From: https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/us ... USRTS2HV7C" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are those pictures of Glastonbury?

Steve1956 wrote:Are those pictures of Glastonbury?

No there isn't enough plastic left behind by the rent a hippy mob for it to be Glastonbury

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:No there isn't enough plastic left behind by the rent a hippy mob for it to be Glastonbury

Those people hanging around are making an awful mess give them a little more time and they will.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3w5WOb8jPLQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Steve1956 wrote:Are those pictures of Glastonbury?

You took the words right out of my mouth Steve

Bosscat wrote:You took the words right out of my mouth Steve

What stage was meatloaf on?

Steve1956 wrote:Are those pictures of Glastonbury?

McDonalds Drive through In Nelson.The 5th picture could be Burnley's new ticket office though.

Any better idea where to hold thousands of illegals trying to hop the border?

Oh, BTW Mexico has a wall on their southern border

it's the Cricketfield concourse

Any society is judged by how it supports the weakest. The USA should be ashamed but so should those Brexiteers who hope we put up the barricades to immigrants.

CoolClaret wrote:Any better idea where to hold thousands of illegals trying to hop the border?

Oh, BTW Mexico has a wall on their southern border

He never comes up with practical solutions,it's much easier just to virtue signal,even the Mexican president advised migrants not to risk illegally crossing the border.

Of course these events never happened under Obama's watch did they.

Bosscat wrote:You took the words right out of my mouth Steve

Pretty awful really; but must be better awful, as it is than going from whence they came as although the term concentration camps has been applied my understanding of these camps is whilst they are not free to stay in the US they can return home if they wish. This is different from the incarceration of most camps deemed to be concentration in the past and particularly those poor economic migrants/asylum seekers detained in Libya.
Whilst not condoning how the situation is handled there has to be some control and it must be difficult, as it is here to assess, who is an economic migrant who is is a genuine asylum seeker, more so since many asylum seekers travel through several safe countries to arrive here and to a lesser degree at the Southern US border. Costa Rica doesn't appear much in the news. No Army-it was abolished in 1947 and money transferred to education and there are a few other countries en route or nearer than the US where safety but not economic prosperity can be found.

mdd2 - that's enough of that common sense talk on here!


It is a problem that has been existing for years. Its not a new political chestnut but chronic humanitarian issue. Life in Mexico/Costa Rica must be pretty appalling for so many to risk this. People should be querying how to help change the situation in Mexico/ costa Rica etc.

Guller Bull wrote:mdd2 - that's enough of that common sense talk on here!


It is a problem that has been existing for years. Its not a new political chestnut but chronic humanitarian issue. Life in Mexico/Costa Rica must be pretty appalling for so many to risk this. People should be querying how to help change the situation in Mexico/ costa Rica etc.

People go on holiday to Mexico,it can't be that bad can it?

I thought this thread was gonna be about the Orient game.

LoveCurryPies wrote:Any society is judged by how it supports the weakest. The USA should be ashamed but so should those Brexiteers who hope we put up the barricades to immigrants.

Having limits on immigration is actually supporting the countries weakest. For it is the weakest , poorest and those with low skills that have been forced to join the race to the bottom in wages, job opportunities and standard of living.

Having an over supply of cheap foreign labour to compete with , punishes the weakest.

It only benefits the bloated bank balances of the likes of Mike Ashley.

LoveCurryPies wrote:Any society is judged by how it supports the weakest. The USA should be ashamed but so should those Brexiteers who hope we put up the barricades to immigrants.

I'm presuming you don't lock your door at night, that everyone is just welcome to come into your house and use the facilities?

I was hoping this thread would be about you never posting again, Charlie.

You should have researched your holiday destination a little more IT.

But we all make mistakes

Steve1956 wrote:People go on holiday to Mexico,it can't be that bad can it?

The tourist parts are probably fine places to visit.

Invite them all round to Turtles....................................oh sorry that's the queue trying to get away from him.
The problem being the pro immigrant anti everything Trump wont actually give a number of how many economic migrants they would let in one million ? Two million ? twenty thousand ? they wont give a figure because if they do say one million and 1.25 million want to come then they are being racist to the 0.25 million they turn away. What do the USA do open the border up ?

It looks like Ewood but too many people

Thought it was Blackburn market

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:The tourist parts are probably fine places to visit.

Why don't those people move there then?..simples

Steve1956 wrote:Are those pictures of Glastonbury?

I wondered that at first Steve then I remembered there aren't too many palm trees around Glastonbury.

