Today in Brussels People Protest Adoption of the UN Migration Pact

a reply to: ArMaP

Yes , it is a big problem and dealing with the problem is costing money that could be better spent on our public services.

Migration Watch UK said that its analysis points to a gross annual addition of nearly 105,000 visa overstayers, clandestine arrivals and failed asylum seekers.

Taking into account an average of just over 35,000 departures a year, this works out at a net growth of nearly 70,000, according to the campaign body.
t described the scale of illegal immigration as a "scandal" and called for a number of measures, including the introduction of ID cards.

Migration Watch, which campaigns for tighter immigration controls, says its calculations suggest the gross increase in the illegal immigrant population stands at around 104,950 per year.
www.express.co.uk...

I guess you need to live here to fully understand the problem.

Another case of the government being blind to what their citizens want.

Or another case of you get what you voted for.

Next election everyone will vote anti trump, just because of being anti trump.

The Democrats can say they will raise taxes ,increase importation from middle east.
Implement sharia law..

And the citizens will still vote anything anti trump.

It won't be until the person they elected starts to damage their lives until they become aware.

The general dumb public cannot see that far ahead

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: ufoorbhunter
a reply to: gortex

So, it's a huge problem, but nobody has an idea of how many illegal immigrants are in the UK.

Gortex is absolutely right about austerity making it difficult or a big swathe of our population and how many are finding it hard to make ends meet, then we get millions of illegals thrown our way

It's total nonsense surely you get it?

In addition to which nobody knows how many illegals are here, I'd bet 90% of official refugees are infact illegals behind their mask of suffering. Not the Syrian genuine type but all these sub Saharans are coming for a better life.

Our system can't cope with things as it is and the way our population is expanding things will only get worse.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: gortex

No, it's a local problem, not all European countries are in the same situation.

They don't want to stay in southern Europe btw, there's nothing there no more. Portugal is a bus stop on the way up north, all your economy went south like the rest of the south zone, but you need to fix your economy so they get more attracted to southern Europe and you lot can take your fair share

originally posted by: Echo007

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: uncommitted

I did read the OP, you sounded very critical that May had signed it - why was that?

Because I'm critical that May has signed it , the UK already takes in refugees and migrants from all over the world we don't need to sign up to a UN agreement that is no doubt more than the sum of its parts.

Legal rights for illegal immigrants is not a sensible move but it is part of a political agenda run by the Elites , it is for their benefit not ours , the people.

So, basically you haven't read it at all have you? A plan that looks at trying to minimise the reasons people feel they need to move from their home country isn't something you like then? There is nothing in the pact that talks about increasing the number of migrants a country is ethically expected to allow, but of course right wing idiots who can't be bothered to actually read it will spout off as usual as though their opinion comes from some level of understanding.

Minimize the reasons people feel they need to move from their home country how? please post how that will happen with the UN Migration Pact, without tax payer money from 1st world countries going to subsidize 3rd world countries.

Let me guess, the UN will use this to start adding a global tax to fund welfare, i mean social programs for 3rd world countries. That is the quickest way the UN can become our global government.

The UN isn't in a position to impose a tax, but there are always people with knee jerk reactions to things where they have no intention of helping solve the problem but would rather just moan about it.

a reply to: TexasTruth

I said, do you speaka my language....
He just Smiled and gave me a Vegemite sandwich....
He said...I come from the Land Downunder.....

Damn Aussies!! they're everywhere .....send them all back to Europe.....That'll teach the Inglorious Basterds!!

Send the muscles from Brussels back, while yr at it too.

originally posted by: Bloodworth
Another case of the government being blind to what their citizens want.
Or another case of you get what you voted for.

Next election everyone will vote anti trump, just because of being anti trump.
The Democrats can say they will raise taxes ,increase importation from middle east.
Implement sharia law..
And the citizens will still vote anything anti trump.It won't be until the person they elected starts to damage their lives until they become aware.
The general dumb public cannot see that far ahead

The CITIZENS will do no such thing - the REPRESENTATIVES & royal gang of elitist SENATORS will vote anything anti-Trump and try to force election laws that discriminate against legal citizens in favor of unverified residents.
The QUESTION is whether the next election cycle will actually consider only confirmed CITIZENS that vote legally. or will be encumbered with more fraudulent discovered absentee ballots - filled out by third parties - or biased algorithmic systems that discount the lack of secondary choices by voters and fail to properly propagate vote tallies. Sampling measures for actual vote tallies are arbitrary, discriminatory methods, improperly applied and unacceptably explained to the voters. Should be outlawed as inconsistent with constitutional republican form of government - like derivatives only for votes...

