Ethnic (now majorities) of the world...unite and take over

[seriously flawed - not right in the headddddd]

Oh, sorry, you have already.

My mistake

 

[Codreanu]

> Oh, sorry, you have already.

> My mistake

How right you are, my dear.

ASYLUM & IMMIGRATION- THE FACTS BEHIND THE SOB STORIES AND LIES!

Important points to remember when considering this information are: -

1) They are for the whole of UK, BUT England suffers a disproportionately higher level of ‘foreign settlement’, so the impact on its indigenous people is far greater.

2) Trends assume growth at same level but experience has shown that the rate of growth in reality always exceeds estimates despite established parties’ attempts to hide it by changing people’s status or introducing policies with much fanfare, which actually have little or no impact.

3) England is experiencing what one Welsh ‘nationalist’ described as “white flight” i.e. the movement from England to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in large numbers of English people because they no longer feel the England the system has created is for them. These people do not show up in the figures (because they have not left UK) but in a very real sense their loss further aggravates the degree of demographic change those of us who remain have to deal with.

Scale of the Problem
In 2002 the result of in out flows of foreign immigrants was a net increase of nearly 250,000.

Think about that, the system has allowed a quarter of a million foreigners to settle in the UK in 2002 alone!

In the same year we lost 91,000 British citizens who gave up on the mess the system has created and moved abroad, taking their valuable skills with them.

If this trend continues, our population will grow by 7.6 million by 2031. Of this 90% will be due to Immigrants settling and of the remaining 10%, many will be the offspring resulting from previous non-indigenous settlement. That is the equivalent to seven times Birmingham, currently England’s largest city after London. Currently 29% of ENGLAND'S capital city are first generation migrants and God only knows, after experiencing the streets of London myself, what % remain, who can trace their heritage to these isles past 100 years. I would be very surprised if it is more than 50%.

The argument that immigrant settlement is needed to cope with an aging indigenous population and skill shortages is spurious AND underhanded in the extreme

Ø It ignores that the systems backdoor holocaust of six million of the most defenceless members of our society in their abortion killing machine. Had it not occurred we would currently have no shortages of healthy able bodied young people willing and able to take on the challenges of the future and by stopping the madness now we can still redress the natural balance in a relatively short space of time.

Ø We can make having large viable English families a positive social and financial move by changing media output from praising deviants to family values and rewarding those who invest in our future prosperity by having children, with the money that is currently squandered on immigration and all its knock on costs.

Ø That many uses to which our peoples labour is currently directed are not essential to the welfare of the Nation, just the pockets of the ruling elite and their alien handlers. These people could easily be retrained and better employed in sectors where they would not only enjoy material rewards but more importantly feel they have made a real contribution to our society.

Ø That successive governments have deliberately run down training for our own people then acted surprised at the resultant labour shortage in key areas and pretended that an import with questionable skills and little understandable English is a better option than putting money back in training our own.

Ø That temporary problems, which the system has knowingly created, have to be managed by permanent third world settlement rather than drawing on our kin from other European states to help us on the basis of short term contracts of mutual benefit.

Ø That the demands and pressures on our society are not a direct result of the mass immigration the system has engineered, and which it continues to introduce in new and ever more underhanded ways.

Ø Instead of couples having to work their entire lives just to afford an ever shrinking shoe box of a flat, which ultimately they will have to sell to pay for their “imported” medical care in old age. House prices could become affordable once more by removing the distortion of unfair government-subsidised competition from migrants. Then couples could choose to have large happy families (to the undoubted horror of the lesbian feminist lobby, most women still not only like their men folk but say they would like at least two children as well).

Ø For every “legal” skilled worker our masters import, they bring on average at least two dependants with them, who then become recipients of all the benefits our forebears struggled to secure for us but to which these newcomers have made no direct contribution previously. Kind of makes spending on training our own people a more attractive choice, don’t you think?

Ø Imported labour is cheap for employers, who in the private sector are predominantly multinationals or other previous results of government mass immigration promotion. The former have no loyalty either to this country or its people, so are happy to have a new cheaper source to exploit and keep the indigenous workforce in low paid positions. The later are happy to be able to expand their own social and cultural network, whatever it’s unintentionally but massive impact on OUR indigenous small businesses and communities.