LoveCurryPies wrote:Any society is judged by how it supports the weakest. The USA should be ashamed but so should those Brexiteers who hope we put up the barricades to immigrants.

Which, to be fair, is only a relative few. Most of us Brexteers have a far bigger agenda than meer immigration (which I have no problem with provided those who come here want to work, contribute and fit in).

LoveCurryPies wrote:Any society is judged by how it supports the weakest. The USA should be ashamed but so should those Brexiteers who hope we put up the barricades to immigrants.

Let us know how many people we should allow to move here then.
That's something people like you won't ever answer.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Let us know how many people we should allow to move here then.
That's something people like you won't ever answer.

It's not really about want is it? It's more out of necessity to help those who are literally fleeing for their lives.

Imagine being that scared you run towards a life in a "concentration camp" split up from your children and under the rule of a white racist modern day Hitler.

ClaretAndJew wrote:It's not really about want is it? It's more out of necessity to help those who are literally fleeing for their lives.

Some are fleeing, some clearly aren't and they're taking advantage of a situation for their own needs.

Those needs could well be bad ones, like those who want to blow things up, or carry on their criminal activities.

Unfortunately there are people who don't want to know about the unsavoury types and want to let everyone in regardless of why they're travelling.

I'll ask you though, how many should they let into the US?

Wheres attenborough

RingoMcCartney wrote:Having limits on immigration is actually supporting the countries weakest. For it is the weakest , poorest and those with low skills that have been forced to join the race to the bottom in wages, job opportunities and standard of living.

Having an over supply of cheap foreign labour to compete with , punishes the weakest.

It only benefits the bloated bank balances of the likes of Mike Ashley.

I would go with this really. I don't think immigration is a bad thing but if it affects a country's infrastructure (e.g. a crippling health service, over-stretched emergency services and/or policing, roads etc) then you have to start at least looking at it. But to be fair if people are coming here to work (in real jobs) and paying taxes then that may indeed offset any downside, but if they are coming here and being used as cheap labour then yes, you are obsolutely right. Immigration is a dificult subject because it is, for whatever reason, emotive. If you oppose it then you are branded a racist but if you welcome everyone with open arms you run the risk of destroying the infrastructure and everyone loses. There has to be some middle ground where you have an open door policy but with safeguards against those who would simply come to exploit the health service and the social security system. Of course refugees are a different matter and I would like to think we would never advocate a blanket refusal to entry. Even then you have the difficulty of knowing for sure who are genuinely desperate and/or in danger and those who are criminals or terrorists.

Immigration is an incredibly difficult thing to deal with and I certainly wouldn't want the job but by and large I suppose the questions would be, 'Do you have a job? Do you want to fit in? Do you want to contribute? Are you willing to live by our existing laws? Are you willing to learn the language? If so then you are very welcome'.

These basic rules should apply to all as well, including Brits going to live abroad. We should all be able to live together and get along without all the bitching and fighting and arguing but sometimes there are other, more logical reasons for curbing immigration somewhat but those reasons should never be colour, race or religion (unless that means changing laws to accomadate it, but then I am against any law that is based on religion, even Christian).

The people in the photos are mostly escaping POVERTY and are wanting to live in the US where they hope to WORK for a better life for their families.

It is the same for MOST of the people who come to live in the UK.

LoveCurryPies wrote:The people in the photos are mostly escaping POVERTY and are wanting to live in the US where they hope to WORK for a better life for their families.

It is the same for MOST of the people who come to live in the UK.

Yeah but there's a high likelihood that they'll end up in poor crime/gang ridden neighborhood's, in poorly paid jobs, if they can find work at all, and they'll still be stuck in poverty albeit different to what they left behind.

That's the point some of us are trying to get across.

There has to be some sort of limit to the number of people who are let in, because in pretty much every country the infrastructure isn't good enough for the people already there, nevermind adding in huge numbers at once.
It's even harder when there are language barriers for various jobs, housing and access to other social needs.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Yeah but there's a high likelihood that they'll end up in poor crime/gang ridden neighborhood's, in poorly paid jobs, if they can find work at all, and they'll still be stuck in poverty albeit different to what they left behind.

That's the point some of us are trying to get across.

There has to be some sort of limit to the number of people who are let in, because in pretty much every country the infrastructure isn't good enough for the people already there, nevermind adding in huge numbers at once.
It's even harder when there are language barriers for various jobs, housing and access to other social needs.