One person, one vote has no accommodation in a voting system that assigns probability of voting for a particular candidate by aggregating third party candidates and preference scores, effectively aggregating partial votes. Finally, there's the effect of strategic" voters attempting to manipulate the outcome by voting only one candidate in a 3 position local race to influence a winning total - perfectly legal AND telling - obviously the other candidates were completely undesirable to serve. WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A "NO" VOTE TO ALL CANDIDATES? Instead of just missing results. Think about it - the last election may have had a whole new meaning if the Presidential voting options had included "NONE OF THE ABOVE".

ganjoa

originally posted by: ganjoa

originally posted by: Bloodworth
Another case of the government being blind to what their citizens want.
Or another case of you get what you voted for.

Next election everyone will vote anti trump, just because of being anti trump.
The Democrats can say they will raise taxes ,increase importation from middle east.
Implement sharia law..
And the citizens will still vote anything anti trump.It won't be until the person they elected starts to damage their lives until they become aware.
The general dumb public cannot see that far ahead

The CITIZENS will do no such thing - the REPRESENTATIVES & royal gang of elitist SENATORS will vote anything anti-Trump and try to force election laws that discriminate against legal citizens in favor of unverified residents.
The QUESTION is whether the next election cycle will actually consider only confirmed CITIZENS that vote legally. or will be encumbered with more fraudulent discovered absentee ballots - filled out by third parties - or biased algorithmic systems that discount the lack of secondary choices by voters and fail to properly propagate vote tallies. Sampling measures for actual vote tallies are arbitrary, discriminatory methods, improperly applied and unacceptably explained to the voters. Should be outlawed as inconsistent with constitutional republican form of government - like derivatives only for votes...

One person, one vote has no accommodation in a voting system that assigns probability of voting for a particular candidate by aggregating third party candidates and preference scores, effectively aggregating partial votes. Finally, there's the effect of strategic" voters attempting to manipulate the outcome by voting only one candidate in a 3 position local race to influence a winning total - perfectly legal AND telling - obviously the other candidates were completely undesirable to serve. WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A "NO" VOTE TO ALL CANDIDATES? Instead of just missing results. Think about it - the last election may have had a whole new meaning if the Presidential voting options had included "NONE OF THE ABOVE".

ganjoa

The left are playing a numbers game.
Last midterm election. Antifa, BLM, LGBTQ, illegal aliens, muslims, felons and Hollywood weirdos organized and turned out in droves for the blue wave.

What groups do Republicans have that organize and vote in masses

What's scary is that even with 90% of the media on their side to. Its still close.

Look at that lady in Florida caught manipulating votes 2 times in favor for dems

And she was the only one to get caught

Like i said liberals at election offices, at the FBI, google and Facebook will use their positions to illegally undermine trump and boost liberal globalists values

How it's still so close is crazy

One side just yells a lot louder and are in those positions of power

originally posted by: Echo007
Let me guess, the UN will use this to start adding a global tax to fund welfare, i mean social programs for 3rd world countries. That is the quickest way the UN can become our global government.

The UN does not have any power to create taxes.

originally posted by: uncommitted
The UN isn't in a position to impose a tax,

Countries pay for the UN though, and this comes from the tax payer. The US pays a cool 22% of the UN's budget. In contrast Russia pays 3%.

a reply to: gortex

Like any other govt., protests are OK, so long as it suits the purpose.

originally posted by: paraphi

Countries pay for the UN though, and this comes from the tax payer. The US pays a cool 22% of the UN's budget. In contrast Russia pays 3%.

What difference will it make to the UK ? The UK have been paying in the region of

£350 million a week to the EU.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: uncommitted
The UN isn't in a position to impose a tax,

Countries pay for the UN though, and this comes from the tax payer. The US pays a cool 22% of the UN's budget. In contrast Russia pays 3%.

Still not a tax though.

Yes, such a commitment is a bad thing. It offers people to take advantage of the social benefits you and your country men pay for with no limit, before those benefits can start helping you and your countryman.

Since there's no limits, the problems will only increase with no solution while your country gets worse and worse. Those migrants will not pay into the system that's designed to be self sustaining if those participating all pay their fair share. Now you want to give away yours and your neighbors to someone not contributing. those who oppose this line of thinking will be breaking the law, which is a very dangerous racist and fascist concept.


a reply to: uncommitted

originally posted by: Rob808
Yes, such a commitment is a bad thing. It offers people to take advantage of the social benefits you and your country men pay for with no limit, before those benefits can start helping you and your countryman.

Since there's no limits, the problems will only increase with no solution while your country gets worse and worse. Those migrants will not pay into the system that's designed to be self sustaining if those participating all pay their fair share. Now you want to give away yours and your neighbors to someone not contributing. those who oppose this line of thinking will be breaking the law, which is a very dangerous racist and fascist concept.


a reply to: uncommitted

So you haven't actually read any of the detail of the pact at all have you?

originally posted by: Rob808
Since there's no limits, the problems will only increase with no solution while your country gets worse and worse.

No limits? Where did you see that?