Ø Cheap imported labour is not “cheap” for the taxpayer however. They have to make up the difference its impact makes in deflating wages, by funding extra benefits for said workers, their dependants and descendants in perpetuity.

Ø That in professions such as nursing there are MORE trained Nurses NOT working as nurses than those that are. The problem therefore is not about having insufficient numbers overall, it is about pay and conditions. One might wonder if one of those conditions is the gradual import of third world labour.

Ø Economic Success ‘requires’ the import of foreign entrepreneurs. Well tell that to the Japanese, who with virtually nil immigration and an economy, which until it fell foul of the scam that is international finance (which all nations will as long as they participate) did very nicely thank you.

Ø It is estimated that immigrants mainly concentrated in the southeast will require 2.1 million new homes. The impact on the environment and social conflict these additional homes are likely to cause as opposed to the natural and much more even spread of larger but less numerous in number households that promoting natural indigenous growth causes, will in all probability be disastrous.

Ø In London alone (even by Red Kens estimate) the population is expected to grow mostly through ‘legal’ immigration by 700,000 in next 15 years (currently 27% are already classified as “non white”). They will want 400,000 new homes and 130 new schools.

Ø Already children in London schools speak over 300 languages with 21% in secondary schools not even flaunt in English. That must be so helpful to the indigenous pupils who have to make do without the level of funding and teacher interaction they obviously would otherwise enjoy.

Ø What use or value is “democracy” when even a poll by the Commission for Racial Equality found that

"Among all ethnic groups, there is a feeling that there are too many immigrants in Britain 61% of the overall population (WHICH MEANS INDIGENOUS PEOPLE MUST BE IN 70(s) %) agree with this statement as well as 46% of ethnic minority groups."

Yet every establishment political party not only intends to send NONE BACK to their country of origin but instead intend to continue to RAMP UP the numbers. As always they are treasonously supported in this programme and its various methods of subterfuge by a media which is falling over its self to promote continued mass immigration and attack anyone who does not profess their abiding love of the same and its consequences.

Ø When the Government still officially admits to about 1.54 MILLION (I am sure everyone has grown tired of the way the figures are calculated being constantly changed to hid the scale of the problem) UNEMPLOYED and a further 4 MILLION on "inactive" benefits who the government wishes to return to work through their welfare to work policies what is their answer. Train the existing workforce and invest in our people. Surprise, surprise, NO! Instead they issue work permits in increasing numbers to immigrants so they and their dependants can come here. From 30,000 in the 90’s we are now looking at figures 134,000 permits issued in 2002 and a Government TARGET of 175,000 permits in 2003.

Asylum.

Of course this is just the latest ruse to bring large numbers of foreign settlers to our shores by our lords and masters

In 2002 alone a conservative estimate of the cost was £1.8 billion (that’s more than £5 million a day) which, when are old are dying from cold because they cannot afford to heat their homes and eat properly or through the shock of having their nursing homes closed through lack of funding is frankly obscene. It further demonstrates that those who claim to “care” because they support asylum are in reality at best, blinkered fools but more probably heartless liars.

Of those claiming asylum only 20% are genuine refugees i.e. 80 % are totally bogus but still mostly manage to settle here anyway (in 2002 110,700 arrived but only 13.300 were removed). To give you some further idea of the scale in 2000 and 2001 even the Government owned up to claims in excess of 200,000.

And of the 20% we are bound to ask why have they arrived in England? There is no country neighbouring us, which has a situation generating the need to seek refuge. This “legal” 20% have had to pass through or over many states, which would be safe for them.

Should the English people choose (due to our all too often abused sense of fair play) to help them for humanitarian reasons, it would be far easier to assist them in the states they moved through or over close to their place of origin. Indeed, if people only moved to the nearest safe country we could help many more for far less cost and they would find it much easier to return and integrate into their own Nations when the situation normalised there.