This is such bullshit. Immigrants to the US commit less crime than Americans.

tiger76 wrote:He never comes up with practical solutions,it's much easier just to virtue signal,even the Mexican president advised migrants not to risk illegally crossing the border.

Of course these events never happened under Obama's watch did they.

Opposing concentration camps is "virtue-signalling" now.

Keep using the term though. I'm sure you're still not over-applying it yet.

Imploding Turtle wrote:This is such bullshit. Immigrants to the US commit less crime than Americans.

Is that the immigrants they know about or the ones they don't know about?

It's easier to keep records for people who're there legally by either birth or legal immigration.

You'll argue the toss all day long over this, but how many immigrants should the US allow into their country?
Should they worry about things like work abilities, language barriers and previous criminal records?

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Is that the immigrants they know about or the ones they don't know about?

It's easier to keep records for people who're there legally by either birth or legal immigration.

You'll argue the toss all day long over this, but how many immigrants should the US allow into their country?
Should they worry about things like work abilities, language barriers and previous criminal records?

If you commit a crime there's a record of it.

ClaretAndJew wrote:If you commit a crime there's a record of it.

The crime can be recorded, not necessarily the person who did it if they aren't caught, there's a difference.

Crime reference numbers in the UK record the crime.

Australia limits the number of refugees it accepts each year and has a different number of migrants.

It also had that place in a different country to process refugees when they stopped their boats if I remember rightly and they were castigated for that plenty of people.

Yet for some reason Australia doing those things doesn't appear to be as much of an issue on here as the USA trying to stop refugees pouring over their border.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Is that the immigrants they know about or the ones they don't know about?

It's easier to keep records for people who're there legally by either birth or legal immigration.

You'll argue the toss all day long over this, but how many immigrants should the US allow into their country?
Should they worry about things like work abilities, language barriers and previous criminal records?

You tell me. You're the one that made the claim that immigrants are likely to become criminals.

You post your evidence of that and i'll post mine, starting with a CATO Institute link. That famous left-wing think-tank from America.

Imploding Turtle wrote:This is such bullshit. Immigrants to the US commit less crime than Americans.

If you're so concerned about America and what goes on there. Why not go there yourself. You could actually be one of those less crime committing immigrants! You'd even be able to cast a vote for who ever is standing against Trump instead of spending your every waking hour ( which must be around 23 per day, given your Donald Obsession and your need to endlessly post on here about him).

Oh hang on. You can't. Why? Because the USA has, like most sane countries, a policy of wanting a say in who can and who cant enter their country legally.

This is the part where you now start throwing loaded phrases around like "concentration camps" along with your toys out of the cot.

RingoMcCartney wrote:If you're so concerned about America and what goes on there. Why not go there yourself. ...

We did it! We finally got one of them to say it.

Imploding Turtle wrote:You tell me. You're the one that made the claim that immigrants are likely to become criminals.

You post your evidence of that and i'll post mine, starting with a CATO Institute link.

Nah I'm good cheers.

You'll argue with yourself if it made you feel better, I just made an assumption based on what I've read.

Now we've cleared that up, how many people should the US allow to cross their border illegally?
Still waiting for that to be answered but none of you seem bothered enough..

RingoMcCartney wrote:If you're so concerned about America and what goes on there. Why not go there yourself. You could actually be one of those less crime committing immigrants! You'd even be able to cast a vote for who ever is standing against Trump instead of spending your every waking hour ( which must be around 23 per day, given your Donald Obsession and your need to endlessly post on here about him).

Oh hang on. You can't. Why? Because the USA has, like most sane countries, a policy of wanting a say in who can and who cant enter their country legally.

This is the part where you now start throwing loaded phrases around like "concentration camps" along with your toys out of the cot.

You're talking about someone who couldn't be arsed to travel to London to protest about Trump, he wouldn't dream of moving country to do it.

The US government offers free airplane rides back to their country of origin if anyone decides they don't like the detention facility. Not many Jews got that offer from Germany.

If they don't want to end up in a camp, they should stay home or apply for legal entry. I know their countries might not be as nice as the US, but frankly, that's just too bad. The US doesn't owe the whole world the right to move here. It was their choice to break the law coming to the US, and it's their choice to stay when they could be let out and sent home at any time.

Imploding Turtle wrote:We did it! We finally got one of them to say it.

If we could only get you to do it. Perhaps you could break the cycle of-

Gather toys up....... Obsess about Trump........ Throw toys out of pram......... Sleep (optional)......... Repeat.

I think you've caught the lot, IT.