in chain gangs or something.

No, stick them in prison. I told you already what punishment illegals with unknown origins should face.

 

[PeteEU]

Thats why we need to twist there arm a bit, threaten legal action, and take up on it if they still refuse.

question is how much.

OK, thats your opinion.

no it is the legal definition and very important one. Asylum seekers can not be kicked home before their case has been heard, illegal immigrants can.

At the end of the day they came here illegally, whether you like it or not, even if they ARE asylum seekers. We should threaten legal action and imprison them if they still refuse, and in the mean time find some other place that will accept them.

Cant do that towards asylum seekers. There are certain international rules you need to follow on the subject. Once they have been granted asylum then they are bound by the same rules as anyone else living legally in a country.. for the most part.

Unfortunately we cant just stick them on banana boats and send them back. We have a responsibility to help them. If it means filling up prisons with illegals, then so be it. In the end they would be hypothetically speaking, given the option to apply for citizenship if the government fails to find them a place to live abroad. We would likely need a seperate government institution to deal with these problems, an effective remedy.

Yea but you are also opening up to an abuse of the system. Say after 5-10 years a person can seek citizenship.. okay that person just has to hide his or her identity for that period and making it impossible for the UK send him or her back to his or her homeland. And since even living in a prison like system for 5 to 10 years is better than the hell hole of back home, then well.

I dont believe they are here.

I think they are. Would make no sense else, especially if the asylum is seen as a long term protection and not short term. Even among asylum there is different kinds... for example, Bosnia refugees got short term asylum, where as Iranian dissidents get long term

A 10 year old cant go university....anyway, this doesn't apply for Kids, but there parents. Its the the parents who need to work, the kids will learn English at school. If the parents fail to complete there course, the kids will be removed with them. Gives the parents an incentive to integrate.

Definitions omfgs!!

No, stick them in prison. I told you already what punishment illegals with unknown origins should face.

UK prisons are already overfilled with criminals.

I agree something should be done, Europe wide to discourage illegal immigration, and things are being done. I know the Spanish, Brits and Italians are using PR in the usual suspect countries to discourage people risking their lives. Using former illegals to promote that it is not worth coming to Europe and it is working. In Spain the amount of illegals has dropped dramatically and we are on the front line. The idea is to make them think twice over trying the crossing.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Forgot this one:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/66884-eu-just-cant-resist.html#post1058582910


Apologies to those who missed it.

 

[MetalGear]

Cant do that towards asylum seekers. There are certain international rules you need to follow on the subject. Once they have been granted asylum then they are bound by the same rules as anyone else living legally in a country.. for the most part.

Then we shouldn't label them Ayslum seekers until they complete the course.

Yea but you are also opening up to an abuse of the system. Say after 5-10 years a person can seek citizenship.. okay that person just has to hide his or her identity for that period and making it impossible for the UK send him or her back to his or her homeland. And since even living in a prison like system for 5 to 10 years is better than the hell hole of back home, then well.

Thats not abusing the system. If somebody prefers to stay in prison for 10 years then be sent back home (and if we cant identify the person in that period) then we should give them the ability to apply for citizenship.

I think they are. Would make no sense else, especially if the asylum is seen as a long term protection and not short term. Even among asylum there is different kinds... for example, Bosnia refugees got short term asylum, where as Iranian dissidents get long term

Do they get put on state run social programmes here in the UK? No.

Definitions omfgs!!

UK prisons are already overfilled with criminals.

Then we need to build more and use military prisons until we do.

We should also cut expenditure on prison infrastrucuture so that prisons can be s-hitty and nasty the way they should be, but not bad enough to infringe on the rights of inmates....here in England, putting LCD tv's in each prison cell was a topic up for discussion and still is. Its no hotel.

 

[Andalublue]

NHS cuts, while sad and regrettable, is the right thing to do.

But such a deep cut wouldn't have been required if we stopped the endless immigrants taking the piss out of the system.

But such cuts wouldn't have been required if the UK stopped the over-charging, litigious, and corrupt pharmaceutical companies taking the piss out of the system. They cost the NHS billions more than any illegal immigrants.

 

[MetalGear]

But such cuts wouldn't have been required if the UK stopped the over-charging, litigious, and corrupt pharmaceutical companies taking the piss out of the system. They cost the NHS billions more than any illegal immigrants.

There as bad as each other imo. Im just glad i escaped and came to Denmark.

 

[Andalublue]

There as bad as each other imo. Im just glad i escaped and came to Denmark.

Believe me, the Danish government is being ripped off just a much by the pharmacos as the UK. It's an international issue and scandal.

Drug firms accused of 'ripping off' the NHS - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

 

[PeteEU]

Believe me, the Danish government is being ripped off just a much by the pharmacos as the UK. It's an international issue and scandal.

Drug firms accused of 'ripping off' the NHS - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

yes and no. The public health system is allowed to negotiate for best price on their drugs and they dont like being taken advantage off. But, private citizens do get jacked some what, but that is in part due to the lack of transparency and competition on the pharmacy market. For decades it was illegal and still is somewhat for anyone to start up a pharmacy without permission of the "pharmacy union" or whatever you call it. Therefore there was rarely new pharmacies and the value of already going pharmacies are insane how since they are basically printing presses for money. This in turn gives no incentive for said pharmacies to get "best price" from the drug companies. There has been liberalization though and over the counter drugs can be sold elsewhere now with the correct paper work, and funny enough the price for those drugs has fallen dramatically heh.

The Spanish system is very different as you know.. not as easy to screw the consumer here.