So do not be fooled by the paid politicians and the medias sob stories about poor asylum seekers and how they are only doing the “charitable and humanitarian” thing by supporting their settlement here. The economic and social facts when coldly looked at show this to be so much spin. If their real agenda were about caring for those in trouble then they would deport immediately the false claimants to ease the situation here and free up the vast amount of money they leech from us. Then set up the infrastructure next to the trouble spots to deal with the problem. Once in place, the “real” asylum seekers here could be returned to these centres in neighbouring countries and no new ones allowed to by pass them and arrive here. The fact that they don’t, speaks mountains about their LACK of love and respect for England and its indigenous people.

Illegal Immigration
This is another separate factor to the above, and is also out of control. In 2002 50,000 were detected and so, given the systems usual clean up rate on illegal activity, you could probably safely double this and then some without even getting close to the actual numbers pouring in year on year.

A further loophole is the failure of the authorities to check the departure of visitors and students from overseas. 1.5 million Visas are issued every year, yet nobody knows how many simply stay on. The Home Secretary recently admitted in a television interview that he "hadn't a clue" how many illegal immigrants are in Britain

 

[seriously flawed - not right in the head]

> How right you are, my dear.

> ASYLUM & IMMIGRATION- THE FACTS BEHIND THE SOB STORIES AND LIES!

Very interesting Codreanu, I shall read it in greater depth later.
I have to go to work now to feed all our immigrants.
Speak tonight.

> Important points to remember when considering this information are: -

> 1) They are for the whole of UK, BUT England suffers a disproportionately
> higher level of ‘foreign settlement’, so the impact on its indigenous
> people is far greater.

> 2) Trends assume growth at same level but experience has shown that the
> rate of growth in reality always exceeds estimates despite established
> parties’ attempts to hide it by changing people’s status or introducing
> policies with much fanfare, which actually have little or no impact.

> 3) England is experiencing what one Welsh ‘nationalist’ described as
> “white flight” i.e. the movement from England to Wales, Scotland and
> Northern Ireland in large numbers of English people because they no longer
> feel the England the system has created is for them. These people do not
> show up in the figures (because they have not left UK) but in a very real
> sense their loss further aggravates the degree of demographic change those
> of us who remain have to deal with.

> Scale of the Problem
> In 2002 the result of in out flows of foreign immigrants was a net
> increase of nearly 250,000.

> Think about that, the system has allowed a quarter of a million foreigners
> to settle in the UK in 2002 alone!

> In the same year we lost 91,000 British citizens who gave up on the mess
> the system has created and moved abroad, taking their valuable skills with
> them.

> If this trend continues, our population will grow by 7.6 million by 2031.
> Of this 90% will be due to Immigrants settling and of the remaining 10%,
> many will be the offspring resulting from previous non-indigenous
> settlement. That is the equivalent to seven times Birmingham, currently
> England’s largest city after London. Currently 29% of ENGLAND'S capital
> city are first generation migrants and God only knows, after experiencing
> the streets of London myself, what % remain, who can trace their heritage
> to these isles past 100 years. I would be very surprised if it is more
> than 50%.

> The argument that immigrant settlement is needed to cope with an aging
> indigenous population and skill shortages is spurious AND underhanded in
> the extreme

> Ø It ignores that the systems backdoor holocaust of six million of the
> most defenceless members of our society in their abortion killing machine.
> Had it not occurred we would currently have no shortages of healthy able
> bodied young people willing and able to take on the challenges of the
> future and by stopping the madness now we can still redress the natural
> balance in a relatively short space of time.

> Ø We can make having large viable English families a positive social and
> financial move by changing media output from praising deviants to family
> values and rewarding those who invest in our future prosperity by having
> children, with the money that is currently squandered on immigration and
> all its knock on costs.

> Ø That many uses to which our peoples labour is currently directed are not
> essential to the welfare of the Nation, just the pockets of the ruling
> elite and their alien handlers. These people could easily be retrained and
> better employed in sectors where they would not only enjoy material
> rewards but more importantly feel they have made a real contribution to
> our society.

> Ø That successive governments have deliberately run down training for our
> own people then acted surprised at the resultant labour shortage in key
> areas and pretended that an import with questionable skills and little
> understandable English is a better option than putting money back in
> training our own.

> Ø That temporary problems, which the system has knowingly created, have to
> be managed by permanent third world settlement rather than drawing on our
> kin from other European states to help us on the basis of short term
> contracts of mutual benefit.

