yes, but no
"There are hundreds of thousands of people in this country who live here, but who do not care one bit for British society. Their purpose is to take as much as they possibly can from the taxpayers' pockets, while taking advantage of our lax laws."

I absolutely agree with this.
I just don't see why you suffer from the delusion that this is in any way exclusive to immigrants.
This paragraph would equally apply to some immigrants, some people on council estates, some politicians and so on.


"However, while we may be stuck with the British scroungers - we should not have to be stuck with the non-British scroungers."

So it's OK to be a scrounger as long as you're a traditional British scrounger, and not one of them there foreign scroungers?


Look, do you have an issue with scroungers, or do you have a problem with immigrants?
There are non-immigrant scroungers and non-scrounging immigrants.
If the problem is with the "scrounging" aspect, and not the "immigrant" part then why focus on the fact people are non-British?
(phyphor, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 16:03, 2 replies)

Serious question
How would you deal with British scroungers? Not making a point here.

Say `We shouldn't support scoungers' and you may as well start bandying phrases such as `Back to Basics', `Means testing' and `Get on Your Bike'.

For the record I think there are too many scroungers in this country. No matter where they come from.
(Audax Victor, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 16:16, closed)

response
"How would you deal with British scroungers?"

That's a very difficult question. It's not for me to decide what to do as the what to do depends on what the desired outcome is.

There are a near infinite number of possibilities from "give nobody anything" to "give everybody everything", each with economic and social costs.

But just because "working out how to deal with scroungers" is hard doesn't mean we should ignore it and go for "send immigrants home" because it's an easier option.
(phyphor, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 16:38, closed)

Not disagreeing with you
The `too many immigrants' thing is a seperate issue to that of `scroungers'.

Saying that, the `We've got enough scroungers of our own' thing is conflated by some to justify open borders...and of course you're never going to stop good old-fashioned work dodgers are you?

Not without going further right than man has ever gone before...and I'm guessing that most of the people who use this argument wouldn't say `fair enough' if a country with no `native scroungers' started `sending back' forrin ones too - I'm guessing they'd be described as `racist twunts'.
(Audax Victor, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 18:08, closed)

If I were Prime Minister...
I would simply make it so that it was ALWAYS more profitable to choose to work and earn money, than it is to claim benefits.

There are several ways of implementing this. But basically, make it so that the safety net is there - so that if you lose your job you will still be able to survive. But it should be impossible to be a lifestyle choice to be on benefits.
(EuroSong I love horse meat: best of all the animals, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 16:40, closed)

Clarification
So it's OK to be a scrounger as long as you're a traditional British scrounger, and not one of them there foreign scroungers?

No. But the difference is that if a scrounger is a British citizen, we're basically stuck with them because there's nothing else to do with them. However, if they're not a British citizen then we DO have a choice to expel them back to their own country.
(EuroSong I love horse meat: best of all the animals, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 16:19, closed)

Rebuttal
"No. But the difference is that if a scrounger is a British citizen, we're basically stuck with them because there's nothing else to do with them."

Not at all. We could put them in prison, or labour camps, or simply execute them. Or just let them starve or die of disease. Not very nice suggestions, admittedly, but they exist.

Why don't we do this? Because it's barbaric.


"However, if they're not a British citizen then we DO have a choice to expel them back to their own country."

And if they go back they might face prison, or labour camps, or execution, or starving to death or dying from simple disease.

Not that this is guaranteed, of course, but this is why we have a system for asylum seekers to seek asylum.

Again, if the problem is with the scrounging aspect and not the immigrant aspect then why not focus on how to identify and resolve that?
(phyphor, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 16:31, closed)

Wrong
Not at all. We could put them in prison, or labour camps, or simply execute them. Or just let them starve or die of disease. Not very nice suggestions, admittedly, but they exist.

Why don't we do this? Because it's barbaric.

You answered your own question there. The reason we don't do those things to the British scroungers is because it would be inhumane.

But sending a person back to their HOME COUNTRY is not inhumane.
By the way - this thread was not specifically about asylum seekers - we're talking about economic migrants, who will NOT be tortured/killed back in their own country. The "asylum seeker" thread is another topic.

Again, if the problem is with the scrounging aspect and not the immigrant aspect then why not focus on how to identify and resolve that?

Yes, I agree that we should try to solve the scrounging problem. But there is no reason why we should have to play the mug and accept OTHER countries' scroungers, on top of our own! Let these people be a burden on the taxpayers of their HOME countries - and not on the taxpayers on THIS country.
(EuroSong I love horse meat: best of all the animals, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 0:54, closed)