> Ø That the demands and pressures on our society are not a direct result of
> the mass immigration the system has engineered, and which it continues to
> introduce in new and ever more underhanded ways.

> Ø Instead of couples having to work their entire lives just to afford an
> ever shrinking shoe box of a flat, which ultimately they will have to sell
> to pay for their “imported” medical care in old age. House prices could
> become affordable once more by removing the distortion of unfair
> government-subsidised competition from migrants. Then couples could choose
> to have large happy families (to the undoubted horror of the lesbian
> feminist lobby, most women still not only like their men folk but say they
> would like at least two children as well).

> Ø For every “legal” skilled worker our masters import, they bring on
> average at least two dependants with them, who then become recipients of
> all the benefits our forebears struggled to secure for us but to which
> these newcomers have made no direct contribution previously. Kind of makes
> spending on training our own people a more attractive choice, don’t you
> think?

> Ø Imported labour is cheap for employers, who in the private sector are
> predominantly multinationals or other previous results of government mass
> immigration promotion. The former have no loyalty either to this country
> or its people, so are happy to have a new cheaper source to exploit and
> keep the indigenous workforce in low paid positions. The later are happy
> to be able to expand their own social and cultural network, whatever it’s
> unintentionally but massive impact on OUR indigenous small businesses and
> communities.

> Ø Cheap imported labour is not “cheap” for the taxpayer however. They have
> to make up the difference its impact makes in deflating wages, by funding
> extra benefits for said workers, their dependants and descendants in
> perpetuity.

> Ø That in professions such as nursing there are MORE trained Nurses NOT
> working as nurses than those that are. The problem therefore is not about
> having insufficient numbers overall, it is about pay and conditions. One
> might wonder if one of those conditions is the gradual import of third
> world labour.

> Ø Economic Success ‘requires’ the import of foreign entrepreneurs. Well
> tell that to the Japanese, who with virtually nil immigration and an
> economy, which until it fell foul of the scam that is international
> finance (which all nations will as long as they participate) did very
> nicely thank you.

> Ø It is estimated that immigrants mainly concentrated in the southeast
> will require 2.1 million new homes. The impact on the environment and
> social conflict these additional homes are likely to cause as opposed to
> the natural and much more even spread of larger but less numerous in
> number households that promoting natural indigenous growth causes, will in
> all probability be disastrous.

> Ø In London alone (even by Red Kens estimate) the population is expected
> to grow mostly through ‘legal’ immigration by 700,000 in next 15 years
> (currently 27% are already classified as “non white”). They will want
> 400,000 new homes and 130 new schools.

> Ø Already children in London schools speak over 300 languages with 21% in
> secondary schools not even flaunt in English. That must be so helpful to
> the indigenous pupils who have to make do without the level of funding and
> teacher interaction they obviously would otherwise enjoy.

> Ø What use or value is “democracy” when even a poll by the Commission for
> Racial Equality found that

> "Among all ethnic groups, there is a feeling that there are too many
> immigrants in Britain 61% of the overall population (WHICH MEANS
> INDIGENOUS PEOPLE MUST BE IN 70(s) %) agree with this statement as well as
> 46% of ethnic minority groups."

> Yet every establishment political party not only intends to send NONE BACK
> to their country of origin but instead intend to continue to RAMP UP the
> numbers. As always they are treasonously supported in this programme and
> its various methods of subterfuge by a media which is falling over its
> self to promote continued mass immigration and attack anyone who does not
> profess their abiding love of the same and its consequences.

> Ø When the Government still officially admits to about 1.54 MILLION (I am
> sure everyone has grown tired of the way the figures are calculated being
> constantly changed to hid the scale of the problem) UNEMPLOYED and a
> further 4 MILLION on "inactive" benefits who the government
> wishes to return to work through their welfare to work policies what is
> their answer. Train the existing workforce and invest in our people.
> Surprise, surprise, NO! Instead they issue work permits in increasing
> numbers to immigrants so they and their dependants can come here. From
> 30,000 in the 90’s we are now looking at figures 134,000 permits issued in
> 2002 and a Government TARGET of 175,000 permits in 2003.

> Asylum.

> Of course this is just the latest ruse to bring large numbers of foreign
> settlers to our shores by our lords and masters

> In 2002 alone a conservative estimate of the cost was £1.8 billion (that’s
> more than £5 million a day) which, when are old are dying from cold
> because they cannot afford to heat their homes and eat properly or through
> the shock of having their nursing homes closed through lack of funding is
> frankly obscene. It further demonstrates that those who claim to “care”
> because they support asylum are in reality at best, blinkered fools but
> more probably heartless liars.

> Of those claiming asylum only 20% are genuine refugees i.e. 80 % are
> totally bogus but still mostly manage to settle here anyway (in 2002
> 110,700 arrived but only 13.300 were removed). To give you some further
> idea of the scale in 2000 and 2001 even the Government owned up to claims
> in excess of 200,000.

> And of the 20% we are bound to ask why have they arrived in England? There
> is no country neighbouring us, which has a situation generating the need
> to seek refuge. This “legal” 20% have had to pass through or over many
> states, which would be safe for them.

> Should the English people choose (due to our all too often abused sense of
> fair play) to help them for humanitarian reasons, it would be far easier
> to assist them in the states they moved through or over close to their
> place of origin. Indeed, if people only moved to the nearest safe country
> we could help many more for far less cost and they would find it much
> easier to return and integrate into their own Nations when the situation
> normalised there.

> So do not be fooled by the paid politicians and the medias sob stories
> about poor asylum seekers and how they are only doing the “charitable and
> humanitarian” thing by supporting their settlement here. The economic and
> social facts when coldly looked at show this to be so much spin. If their
> real agenda were about caring for those in trouble then they would deport
> immediately the false claimants to ease the situation here and free up the
> vast amount of money they leech from us. Then set up the infrastructure
> next to the trouble spots to deal with the problem. Once in place, the
> “real” asylum seekers here could be returned to these centres in
> neighbouring countries and no new ones allowed to by pass them and arrive
> here. The fact that they don’t, speaks mountains about their LACK of love
> and respect for England and its indigenous people.

> Illegal Immigration
> This is another separate factor to the above, and is also out of control.
> In 2002 50,000 were detected and so, given the systems usual clean up rate
> on illegal activity, you could probably safely double this and then some
> without even getting close to the actual numbers pouring in year on year.

> A further loophole is the failure of the authorities to check the
> departure of visitors and students from overseas. 1.5 million Visas are
> issued every year, yet nobody knows how many simply stay on. The Home
> Secretary recently admitted in a television interview that he "hadn't
> a clue" how many illegal immigrants are in Britain

 

[seriously flawed - not right in the head]

> How right you are, my dear.

> ASYLUM & IMMIGRATION- THE FACTS BEHIND THE SOB STORIES AND LIES!

Very interesting Codreanu, I shall read it in greater depth later.
I have to go to work now to feed all our immigrants.
Speak tonight.

> Important points to remember when considering this information are: -

> 1) They are for the whole of UK, BUT England suffers a disproportionately
> higher level of ‘foreign settlement’, so the impact on its indigenous
> people is far greater.

> 2) Trends assume growth at same level but experience has shown that the
> rate of growth in reality always exceeds estimates despite established
> parties’ attempts to hide it by changing people’s status or introducing
> policies with much fanfare, which actually have little or no impact.

> 3) England is experiencing what one Welsh ‘nationalist’ described as
> “white flight” i.e. the movement from England to Wales, Scotland and
> Northern Ireland in large numbers of English people because they no longer
> feel the England the system has created is for them. These people do not
> show up in the figures (because they have not left UK) but in a very real
> sense their loss further aggravates the degree of demographic change those
> of us who remain have to deal with.

> Scale of the Problem
> In 2002 the result of in out flows of foreign immigrants was a net
> increase of nearly 250,000.

> Think about that, the system has allowed a quarter of a million foreigners
> to settle in the UK in 2002 alone!

> In the same year we lost 91,000 British citizens who gave up on the mess
> the system has created and moved abroad, taking their valuable skills with
> them.

> If this trend continues, our population will grow by 7.6 million by 2031.
> Of this 90% will be due to Immigrants settling and of the remaining 10%,
> many will be the offspring resulting from previous non-indigenous
> settlement. That is the equivalent to seven times Birmingham, currently
> England’s largest city after London. Currently 29% of ENGLAND'S capital
> city are first generation migrants and God only knows, after experiencing
> the streets of London myself, what % remain, who can trace their heritage
> to these isles past 100 years. I would be very surprised if it is more
> than 50%.

> The argument that immigrant settlement is needed to cope with an aging
> indigenous population and skill shortages is spurious AND underhanded in
> the extreme

> Ø It ignores that the systems backdoor holocaust of six million of the
> most defenceless members of our society in their abortion killing machine.
> Had it not occurred we would currently have no shortages of healthy able
> bodied young people willing and able to take on the challenges of the
> future and by stopping the madness now we can still redress the natural
> balance in a relatively short space of time.

> Ø We can make having large viable English families a positive social and
> financial move by changing media output from praising deviants to family
> values and rewarding those who invest in our future prosperity by having
> children, with the money that is currently squandered on immigration and
> all its knock on costs.

> Ø That many uses to which our peoples labour is currently directed are not
> essential to the welfare of the Nation, just the pockets of the ruling
> elite and their alien handlers. These people could easily be retrained and
> better employed in sectors where they would not only enjoy material
> rewards but more importantly feel they have made a real contribution to
> our society.

> Ø That successive governments have deliberately run down training for our
> own people then acted surprised at the resultant labour shortage in key
> areas and pretended that an import with questionable skills and little
> understandable English is a better option than putting money back in
> training our own.

> Ø That temporary problems, which the system has knowingly created, have to
> be managed by permanent third world settlement rather than drawing on our
> kin from other European states to help us on the basis of short term
> contracts of mutual benefit.

> Ø That the demands and pressures on our society are not a direct result of
> the mass immigration the system has engineered, and which it continues to
> introduce in new and ever more underhanded ways.

> Ø Instead of couples having to work their entire lives just to afford an
> ever shrinking shoe box of a flat, which ultimately they will have to sell
> to pay for their “imported” medical care in old age. House prices could
> become affordable once more by removing the distortion of unfair
> government-subsidised competition from migrants. Then couples could choose
> to have large happy families (to the undoubted horror of the lesbian
> feminist lobby, most women still not only like their men folk but say they
> would like at least two children as well).

> Ø For every “legal” skilled worker our masters import, they bring on
> average at least two dependants with them, who then become recipients of
> all the benefits our forebears struggled to secure for us but to which
> these newcomers have made no direct contribution previously. Kind of makes
> spending on training our own people a more attractive choice, don’t you
> think?

> Ø Imported labour is cheap for employers, who in the private sector are
> predominantly multinationals or other previous results of government mass
> immigration promotion. The former have no loyalty either to this country
> or its people, so are happy to have a new cheaper source to exploit and
> keep the indigenous workforce in low paid positions. The later are happy
> to be able to expand their own social and cultural network, whatever it’s
> unintentionally but massive impact on OUR indigenous small businesses and
> communities.

> Ø Cheap imported labour is not “cheap” for the taxpayer however. They have
> to make up the difference its impact makes in deflating wages, by funding
> extra benefits for said workers, their dependants and descendants in
> perpetuity.

> Ø That in professions such as nursing there are MORE trained Nurses NOT
> working as nurses than those that are. The problem therefore is not about
> having insufficient numbers overall, it is about pay and conditions. One
> might wonder if one of those conditions is the gradual import of third
> world labour.

> Ø Economic Success ‘requires’ the import of foreign entrepreneurs. Well
> tell that to the Japanese, who with virtually nil immigration and an
> economy, which until it fell foul of the scam that is international
> finance (which all nations will as long as they participate) did very
> nicely thank you.

> Ø It is estimated that immigrants mainly concentrated in the southeast
> will require 2.1 million new homes. The impact on the environment and
> social conflict these additional homes are likely to cause as opposed to
> the natural and much more even spread of larger but less numerous in
> number households that promoting natural indigenous growth causes, will in
> all probability be disastrous.

> Ø In London alone (even by Red Kens estimate) the population is expected
> to grow mostly through ‘legal’ immigration by 700,000 in next 15 years
> (currently 27% are already classified as “non white”). They will want
> 400,000 new homes and 130 new schools.

> Ø Already children in London schools speak over 300 languages with 21% in
> secondary schools not even flaunt in English. That must be so helpful to
> the indigenous pupils who have to make do without the level of funding and
> teacher interaction they obviously would otherwise enjoy.

> Ø What use or value is “democracy” when even a poll by the Commission for
> Racial Equality found that

> "Among all ethnic groups, there is a feeling that there are too many
> immigrants in Britain 61% of the overall population (WHICH MEANS
> INDIGENOUS PEOPLE MUST BE IN 70(s) %) agree with this statement as well as
> 46% of ethnic minority groups."

> Yet every establishment political party not only intends to send NONE BACK
> to their country of origin but instead intend to continue to RAMP UP the
> numbers. As always they are treasonously supported in this programme and
> its various methods of subterfuge by a media which is falling over its
> self to promote continued mass immigration and attack anyone who does not
> profess their abiding love of the same and its consequences.

> Ø When the Government still officially admits to about 1.54 MILLION (I am
> sure everyone has grown tired of the way the figures are calculated being
> constantly changed to hid the scale of the problem) UNEMPLOYED and a
> further 4 MILLION on "inactive" benefits who the government
> wishes to return to work through their welfare to work policies what is
> their answer. Train the existing workforce and invest in our people.
> Surprise, surprise, NO! Instead they issue work permits in increasing
> numbers to immigrants so they and their dependants can come here. From
> 30,000 in the 90’s we are now looking at figures 134,000 permits issued in
> 2002 and a Government TARGET of 175,000 permits in 2003.

> Asylum.

> Of course this is just the latest ruse to bring large numbers of foreign
> settlers to our shores by our lords and masters

> In 2002 alone a conservative estimate of the cost was £1.8 billion (that’s
> more than £5 million a day) which, when are old are dying from cold
> because they cannot afford to heat their homes and eat properly or through
> the shock of having their nursing homes closed through lack of funding is
> frankly obscene. It further demonstrates that those who claim to “care”
> because they support asylum are in reality at best, blinkered fools but
> more probably heartless liars.

> Of those claiming asylum only 20% are genuine refugees i.e. 80 % are
> totally bogus but still mostly manage to settle here anyway (in 2002
> 110,700 arrived but only 13.300 were removed). To give you some further
> idea of the scale in 2000 and 2001 even the Government owned up to claims
> in excess of 200,000.

> And of the 20% we are bound to ask why have they arrived in England? There
> is no country neighbouring us, which has a situation generating the need
> to seek refuge. This “legal” 20% have had to pass through or over many
> states, which would be safe for them.

> Should the English people choose (due to our all too often abused sense of
> fair play) to help them for humanitarian reasons, it would be far easier
> to assist them in the states they moved through or over close to their
> place of origin. Indeed, if people only moved to the nearest safe country
> we could help many more for far less cost and they would find it much
> easier to return and integrate into their own Nations when the situation
> normalised there.

> So do not be fooled by the paid politicians and the medias sob stories
> about poor asylum seekers and how they are only doing the “charitable and
> humanitarian” thing by supporting their settlement here. The economic and
> social facts when coldly looked at show this to be so much spin. If their
> real agenda were about caring for those in trouble then they would deport
> immediately the false claimants to ease the situation here and free up the
> vast amount of money they leech from us. Then set up the infrastructure
> next to the trouble spots to deal with the problem. Once in place, the
> “real” asylum seekers here could be returned to these centres in
> neighbouring countries and no new ones allowed to by pass them and arrive
> here. The fact that they don’t, speaks mountains about their LACK of love
> and respect for England and its indigenous people.

> Illegal Immigration
> This is another separate factor to the above, and is also out of control.
> In 2002 50,000 were detected and so, given the systems usual clean up rate
> on illegal activity, you could probably safely double this and then some
> without even getting close to the actual numbers pouring in year on year.

> A further loophole is the failure of the authorities to check the
> departure of visitors and students from overseas. 1.5 million Visas are
> issued every year, yet nobody knows how many simply stay on. The Home
> Secretary recently admitted in a television interview that he "hadn't
> a clue" how many illegal immigrants are in Britain